Yeah, this is completely normal…😳




KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
21,792
Reaction score
3,874
Points
113
I am absolutely NOT making a religious argument about the normalcy of heterosexual sex and homosexual sex. Let me know when a man can impregnate another man or a woman a woman. That’s science idiot.

No one said we live in a religious theocracy, but if you don’t recognize that our society and laws were significantly based on Judeo-Christian principles, you’re an idiot.

Science regarding homosexuality didn’t change in the last 30 years. Social values changed. Thanks for making my argument for me.
@howeda7, you need to watch this:
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
12,704
Reaction score
5,592
Points
113
@howeda7, you need to watch this:
That guy is so annoying I can't listen to him very long. He is like a gerbil on meth.

I actually agree with Ben Shapiro on his point, but why does he even care what a person wants to call themselves? Is there a point to his point? No there really isn't a point beyond Ben Shapiro getting clicks.

Sports is the only place biological gender really has any relevance wrt to what I would call "the rules" or whatever.
 


howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
59,748
Reaction score
15,397
Points
113
I am absolutely NOT making a religious argument about the normalcy of heterosexual sex and homosexual sex. Let me know when a man can impregnate another man or a woman a woman. That’s science idiot.
Procreation isn't the "only" scientific reason for sexual attraction. It's just the only one you approve of.

No one said we live in a religious theocracy, but if you don’t recognize that our society and laws were significantly based on Judeo-Christian principles, you’re an idiot.
The basic morals of don't kill, don't steal etc. are true across all religions and even people of no religion. Yes, most of our founders were Christians, but the "principles" are not exclusive.

Science regarding homosexuality didn’t change in the last 30 years. Social values changed. Thanks for making my argument for me.
Actually it did. We know a lot more about it then we did 30 years ago. That it's not a mental illness. That it's an inherited trait etc.
 

kg21

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2021
Messages
3,098
Reaction score
1,391
Points
113
That guy is so annoying I can't listen to him very long. He is like a gerbil on meth.

I actually agree with Ben Shapiro on his point, but why does he even care what a person wants to call themselves? Is there a point to his point? No there really isn't a point beyond Ben Shapiro getting clicks.

Sports is the only place biological gender really has any relevance wrt to what I would call "the rules" or whatever.
see what I hi-lited...........why do you care if a person wants to call themselves a Trump supporter? You pretty much go off the rails when they do.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
12,704
Reaction score
5,592
Points
113
see what I hi-lited...........why do you care if a person wants to call themselves a Trump supporter? You pretty much go off the rails when they do.

I don't care, I just hope they are an antivaxxer also.
🤷🏼‍♂️

Way to bring it back to your God Trump.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
21,792
Reaction score
3,874
Points
113
Procreation isn't the "only" scientific reason for sexual attraction. It's just the only one you approve of.
Really? What are other scientific reasons for sexual attraction? Are those reasons true for other animals or just humans?
The basic morals of don't kill, don't steal etc. are true across all religions and even people of no religion. Yes, most of our founders were Christians, but the "principles" are not exclusive.
True. Ours just happens to be based J-C principles. The Koran has a little different take on how to handle non-believers.
Actually it did. We know a lot more about it then we did 30 years ago. That it's not a mental illness. That it's an inherited trait etc.
So that’s “a lot more”? Give me some studies that you’ve read? I’d be really interested to learn.
 



kg21

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2021
Messages
3,098
Reaction score
1,391
Points
113
I don't care, I just hope they are an antivaxxer also.
🤷🏼‍♂️

Way to bring it back to your God Trump.
Wait a minute. You don't care? LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
31,509
Reaction score
8,178
Points
113
but the existence of the attraction is without the original purpose b/c men can’t reproduce with men.
False.

God purposes designed homosexual attraction, to help prevent overpopulation.


You pretending to not see this, confirms you have nothing. :)
 


Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
50,792
Reaction score
4,676
Points
113
Actually it did. We know a lot more about it then we did 30 years ago. That it's not a mental illness. That it's an inherited trait etc.
it was changed to “not mental illness” thru political means, not scientific.
 






KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
21,792
Reaction score
3,874
Points
113
I'm fully confident in your ability to use Google.
So I took your advice and Googled about your claim that homosexuality is genetic.

Oddly, the articles, one a massive study, said that such a claim is without evidence and they don’t know b/c it is too complex to figure out.

So much for knowing “a lot more” about homosexuality in the last 30 years, huh.



There are many more articles saying the same thing.

Wow, complete howie “face plant”. Who woulda guessed?
 


howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
59,748
Reaction score
15,397
Points
113
So I took your advice and Googled about your claim that homosexuality is genetic.

Oddly, the articles, one a massive study, said that such a claim is without evidence and they don’t know b/c it is too complex to figure out.

So much for knowing “a lot more” about homosexuality in the last 30 years, huh.



There are many more articles saying the same thing.

Wow, complete howie “face plant”. Who woulda guessed?
So it's a mental illness then?
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
12,704
Reaction score
5,592
Points
113
So I took your advice and Googled about your claim that homosexuality is genetic.

Oddly, the articles, one a massive study, said that such a claim is without evidence and they don’t know b/c it is too complex to figure out.

So much for knowing “a lot more” about homosexuality in the last 30 years, huh.



There are many more articles saying the same thing.

Wow, complete howie “face plant”. Who woulda guessed?
What if some/most homosexuality is caused by the barrage of endocrine disrupting chemicals we are exposed to?
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
21,792
Reaction score
3,874
Points
113
So it's a mental illness then?
I believe I’ve already indicated that I don’t endorse such a belief, not that it couldn’t occur is some instances. I don’t accept it as an explanation for the vast majority of circumstances.

There are disorders that are not acquired from parents:

Other diseases are caused by acquired mutations in a gene or group of genes that occur during a person's life. Such mutations are not inherited from a parent…


I’m not the one claiming to KNOW a lot more about the origins of homosexuality. It could be genetically passed or not. You said it was. But apparently no proof of that exists.
 
Last edited:

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
21,792
Reaction score
3,874
Points
113
Seriously, OK boomer. This is a Debate from 1975.
What have I said that you take issue with?

The argument is about social norms changing. howie claimed we “know a lot more now”, and I guess that’s his explanation for social norms changing. I’m saying that they’ve changed more for activist political pressure reasons than gained knowledge.

I haven’t defamed homosexuality, and I expressed compassion for the discrimination that some have faced.

But I don’t have to believe that it’s natural design. Wally askes “why do I care?”. I have to ask ‘why do you care what I think?’ The answer seems to be that you want me to conform to your point of view. Which is exactly the point I’m making in this argument and the slippery slope that howie refers to.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
10,860
Reaction score
5,368
Points
113
What have I said that you take issue with?

The argument is about social norms changing. howie claimed we “know a lot more now”, and I guess that’s his explanation for social norms changing. I’m saying that they’ve changed more for activist political pressure reasons than gained knowledge.

I haven’t defamed homosexuality, and I expressed compassion for the discrimination that some have faced.

But I don’t have to believe that it’s natural design. Wally askes “why do I care?”. I have to ask ‘why do you care what I think?’ The answer seems to be that you want me to conform to your point of view. Which is exactly the point I’m making in this argument and the slippery slope that howie refers to.
It isn’t a thing to spend energy on.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
21,792
Reaction score
3,874
Points
113
It isn’t a thing to spend energy on.
I made a comment. howie made disparaging assumptions about me. I defended my beliefs.

Far as I’ve seen, that’s what posters do here.

You’re free to spend your energy where you want and me, mine.

You didn’t answer my question so I’ll have to assume you don’t have a good answer or you don’t have the energy.
 
Last edited:



MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
31,509
Reaction score
8,178
Points
113
I’m not the one claiming to KNOW a lot more about the origins of homosexuality. It could be genetically passed or not.
Genes randomly fluctuate with each new person. This is known.

It isn't a simple, exact "half from mom, half from dad, stick them together and call it good".


Natural fluctuations is how evolution/natural selection works.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
10,860
Reaction score
5,368
Points
113
I made a comment. howie made disparaging assumptions about me. I defended my beliefs.

Far as I’ve seen, that’s what posters do here.

You’re free to spend your energy where you want and me, mine.

You didn’t answer my question so I’ll have to assume you don’t have a good answer or you don’t have the energy.
People who differ from the norm exist. We both know that. The arguments that some people, as they exist, do not add positively to the human collective somehow are pretty silly in modernity--we aren't really being threatened by depopulation. And, looking at things like that tends toward eugenics more than I care to. Focus on the rights of the individual, and not how the individual fits into whatever greater purpose of nature you are thinking is being served.

Insert nineteen page objectivist rant here.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
31,509
Reaction score
8,178
Points
113
I defeated his fake "natural design" argument.

He doesn't have the ballsack to admit it that it was weak, and has been proven false.
 





Top Bottom