LGBT Terrific!

[Guest PikaPerson01]

by impractical, I meant that a gay marriage is less practical in evolving ourselves as humans

... What the hell does marriage have to do with evolution? Does "straight marriage" somehow evolve ourselves as humans? You're aware people can have kids without getting married, right?

[Grunt Issun]

RSV, tell me, did you know Flamingos can be gay? So can many other species of animals besides humans. Oh, and tell me this, when did you CHOOSE to be straight? At what time in your pitiful life did you choose to be straight? When did you just wake up one morning and say "Hmm, I think I'll be straight for the rest of my life"?

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

^Homosexuality has been noted in over 400 species. Homophobia in one, so far.

 

fix'd

>immoral fromthe more than one religious standpoint

>fix'd

>this entire post in general

 

It seems my point didn't get through

Believe me, it did. But your idiotic noise just happened to fall on sentient ears.

 

by impractical, I meant that a gay marriage is less practical in evolving ourselves as humans

 

YCM is less practical than a getting an actual job because 98% of the time we end up wasting our time (totally made up that stat)

So your opinion is that the only practicality is reproduction. Then your conclusions would be true, except humans have actually come to a point where creating babies is no longer our unified, primary concern. We do these things called "enjoying ourselves" and "educating ourselves" and "helping others". It's almost as if we've developed a bit of sense and realized that you can contribute to the world as a whole without putting your dick in a vagina or taking a dick up your vagina.

 

loving one another in a way reserved for reproduction

 

As in sex. I never said or mentioned any other form of love besides that

>reserved

And who placed this dinner reservation, might I ask? Mr. Homophobic Omnipotent Invisible Sky Fairy or Mrs. Societal Brainwashing?

 

Just because I grew up following a certain religion shoved down my throat means that I'm guaranteed to follow that religion, right?

Of course you could go against it, but that assumes you're free-thinking. Based on your posts, that likely isn't the case.

 

Wrong, and chances are you (Crab) and Dark are living proof of that statement. Just because someone claims to be born with a certain desire for their sex doesn't mean they should act on that desire. I understand that religion and sexual desire are two different aspects, but that doesn't change that fact that humans of capabile of changing themselves. That's how we evolve. Tell me, did the great ancient civilizations of Rome, Persia, Greece, Japan, India, and China have as much of a problem as we do today? I understand that Rome may have had it's share of homosexual relationships, but to the point where we are today? If so, I demand evidence. If not, than surely you get the point. I honestly would have tons more respect for the person who is capabile of curving their desires than acting on them.

Being raised as a religious sheep isn't at all genetically comparable to being LGB. Only pansexuality really defies our genetics, and that still doesn't negate the reality of what gets your dick pumping. Go screw that chair over there. Not attracted to it? TRY HARDER.

 

Whether they let a guy take it up the ass or not doesn't relate to their success. Should we return to slavery because they practiced it?(in before you say yes and talk about people willing themselves to be white)

 

Wait, why would you respect a gay person for not having sex but straight sex is wonderful and respectable? Oh, that's right, because of your self-centered sense of morality.

[Grunt Issun]

Ah, thanks for reminding me, sorta. This is probably pretty stereotypical, but gays are known to get into less actual physical fights, physical fights can be bad for evolution, thus, a gay couple raising an adopted child may lead to that adopted child not getting into fights, which means he'd be safer, which means he could go on to reproduce.

[Guest PikaPerson01]

This is probably pretty stereotypical, but gays are known to get into less actual physical fights,

 

... Nah but seriously though. Your entire post is horse sheet.

 

Strongest most ripped dude I know was a gay guy, BECAUSE HE funking HAD TO BE BECAUSE HE GOT PICKED ON FOR BEING GAY!

 

And the little tosser who barely knew how to throw a punch or do a pushup? Yeah, I didn't look at him and think "wow, he's most likely gonna be safer" or "that's the epitome of what Charles Darwin was talking about when he said evolution".

 

Seriously, every assertions you make in that above post is wrong. Every single one.

[Hydra of Ages]

It seems my point didn't get through

 

No, I think we understand exactly what you're trying to say.

 

by impractical, I meant that a gay marriage is less practical in evolving ourselves as humans

 

Species homo sapiens stopped evolving in a traditional manner approximately 40,000 years ago. I'm not entirely sure you even know what evolution actually means, however.

 

YCM is less practical than a getting an actual job because 98% of the time we end up wasting our time (totally made up that stat)

 

Once again, less practical than what? 'evolving the species'? Because I hate to break it to you, unless you started killing the weakest members of the species en masse for the next couple hundred generations, you're not going to make any significant changes in the natural human genome no matter what you do.

 

loving one another in a way reserved for reproduction

 

As in sex. I never said or mentioned any other form of love besides that

 

Sex is not reserved for reproduction.

 

It can cause reproduction, yes, but we're not wild animals any longer and sex has filled a couple more purposes since then.

 

Just because I grew up following a certain religion shoved down my throat means that I'm guaranteed to follow that religion, right?

 

No, the fact you come off as an uneducated bigot means it's guaranteed you follow that religion.

 

Wrong, and chances are you (Crab) and Dark are living proof of that statement. Just because someone claims to be born with a certain desire for their sex doesn't mean they should act on that desire.

 

It's not a "claim". It's a legitimate, observable and verifiable scientific fact that sex drive exists, and it doesn't necessarily have to be directed toward a single gender, regardless of the organism's own gender.

 

Exactly why shouldn't they act on that desire?

 

I understand that religion and sexual desire are two different aspects, but that doesn't change that fact that humans of capabile of changing themselves. That's how we evolve.

 

I'm going to assume you mean Sociocultural Evolution. Exactly what does that have to do with religion or sexual desire? (By the way, Religion by it's very existence is detrimental to Sociocultural Evolution since it mandates a traditionalist worldview that can't be reconciled with a developing society)

 

Tell me, did the great ancient civilizations of Rome, Persia, Greece, Japan, India, and China have as much of a problem as we do today?

 

Problem with what? Homosexuality? Because that's not a problem.

 

The fact that those "great" ancient civilizations aren't around anymore should tell you how their way of life fared for them.

 

I understand that Rome may have had it's share of homosexual relationships, but to the point where we are today?

If so, I demand evidence.

 

It takes a special kind of person to claim we're more gay than the ancient romans and greeks.

 

 

If not, than surely you get the point. I honestly would have tons more respect for the person who is capabile of curving their desires than acting on them.

 

Why.

[Admiral Tim]

Drones are the male bees that do mate. Learn some biology before you start throwing around terms like that.

 

 

And all of this misses my entire point: if it is impossible to further one's own genes without reproducing, then why do there exist bees that do not reproduce?

 

 

Bees have such short lifespans drones cannot do all the work thus the females that aren't selected to reproduce (As the queen starts as a normal worker is picked and fed "Royal Jelly") must pollenate and bring nectar back to the hive which is then turned into honey and fed to all the bees thus providing the drones with the energy needed to mate and the grubs to grow and help the hive or start a new one.

[Guest PikaPerson01]

Cool story bro.

 

This topics about gays, not useless bee trivia. Please, try to keep up with a conversation.

[Flame Dragon]

Tell me, did the great ancient civilizations of Rome, Persia, Greece, Japan, India, and China have as much of a problem as we do today? I understand that Rome may have had it's share of homosexual relationships, but to the point where we are today? If so, I demand evidence. If not, than surely you get the point. I honestly would have tons more respect for the person who is capabile of curving their desires than acting on them.

Seeing as how Greek/Roman mythology had Zeus taking on male lovers, homosexual relationships were common in the period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece

 

And what do you mean by problem? Yea, I'm just jumping into the convo without much other reading, but based on what your saying, your calling the increase in openly gay peoples a problem? It is more then likely that there were just as many homosexual people in the past, just they weren't open about it and choose not to act on it, or did so in secret.

 

And really, what harm is caused by people being homosexual. They don't harm anyone and the way they choose to live there life is there business and as such what right do we have to question it.

[Guest Icyblue]

Ugh. This topic, this DEBATE is finished. I swear, most of these conversations are nothing but "well you're wrong about being so mean to sexuality and here's why". It's not, it's about a combination of how people view it and coming to a conclusion between both views, seeing something mutually in between even if that is "well okay you're uncomfortable". Fine.

 

And someone being uncomfortable with anyone that is Lesbian, Gay, Transsexual, Bisexual, Necrosexual or whatever it is when someone has the physical hots for a hand/digitally drawn character. It just makes them uncomfortable and as long as they show no display of violence or anything above displeasure, you have no right to tell them just what makes them comfortable and not. Even if you don't like it or their opinions semi-show slightly differently, so what it's a difficult topic for many of us but they tried.

 

This means you too Crabs. Using your usual style to debunk opinions, HOW?! You should have asked him why he thought so and worked with it, not shattered it to the ground. So he could post and adequate reply and further the debate, not end it in a "you are a moron for this". If that was all it was going to end in, people bashing bigots and just generally people with equally valid views that are only isolated in opinion and not behavior. Then this topic should have been locked from the moment it was accepted.

 

And now it is locked. Debate "concluded."