Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column

by Guest Tue Sep 23, 2014 1:17 am

First topic message reminder :

The editor of a Devon newspaper says he stands by a column which described homosexuality as "an aberration" and claimed social acceptance of gays signalled the end of the British, Roman and Greek empires.

The South Molton News, a monthly local paper in North Devon, received four complaints and its editor Paul Henderson was questioned by police after publishing the controversial column in its September issue.

One complainant said the article was deeply upsetting and took the small town "back into the dark ages".

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/22/south-molton-news-gay-column_n_5861388.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

WTF....

by Tommy Monk Tue Oct 07, 2014 3:56 am

Les, it's not just my opinion but that of billions of people across the world and every species on it.

Eddie, are we talking about love here or the biological and mechanical design and purpose of our seproductive organs?

I love my mum, is that wrong?

If I was to be sexually attracted to her and start engaging my reproductive organs with her......?

Wouldn't that be abnormal, unnatural and wrong...?!

Or could I argue that just because some people choose to do it then it is of course normal, natural and right...?

Two consenting adults behind closed doors and all that.....

Ben, sexual activity between straight people is perfectly normal, natural and right as it is how attraction is supposed to work.

Eddie, SOME men MIGHT watch anal or lesbian porn.... that does not mean ALL do, or even MOST do..... and does not make it normal, natural or right..... and nothing to do with the normal, natural or right use of our reproductive organs, so thanks for proving my point.

Victor... there is no biological or mechanical design or purpose for homosexuality in evolution.

It is an example of where some have evolved wrongly and go against their biological and mechanical design and purpose.

An example of what is abnormal, unnatural and wrong..... compared to the normal, natural and right way of things.

by Ben Reilly Tue Oct 07, 2014 5:25 am

Now you're conflating homosexuality with the incest taboo -- please, just shut up already. You've dug yourself deep enough.

You've already been shown that homosexuality exists throughout the animal kingdom. Now you're going to ("not just my opinion but that of billions of people across the world and every species on it") pretend to speak for, for instance, dogs and gophers. I'd like to know how you got their opinion on homosexuality.

Just admit you don't like it for no reason that can actually be supported by any reality-based argument -- scientific, social or otherwise. You just think it's gross. Hey, I don't want to be with another guy either, I'm straight, but I'm not going to make some bullshit argument that might make someone else, pursuing their own satisfaction out of life and hurting no-one, possibly think they're doing something "abnormal" because their tastes are different from mine.

by Tommy Monk Tue Oct 07, 2014 1:34 pm

I'm not conflating anything, just talking about another unnatural, abnormal and wrong sexual practice, of which there are many, and the fact that some might choose to do them does not make them any more normal, natural or right as has been suggested.

Or is it just that the ones that you like that are ok?

Homosexuality does not exist throught the animal kingdom, sphinx already brought this up and her 'evidence' was smashed.

It was based on a book that claimed that homosexuality was observed in only between 500-1500 species (including gut worms!!!), but even admitted that in many of these claimed instances it was nothing sexual at all!!!

Now given that there are over 8.7million known species on earth and this dubious 'homosexuality' claim was only for a tiny minority of a tiny minority of species, this again proves that it is an extremely rare (if at all) occurrence, so can also be called unnatural, abnormal and wrong behaviour for them too, going against THEIR biological and mechanical design and purpose of their reproductive organs and systems.

I don't make the words or the definitions.

I am just using them in the correct way and context.

I am free to hold and voice my opinion which is factually correct and don't think anyone should be forced to accept anything that is abnormal, unnatural and wrong as normal, natural and right, when it clearly isn't.

by Eilzel Tue Oct 07, 2014 3:26 pm

Whatever your opinion (and you are as entitled to hold wrong opinions as anyone), that doesn't give you the right to enforce that view on others or through education. Gay teens have as much right to have their extant sexuality discussed as their peers.

by Guest Tue Oct 07, 2014 7:45 pm

Unfortunately tommy, you have fabricated a false argument, based on erroneous info bites and non existant "facts"

Since social mores are generally set by concensus
let us examine your argument

you say it is
abnormal unnatural and wrong

concensus in THIS country (which is all that matters)
is that it is none of these things,

NOR can you provide any evidence for those 3 claims of your argument/

what little evidence you produce has no basis in fact or learneed study,

YOU claim that the "natural function" of the genitals are to "fit together" in a M/F pairing

now whilst that may be true on one level there is no evidence to suggest that that is the ONLY function of them...indeed the male apparatus clearly has dual function

you then proceed to use the homosexuality in nature argument, and the fact it is (possibly invalid) but the truth is its IRRELEVANT, it neither proves (on standing) that homosexuality is natural OR (on falling) that homosexuality is NOT natural. It is a diversion to the whole argument.

You also deny "the homosexual gene" which shows a total lack of understanding of genetics and subjects surrounding this...your statement to this effect is simplistic and disingenious and lacks clarity of thinking...

there is no such certainty as "one trait one gene"

you see Tommy, the REAL argument is not whether something is "natural" or "normal" (since clearly if we "can do it" then the ONLY question is should we do it) but whether or not what is being done is "acceptable" within our society

this then becomes a question of "ethics" which can only be judged by a rational mind, certainly NOT one clouded by the poisonous legacy of the abrahamic Cults"...

I suggest you change your religious allegience to the wiccans

who beleive

"and it harm none, do as ye will"

perhaps then you might relax a bit.......

by Tommy Monk Tue Oct 07, 2014 8:23 pm

Les, I believe that it is the homosexuals who have got it wrong and all the evidence supports this given the known natural and normal functionality of our reproductive organs as seen throughout nature.

And victor, you said a lot there but mostly waffle.

The biological and mechanical design and purpose of our reproductive organs is clear and the correct use of these can only be considered right.

You actually agree that the "natural function is to fit in the M/F pairing".

The fact that we also piss out of our genitals does not detract from this, in fact it is a clever piece of evolution or engineering when you think about it because piss is slightly acidic and acts as a sort of cleaning agent every time we go.

If somebody was to suck piss up into their genitals then that would be just as unnatural, abnormal and wrong as it would also go against the biological and mechanical design and purpose etc.

And there IS NO HOMOSEXUAL GENE!!!

I am using a rational mind, logic, reasoning, biology, common sense and a whole lot more.

I am not part of any Abrahamic cult.

While your suggestion that if it harms none etc sounds like you might be in favour of all sorts of sick and sordid deviant sexual behaviour..... which is entirely up to you, two (or more I suspect in your case) consenting adults behind closed doors etc.... but don't start telling me that what would clearly be unnatural, abnormal and wrong is normal, natural and right.

by Guest Tue Oct 07, 2014 8:52 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Les, I believe that it is the homosexuals who have got it wrong and all the evidence supports this given the known natural and normal functionality of our reproductive organs as seen throughout nature.

And victor, you said a lot there but mostly waffle.

The biological and mechanical design and purpose of our reproductive organs is clear and the correct use of these can only be considered right.

but other use cannot be considered wrong either, unless it leads to "damage"

You actually agree that the "natural function is to fit in the M/F pairing".

Yes, but there is NOTHING precluding "other use"

The fact that we also piss out of our genitals does not detract from this, in fact it is a clever piece of evolution or engineering when you think about it because piss is slightly acidic and acts as a sort of cleaning agent every time we go.

Hardly the point......our genitals are also there to give pleasure, that cannot be denied....

If somebody was to suck piss up into their genitals then that would be just as unnatural, abnormal and wrong as it would also go against the biological and mechanical design and purpose etc.

And there IS NO HOMOSEXUAL GENE!!!

says who???...I'm afraid you have bog all understanding of how the biological machine works.....

I am using a rational mind, logic, reasoning, biology, common sense and a whole lot more.

no you are using poor science, deciet and disambiguation to prop up a morally indefensible "interfering little man" syndrome
your arguments are based on FALSE logic, poor reasoning, a bad and it has to be said antiquated view of biology, a lack of common sense and little else

I am not part of any Abrahamic cult.

fair enough

While your suggestion that if it harms none etc sounds like you might be in favour of all sorts of sick and sordid deviant sexual behaviour.....(which goes to show that in fact you know nothing...about anything, beyond what some tabloid tells you to beleive, clearly you know nothing beyond your closed and bigoted little mind. No doubt it was some cretinous crustacean like yourself that was the beginnings of the "highlands and islands scandle back in the 70's that saw dozens of innocent pagans accused (wrongly as PROVEN) of "satanic abuse")which is entirely up to you, two (or more I suspect in your case) consenting adults behind closed doors etc.... but don't start telling me that what would clearly be unnatural, abnormal and wrong is normal, natural and right.

save your "victorian ethics" rubbish for where they belong...the cess pit

by Tommy Monk Tue Oct 07, 2014 9:28 pm

Correct use is normal and natural.

You can't get away from this fundamental fact.

Other uses are not normal and natural and right use regardless of damage caused, it is about biological and mechanical design and purpose and intended use.

But following on your proclaimed method of defining right or wrong based on damage....

http://www.gutsense.org/constipation/anal_sex.html

Our genitals give us pleasure to encourage the use that we were biologically and mechanically designed for.

Carving out a melon or fucking a dead chicken might give some people pleasure but this is not normal, natural or right behaviour.

I'm sorry victor, but I have read about the claim on homosexual gene and It is spurious and false.

I know nothing about highlands and islands stuff and irrelevant to this thread.

I was merely saying that many types of sexually deviant behaviour may on the surface not really be doing anyone any harm but that does not necessarily redefine it as normal, natural or right, as of biological and mechanical design and purpose And intended use etc.

by Guest Tue Oct 07, 2014 9:37 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Correct use is normal and natural.

You can't get away from this fundamental fact.

Other uses are not normal and natural and right use regardless of damage caused, it is about biological and mechanical design and purpose and intended use.

But following on your proclaimed method of defining right or wrong based on damage....

http://www.gutsense.org/constipation/anal_sex.html

Our genitals give us pleasure to encourage the use that we were biologically and mechanically designed for.

Carving out a melon or fucking a dead chicken might give some people pleasure but this is not normal, natural or right behaviour.

I'm sorry victor, but I have read about the claim on homosexual gene and It is spurious and false.

again...says who? you?...because you want it so?? thats not evidence thats wilful blindness

I know nothing about highlands and islands stuff and irrelevant to this thread.
in the light of what you said its highly relevant, since you make false assumptions on zero evidence, and your own illiterate and fanciful nonsense....about a subject you know nothing except the crap you have read in a tabloid....

I was merely saying that many types of sexually deviant behaviour may on the surface not really be doing anyone any harm but that does not necessarily redefine it as normal, natural or right, as of biological and mechanical design and purpose And intended use etc.

and I'm saying THAT argument is spurious and fundamentally flawed, and you back it up with fundamentally flawed argument....

by Tommy Monk Tue Oct 07, 2014 10:20 pm

There's nothing flawed about my argument or use of language.

You have even agreed that the "natural function is to fit in the M/F pairing"!!!!

I have read (not in a tabloid) that there has been claims of homosexual gene, but have been dismissed as spurious and false.

For example, identical twins sharing exactly same DNA, why is It that if one becomes homosexual that the other is almost always not?

So either proof the gene theory is bollocks or proof that there IS choice being exercised one way or the other.

As to the Wicca bit, I was speculating on your claim that if it does no harm then it is good or whatever it was..... there are many sexually deviant practices that may on the surface not appear to do any harm.... this does not legitimise any as being normal, natural and right as of biological and mechanical design and purpose And intent of our reproductive organs.

And why are you so in favour of only one, being homosexuality, being given special treatment and encouragement as normal, natural and right but not any or all of the others....???

Surely as you advocate one deviant sexual practice with your logic and reasoning then all must be worthy of 'equality' eh....????

Thought not..... or maybe you think it's a free for all with anything goes and schools should be teaching it all as normal, natural and right too...!?

Or maybe scat buddies should be next group to get 'equal' marriage.....???

Why not?

No harm done...

Or at least maybe less harm done than loads of anal sex between couple homosexuals...???

But see you have been silent on the 'damage' done, although by your own reasoning would make homosexuality unnatural, abnormal and wrong....!

by Ben Reilly Tue Oct 07, 2014 11:01 pm

Tommy, it has nothing to do with whether you, I, or anybody else likes it or not. The only question should be whether there's a logical reason to ban homosexual behavior, etc. Since there isn't, your opinions as to whether it's "natural" or not are meaningless.

by Guest Tue Oct 07, 2014 11:05 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:There's nothing flawed about my argument or use of language.

You have even agreed that the "natural function is to fit in the M/F pairing"!!!!

I have read (not in a tabloid) that there has been claims of homosexual gene, but have been dismissed as spurious and false.

For example, identical twins sharing exactly same DNA, why is It that if one becomes homosexual that the other is almost always not?

spurious argument based on lack of understanding of how the biologial machine works...for the second time...it is not...one gene one trait..
NOR is it simple genetics at work...oh and "identical twins may have the same genetic content...but they are far from "identical"

So either proof the gene theory is bollocks or proof that there IS choice being exercised one way or the other.

As to the Wicca bit, I was speculating on your claim that if it does no harm then it is good or whatever it was..... there are many sexually deviant practices that may on the surface not appear to do any harm.... this does not legitimise any as being normal, natural and right as of biological and mechanical design and purpose And intent of our reproductive organs.

And why are you so in favour of only one, being homosexuality, being given special treatment and encouragement as normal, natural and right but not any or all of the others....???

Surely as you advocate one deviant sexual practice with your logic and reasoning then all must be worthy of 'equality' eh....????

Thought not..... or maybe you think it's a free for all with anything goes and schools should be teaching it all as normal, natural and right too...!?

Or maybe scat buddies should be next group to get 'equal' marriage.....???

Why not?

No harm done...

thats highly debateable......and besides most already have the rights you claim....dont they.....

Or at least maybe less harm done than loads of anal sex between couple homosexuals...???

But see you have been silent on the 'damage' done, although by your own reasoning would make homosexuality unnatural, abnormal and wrong....!
what damage would that be then ?

by veya_victaous Tue Oct 07, 2014 11:26 pm

Anal Sex is a more effective contraceptive than Abstinence Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column - Page 8 202592697

Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column - Page 8 202592697

just saying it makes more sense than teaching Abstinence only, they are better Learning from a teacher than a preacher.

by Ben Reilly Tue Oct 07, 2014 11:42 pm

What "damage done," Tommy?

And I really hope I don't have to explain to you why incest is harmful to society ...

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:19 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:Tommy, it has nothing to do with whether you, I, or anybody else likes it or not. The only question should be whether there's a logical reason to ban homosexual behavior, etc. Since there isn't, your opinions as to whether it's "natural" or not are meaningless.

You are right in that it is irrelevant on the liking or not of it, and there are more questions to answer than just the banning of it (which I would not agree with or could never be realistically enforced anyway, but would then lead to unfair persecution of otherwise quite decent and law abiding people just for the relatively harmless method they choose for 'getting off'.

My argument is about classification, status and the active promotion of, both in society/media in general, as well as the teaching to children as being on a par with the normal, natural and right use etc.... when it clearly isn't and is just the same as the many other sexually deviant practices out there which are also fundamentally unnatural, abnormal and wrong, as there are many things that are decriminalised and/or perfectly legal..... but that does not mean they are right Or should be actively promoted as such.... and especially not taught to children in schools as being so!

It is arguably the responsibility of the state, as in school education, to teach the fundamental principles of male/female, interaction, with emphasis being on the normal, natural and right function of our reproductive organs, (by biological and mechanical design and purpose etc), on pregnancy/STDs (getting/avoiding etc)...... it is not the job the state to tell anyone that any abnormal, unnatural or wrong sexually deviant practice is normal, natural and right.

Earlier,victor agreed with me that the "natural function is to fit in the M/F pairing"....

But then claimed that it could only be unnatural, abnormal and wrong if there was any 'damage'...

So I posted this link which shows direct physical damage....

http://www.gutsense.org/constipation/anal_sex.html

.... which you all seem to have missed.....

by Ben Reilly Wed Oct 08, 2014 5:32 am

"Direct physical damage" (even if true, which I doubt) is a hell of a good reason to ban smoking, all kinds of things that are physically unhealthy. Between that and your personal opinions about what the universe "intended," I'm afraid you're going to have to do a lot better.

There are plenty of kids who are gay and plenty of others who are going to want to understand the world they live in. Government propaganda denying reality is a really, REALLY bad idea Smile

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:41 am

Plenty of legal things which are harmful that are actively discouraged......

And I see no reason for other unnatural, abnormal and wrong things to be ENCOURAGED.... of which homosexuality is, and also wrongly promoted as being normal, natural and right..... which it isn't...!!!

Do you advocate smoking and/or drinking and/or taking drugs to be taught as normal, natural and right and encouraged throughout society.....????

Thought not...!

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:44 am

Or maybe You and other 'progressives' think that is a good idea....

by Ben Reilly Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:04 am

Again you're playing fast and loose with your words. You remind me of the Republican idiot Michele Bachmann who said that U.S. judges were telling children of homosexuality, "You should try it!" Nobody is doing that. A properly run society should be teaching children, at an appropriate age, that some people are homosexual -- and that it's not "bringing down civilization," nor any reason to discriminate against, socially exclude or commit violence against anyone.

Do you honestly think that your message of "abnormal, unnatural" wouldn't inspire some people to violence or even murder, especially when taught an an impressionable age? Hell, it has, over and over again throughout history -- people killing gays because they believe what they do with consenting adults in their own homes is "abnormal, unnatural."

It's not only an incorrect view -- it's toxic and hateful. Shame on you for perpetuating a view that can and does make people hate others for no good reason.

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:52 am

It may be arguable that the state should be giving teaching

by Ben Reilly Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:55 am

Tommy Monk wrote:It may be arguable that the state should be giving teaching

That's another interesting debate to have, but I guess the question comes always comes down to who else? The state will educate people (really educate in the sense of granting them basic literacy and math skills) at a financial loss (at least in the smaller view -- in the greater view, education is an investment that can't be neglected). Everyone else who offers education wants to profit from it, at least in the grand scheme (sure, there are some who would educate any child out of the goodness of their hearts, but not enough to educate a country).

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 08, 2014 5:18 pm

Last post should have been longer.

Was trying to say that it is arguable that the state Should be teaching normal and natural and right, correct function of our reproductive organs etc, but not that they should be teaching sexually deviant practices, or other strange ways of getting off.

by Eilzel Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:49 pm

Ok tommy

1) homosexuality is not 'encouraged' anywhere in anyway whatsoever.

2) teaching kids about homosexuality is not promotion/encouragement. It is ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of its existence and recognizing that gay kids need to be taught about safe sex and loving relationships too.

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:09 pm

Teaching safe sex is covered by just sticking to the normal and condom use.

There may be kids who want to do an. number of deviant sexual practices when they're older.... but it is not for the sagemjp to be teaching (and thereby promoting) any of them!

by Original Quill Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:15 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Last post should have been longer.

Was trying to say that it is arguable that the state Should be teaching normal and natural and right, correct function of our reproductive organs etc, but not that they should be teaching sexually deviant practices, or other strange ways of getting off.

Well, of course Tommy, the state is teaching "normal and natural and right, correct function..." according to the norms of today. Homosexuality is today a legally sanctioned form of intimacy, carried out in legally sanctioned marriages.

There really is nothing more to be said. Your dreams of an unauthored "design" somehow being a standard are the stuff of unicorns and will o' the wisps. There is no substantiation for such fairy tales.

All that matters is what people want, and are free to pursue. You have brought up a lot of fantasies, but nothing to substantiate them. The penis and cunnus both work well in urination, masturbation, reproduction, homosexual coupling, modeling for art, porn, and other pursuits. All of them are natural and quite legal...at least in our jurisdictions.

by Eilzel Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:50 pm

Tommy I'm pretty certain if a kid isn't gay they will never want to have sex with someone of the same gender. You cannot promote that and it isn't promoted. You are just using aggressive language to oppose equal treatment of gay kids.

by Tommy Monk Wed Oct 08, 2014 8:46 pm

Marijuana is legal in some states in USA.... so by your logic quill, schools should be teaching kids to do that as well.....

And les, it is not for schools/state to be teaching any sexually deviant practice.

by veya_victaous Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:42 pm

@TM
Why cant we just teach them Both Neutral

Hey Kids, If your a boy and like girls be careful when you stick your PP in their VJJ you might have a Baby... And If you gonna stick it up Any bum well look out for these STDs and other health issues

Seem simple enough to me, cut out the wives tales and religious garbage and just give the medical science.

On an aside I think Victors point was wrong, Eating causes damage and is natural. Really Unnatural means 'Does not occur in Nature'....... which homosexuality does occur so....

It is the States Job to try and prevent Bigots teaching their kids to be bigots as we would like a world with out bigots. As unlike Homosexuality, Bigotry is Wrong, it is Natural but it does hurt people directly and it is deviant anti social behaviour.

by Eilzel Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:59 pm

Tommy you miss the point, the practice will occur regardless of the state, it is however the states duty to ensure kids are informed and not made to feel there is something inately wrong with them.

But then victor, quill and veya have all been making sensible points you've discarded, so I have little hope at this point- sadly your mental limitations are all too natural and common in a few of our species...

by Tommy Monk Thu Oct 09, 2014 3:14 am

Why not teach both Veya?

Well why not teach every sexually deviant practice out there???

And while you're at it, why not teach every other sexually deviant practice as being normal, natural and right too...?

Ok kids.... this week we are focusing on rimming and butt plugs.... next week we have a demonstration of scatting and auto-asphixiation while wanking over animal porn.....

Then week after we are going on class trip to the park to observe the totally normal and natural and right practice of dogging.....

It is not right for schools/state to be teaching any sexually deviant practice.

It is arguably their duty to teach the basics of biological and mechanical design and intended purpose, pregnancy, STDs etc and protection methods.

by veya_victaous Thu Oct 09, 2014 4:46 am

So basically you're just a homophob. And it is not right for the state to ALLOW yet alone Promote anything so hate filled. why not just vote for Sharia if you're freedom hating terrorist.

Homosexuality is not a DEVIANT SEXUAL practice. It is no more deviant than having White skin WHICH IS AS UNNATURAL as the gene responsible for it is the product of Inbreeding. Straight hair? That's cause you Ancestors Fucked their relatives... SO that's about enough of this idea of deviant sexual practices because if humans Didn't do weird sexual things without we'd all STILL look like Black Africans.

WE should teach more broadly (it would prevent them growing up as ignorant as yourself) Like for starters they could teach how Bestiality and Homosexuality are not comparable because one involves 2 consenting adults and the other is basically rape due to the lack of consent (much like paedophilia).

SO Lets

teach the basics of biological and mechanical design and intended purpose, pregnancy, STDs etc and protection methods.

which mean it needs to include in depth discussion about heavy petting, Anal and Oral sex that can be preformed with either gender. because that is a NATURAL pregnancy and/sometimes STD prevention method.

by Ben Reilly Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:14 am

I think at this point the only person who doesn't realize Tommy is a homophobe is Tommy himself ...

Look, Tommy, I'm guessing that you're the type that gravitates toward someone making grandiose, authoritative statements like he/she -- wait, just he -- knows it all. So Imma lay it out for you:

Nothing is bad unless there is a victim.

There you go, a nice, simplistic way of viewing the entire world. I anticipate and acknowledge your gratitude; no need to thank me.

by Tommy Monk Thu Oct 09, 2014 2:00 pm

Homosexuality is a sexually deviant practice as it goes against normal, natural and right way of things, as determined by the biological and mechanical design and purpose of our reproductive organs, and as also seen throughout nature.

I've heard lots of excuses and waffle on here but you cannot get away from this fundamental fact.

Therefore it should not be getting taught at schools any more than any other sexually deviant practice.

Teach one and then you have to teach others.... all in the name of 'equality' mind.....

How very 'progressive'....

by Eilzel Thu Oct 09, 2014 2:16 pm

You haven't addressed Ben in anyway there, just repeated your drone mantra.

You are also still obsessed with sex and the be all and end all, when it as much about confirming the validity and acceptability of gay people and relationships- another point you continue to ignore.

Quill is right, you allow your thoughts of the sexual act between two men to cloud your judgment to the point you are an annoying, waffling, rambler- stop playing the antagonist you silly little man ;-)

by Tommy Monk Thu Oct 09, 2014 2:58 pm

No judgement clouded here.

Just straight talking and fact.

You cannot get round the truth.

by Original Quill Thu Oct 09, 2014 7:38 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Marijuana is legal in some states in USA.... so by your logic quill, schools should be teaching kids to do that as well.....

High-sugar soft drinks are legal, too. I don't think many schools teach kids to drink soft drinks...it's simply irrelevant. If their were a sex-education class, I would expect that homosexuality would receive equal, respectable treatment.

Tommy Monk wrote:And les, it is not for schools/state to be teaching any sexually deviant practice.

What is taught in schools is off-point, and you are simply dodging the point Tommy. Homosexuality is legal, acceptable and preferable for some. Live with it. Your views are out-of-tune.

by Tommy Monk Thu Oct 09, 2014 9:34 pm

Homosexuality may not be illegal, but neither are countless other sexually deviant practices.... it is not the schools/states responsibility (moral or otherwise) to be teaching any of them, or as in any way normal, natural or right.

by Original Quill Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:38 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Homosexuality may not be illegal, but neither are countless other sexually deviant practices.... it is not the schools/states responsibility (moral or otherwise) to be teaching any of them, or as in any way normal, natural or right.

The schools only become involved if there's a sex education class. Then it is appropriate to give homosexuality a discussion, if only to see what it is about. It's genetic, so I doubt you are going to influence anyone by simply talking about it. Look...we are talking about it and the sky hasn't fallen yet.

I think by now we have reduced your arguments to your judgments, anyway. Not too many people feel that way these days, so it's of little consequence.

by Tommy Monk Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:53 pm

There is no homosexual gene.

by Original Quill Fri Oct 10, 2014 9:10 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:There is no homosexual gene.

Perhaps not, I don't know. But it is not that simple. The Universe is systemic, and any given genetic interaction can cause a result, even if we don't call it a homosexual gene. Blue eyes, for example, may be connected to some gene having to do with hair thickness. We can map the genome, but we have a long way to go to understanding the genomic interactions and consequences out on the fifth or sixth level.

It's not as simple as saying that there is no gene for this or that.

by Tommy Monk Fri Oct 10, 2014 9:35 pm

There are examples of identical twins, with identical genetics, where one becomes homosexual and overwhelmingly, the other doesn't.

Either it's genetic and the normal one other is really homosexual too, but just pretending/choosing to be normal, or it's not genetic and the homosexual one has simply chosen to be homosexual as a lifestyle choice.

Which is it?

by Original Quill Sat Oct 11, 2014 6:39 am

Tommy Monk wrote:There are examples of identical twins, with identical genetics, where one becomes homosexual and overwhelmingly, the other doesn't.

Either it's genetic and the normal one other is really homosexual too, but just pretending/choosing to be normal, or it's not genetic and the homosexual one has simply chosen to be homosexual as a lifestyle choice.

Which is it?

There is no such thing as "identical genetics." Even identical twins have differences.

You are trying to make a categorical argument, and each individual is categorical only onto him or herself. I see that you want to go for a convention vs. congenital type discussion, but we don't know enough to say one way or other. I"m not even sure it's relevant. If we know that genetics is involved, and genetics mixes with environmental elements to derive an outcome, isn't that just as compelled.

You can't say a given gene doesn't exist. You don't even know what a gene looks like. Could you describe a blue eyed gene, or a long nose gene? How do you think we go from a simple double helix to the billions of features coming out of a single individual...it's through combinations and interactions. There is no single gene for a single feature.

by Ben Reilly Sat Oct 11, 2014 6:45 am

Homosexuality is only partly genetic with sexuality mostly based on environmental and social factors, scientists believe.

A study found that, while gay men shared similar genetic make-up, it only accounted for 40 per cent of the chance of a man being homosexual.

But scientists say it could still be possible to develop a test to find out if a baby was more likely to be gay.

In the most comprehensive study of its kind, Dr Michael Bailey, of Northwestern University, has been studying 400 sets of twins to determine if some men are genetically predisposed to being gay.

The study found that gay men shared genetic signatures on part of the X chromosome - Xq28.

Dr Bailey said: “Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice. Our findings suggest there may be genes at play – we found evidence for two sets that affect whether a man is gay or straight.

“But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved. “The study shows that there are genes involved in male sexual orientation.

“Although this could one day lead to a pre-natal test for male sexual orientation, it would not be very accurate, as there are other factors that can influence the outcome.”

Dr Alan Sanders, associate Professor of Psychiatry at Northwestern University, who led the study said that it was it was an 'oversimplification’ to suggest there was a 'gay gene.’

“We don’t think genetics is the whole story. It’s not. We have a gene that contributes to homosexuality but you could say it is linked to heterosexuality. It is the variation.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html

So while there may not be one single "gay gene," there are genetic similarities that gay people share with one another but not with straight people, and evidence suggests that genetics do play a part in sexual orientation ...

by Original Quill Sat Oct 11, 2014 6:54 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Homosexuality is only partly genetic with sexuality mostly based on environmental and social factors, scientists believe.

A study found that, while gay men shared similar genetic make-up, it only accounted for 40 per cent of the chance of a man being homosexual.

But scientists say it could still be possible to develop a test to find out if a baby was more likely to be gay.

In the most comprehensive study of its kind, Dr Michael Bailey, of Northwestern University, has been studying 400 sets of twins to determine if some men are genetically predisposed to being gay.

The study found that gay men shared genetic signatures on part of the X chromosome - Xq28.

Dr Bailey said: “Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice. Our findings suggest there may be genes at play – we found evidence for two sets that affect whether a man is gay or straight.

“But it is not completely determinative; there are certainly other environmental factors involved. “The study shows that there are genes involved in male sexual orientation.

“Although this could one day lead to a pre-natal test for male sexual orientation, it would not be very accurate, as there are other factors that can influence the outcome.”

Dr Alan Sanders, associate Professor of Psychiatry at Northwestern University, who led the study said that it was it was an 'oversimplification’ to suggest there was a 'gay gene.’

“We don’t think genetics is the whole story. It’s not. We have a gene that contributes to homosexuality but you could say it is linked to heterosexuality. It is the variation.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html

So while there may not be one single "gay gene," there are genetic similarities that gay people share with one another but not with straight people, and evidence suggests that genetics do play a part in sexual orientation ...

Exactly.

by Ben Reilly Sat Oct 11, 2014 7:45 am

Hey, this thread is still alive on Coming Out Day!

Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column - Page 8 Smash-all-the-closets

Accepting Gay People Could Bring Down Civilisation, Says Devon Newspaper Column - Page 8 Smash-all-the-closets

The Internet is abnormal and unnatural ...

by Tommy Monk Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:42 pm

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=244

And the link you provided is pure waffle.

Homosexual men share a gene that heterosexual men also have....... wow!!!

lol!

by Original Quill Sat Oct 11, 2014 5:37 pm

UCSB wrote:No. 1: “…some things in development are a little bit random, and not just due to DNA.”

No. 2: “Identical twins aren't completely identical because DNA is essentially like instructions to building something, how your body decides to build that is random.”

Exactly…although stated much more articulately than me. The theory of evolution is that everything develops according to chance and necessity. That formula is written throughout the whole life process. Because of chance and necessity, even that which is fixed at conception is subject to variations as development takes place.

by Tommy Monk Sat Oct 11, 2014 6:00 pm

Homosexuality is not a result of evolution, it is a sexually deviant practice that goes completely against the evolved biological and mechanical design and purpose of our reproductive organs and system, and as seen throughout nature being sexual attraction and interaction between male and female.

by Original Quill Sun Oct 12, 2014 5:52 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Homosexuality is not a result of evolution, it is a sexually deviant practice that goes completely against the evolved biological and mechanical design and purpose of our reproductive organs and system, and as seen throughout nature being sexual attraction and interaction between male and female.

You are wrong about that. There is no evidence of any design or purpose. Moreover, they may yet find that homosexuality is an adaptation in an evolutionary sense. It may be an evolved way of preventing overpopulation, which seems to be the result of excessive reproduction.

In your terms, Tommy, homosexuality is nature's design to put the brakes on heterosexuality...we all know every design has a brake pedal as well as a throttle. Cool

by Ben Reilly Sun Oct 12, 2014 7:03 am

Original Quill wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Homosexuality is not a result of evolution, it is a sexually deviant practice that goes completely against the evolved biological and mechanical design and purpose of our reproductive organs and system, and as seen throughout nature being sexual attraction and interaction between male and female.

You are wrong about that. There is no evidence of any design or purpose. Moreover, they may yet find that homosexuality is an adaptation in an evolutionary sense. It may be an evolved way of preventing overpopulation, which seems to be the result of excessive reproduction.

In your terms, Tommy, homosexuality is nature's design to put the brakes on heterosexuality...we all know every design has a brake pedal as well as a throttle.

+ 1,000,000 Smile

by Sponsored content