Abortion

[Mare Tranquillity]

Your goats are expressing bisexual behavior and I never suggested that bisexuality was genetic. True homosexuality must be a genetic abberation because a norm such as true homosexuality would render the species extinct in exactly one generation.

Your grasp on genetic diversity is tenuous. Normal variations in the expression of sexuality can vary without any damage to the specie as evidenced by the widespread existence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. You making statements about "true homosexuality" and "bisexuality" as to their genetic or non-genetic source is also unsupportable since you don't know what causes those things.

In Canadian geese homosexuality is a benefit in that there are some female geese that are super-layers of eggs and they lay far more eggs than they can care for, these eggs are given to male pairs to raise. Male pairs are better parents in that they are two large male geese who are capable of providing better than a male/female pair and thus have a higher success rate than the hetero couples. So here we have a small portion of the population being gay and a small portion being super-layers and these two natural variations being beneficial to the specie. You seem to insist on a black and white approach to something that is many shades of gray.

 

[palerider]

Your grasp on genetic diversity is tenuous. Normal variations in the expression of sexuality can vary without any damage to the specie as evidenced by the widespread existence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. You making statements about "true homosexuality" and "bisexuality" as to their genetic or non-genetic source is also unsupportable since you don't know what causes those things.

In Canadian geese homosexuality is a benefit in that there are some female geese that are super-layers of eggs and they lay far more eggs than they can care for, these eggs are given to male pairs to raise. Male pairs are better parents in that they are two large male geese who are capable of providing better than a male/female pair and thus have a higher success rate than the hetero couples. So here we have a small portion of the population being gay and a small portion being super-layers and these two natural variations being beneficial to the specie. You seem to insist on a black and white approach to something that is many shades of gray.

Perhaps I should have qualified homosexuality among males as homosexuality among females poses no threat whatsoever to any given gene pool as in the animal kingdoms, they will be bred without regard to their preference. Male homosexuality, on the other hand can pose a genuine threat to any given gene pool. And my grasp of genetics is not tenuous in the least.

 

[Dr.Who]

Your grasp on genetic diversity is tenuous. Normal variations in the expression of sexuality can vary without any damage to the specie as evidenced by the widespread existence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. You making statements about "true homosexuality" and "bisexuality" as to their genetic or non-genetic source is also unsupportable since you don't know what causes those things.

I have seen a dog hump a chair too but I am not going to create a label to describe every variant of behavior that men can dream.

 

[Pidgey]

I have seen a dog hump a chair too but I am not going to create a label to describe every variant of behavior that men can dream.

Was the chair... pretty?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Perhaps I should have qualified homosexuality among males as homosexuality among females poses no threat whatsoever to any given gene pool as in the animal kingdoms, they will be bred without regard to their preference. Male homosexuality, on the other hand can pose a genuine threat to any given gene pool. And my grasp of genetics is not tenuous in the least.

The threat to any specie from male homosexuality is imaginary. There is no example ever of a specie dying out do to all the males being exclusively homosexual. This is part of the black and white way in which you approach the issue and it's fallacious.

And I'm sure that you are a genetic genius, but that doesn't seem to be reflected in you posts somehow.

 

[Dr.Who]

Was the chair... pretty?

Apparently beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I personally think that a man's hairy ***...

But that is the point. Drives are biological. Desires are what we do with drives based on our perceptions of beauty or whatever factor.

Somewhere in there the genes seem to direct the perceptions of some people to find same sex attraction desirable but the mechanism is by no means deterministic.

Why do I say the genes do play a role? Because twins reared apart have a 50/50 chance of both being gay when one is. If one hundred sets of twins are separated at birth and 2% are gay then half of the gay twins will have a brother who is also gay. By chance alone it should have been only 2% of 2% if it were totally choice. By the same token if it were totally genetic then 100% of the gay twins should have shared the same desire for same sex attraction. Something genetic moved the numbers from 2% of 2% to 50% of 2%.

Why is it not deterministic? Because with genes there are genotypes and phenotypes. A person may have the genes for, say, blue eyes but they still may end up with brown eyes when those genes are expressed or not. Biology sometimes ignores genes. That is because all genes do is make certain chemical reactions take place. Other factors effect how those chemical reactions work to cause this or that. One other reason it is not deterministic is that even if a person's genes influence a person to be gay he can still choose to do whatever he chooses. Many gay people lead happy lives married to opposite sex partners - some do not.

 

[Dr.Who]

In Canadian geese homosexuality is a benefit in that there are some female geese that are super-layers of eggs and they lay far more eggs than they can care for, these eggs are given to male pairs to raise. Male pairs are better parents in that they are two large male geese who are capable of providing better than a male/female pair and thus have a higher success rate than the hetero couples. So here we have a small portion of the population being gay and a small portion being super-layers and these two natural variations being beneficial to the specie. You seem to insist on a black and white approach to something that is many shades of gray.

With the case of black swans. First they mate with opposite sexed swans and then the males tend the eggs and raise them. The males are first engaged in heterosexual sex and then when they raise the chicks with other males they are not engaged in homosexual sex.

This would be the equivalent of a man divorcing his wife and raising his kid with another man.

 

[Dr.Who]

The threat to any specie from male homosexuality is imaginary. There is no example ever of a specie dying out do to all the males being exclusively homosexual. This is part of the black and white way in which you approach the issue and it's fallacious.

The dinos died out. But its kind of hard to prove a negative. We don't know why they died out. As long as we don't know then that explanation as silly as it may be should remain on the table. Hopefully pretty low in the list, maybe below giant meteors and space aliens. Nerthless we can't say that they did not die out because they were gay.

 

[palerider]

The threat to any specie from male homosexuality is imaginary. There is no example ever of a specie dying out do to all the males being exclusively homosexual.

Which is why it must be classified as abberant.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Which is why it must be classified as abberant.

Depends on how you define "aberrant" doesn't it?

1 : straying from the right or normal way : deviating from truth, rectitude, propriety
2 : deviating from the usual or natural type

If it's got survival value then it might fit under #2 as deviating from the usual, but I think you are using it as #1, which implies a value judgment that you are not in position to make since you don't know what causes it and you can't show any harm outside the realm of imagination.

 

[palerider]

Depends on how you define "aberrant" doesn't it?

1 : straying from the right or normal way : deviating from truth, rectitude, propriety
2 : deviating from the usual or natural type

If it's got survival value then it might fit under #2 as deviating from the usual, but I think you are using it as #1, which implies a value judgment that you are not in position to make since you don't know what causes it and you can't show any harm outside the realm of imagination.

I thought you knew by now that I don't make moral arguments. Have I not repeatedly called true homosexuality a genetic abberation? Why try to make this a moral argument when I have not even touched on morals?

 

[Pidgey]

I thought you knew by now that I don't make moral arguments. Have I not repeatedly called true homosexuality a genetic abberation? Why try to make this a moral argument when I have not even touched on morals?

Obviously, to keep up morale.

 

[ctpatriot]

Abortion is murder,,, legal murder like doctor assisted suicide in some states... but as a father of 3 kids if you hear the heartbeat it is alive just unborn to end its life is murder

 

[Pandora]

Abortion is murder,,, legal murder like doctor assisted suicide in some states... but as a father of 3 kids if you hear the heartbeat it is alive just unborn to end its life is murder

Welcome to the HOP


and by the way I agree with you!


Except to say that when a doctor assists in suicide the person dying is doing it of their own free will......where the baby and the father of the baby has no say in the matter with aborting a child.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I thought you knew by now that I don't make moral arguments. Have I not repeatedly called true homosexuality a genetic abberation? Why try to make this a moral argument when I have not even touched on morals?

Your term "genetic aberration" is a value judgment. The first definition of aberration is: 1 : act of wandering away or of going astray : deviation from truth or a moral standard, from the natural state...

You do not know if it is going astray or a deviation from any truth or moral standard, that's just an opinion of yours.

Homosexuality has been shown to have survival value in some species, as we study we may find that is has not evolved out of the higher animals because of widespread survival value.

You have also broken homosexuality down into "true" and (I have to assume) "false" homosexuality, again this is not something that you have any right to do since you have not provided any substantive support for this wild claim in light of the fact that there isn't any.