I wish I could sit around and have this conversation with you guys, but I have to leave for work. Blah.

btw, i slightly agree with sweetness and Trojans, but with much less enthusiasm (i guess thats the right word).

Is it really that wrong to not want you son to be gay and have a so called normal family? Wanting your son to have a wife is homophobic now?

And as Trojans was saying (not sure if anyone commented more on that)... its really isnt normal. If everyone was gay, there wouldnt be people anymore. How is that normal?

fwiw, i have no problem with gays. There are gay people in my family, and I can hang out with gay guys with no problem and not give a shit. When I was younger, i used to think being gay was a choice. I realized that I was retarded and Im not that stupid anymore.

But being gay should be acceptable, but dont try to convince me is a completely normal... cause it isnt. If i like to have sex with trees, it wont magically become normal if the percentage of people that like to have sex with trees goes from 0.001% to 10%.

I always assume sweetness is being over the top. So I dont take his replies as literally as everyone else.

If I had a son that was gay, I wouldnt try to change him. Iim sure I would love him just the same, but inside I would be a little disappointed, and I think thats a perfectly fine reaction.

If everyone was gay, there wouldn't be people anymore. How is that normal?

Someone answer this question please...

 

Originally Posted by OHBEEVEE

If everyone was gay, there wouldn't be people anymore. How is that normal?

Someone answer this question please...

10% of the population not reproducing is perhaps nature's built-in birth-rate dampener.

 

Originally Posted by KingMonty

10% of the population not reproducing is perhaps nature's built-in birth-rate dampener.

or...

The so-called "gay uncle" hypothesis posits that people who themselves do not have children may nonetheless increase the prevalence of their family's genes in future generations by providing resources (food, supervision, defense, shelter, etc.) to the offspring of their closest relatives. This hypothesis is an extension of the theory of kin selection. Kin selection was originally developed to explain apparent altruistic acts which seemed to be maladaptive. The initial concept was suggested by J.B.S. Haldane in 1932 and later elaborated by many others including John Maynard Smith, W. D. Hamilton and Mary Jane West-Eberhard.[48] This concept was also used to explain the patterns of certain social insects where most of the members are non-reproductive.


or...

They hypothesized that "while genes predisposing to homosexuality reduce homosexuals' reproductive success, they may confer some advantage in heterosexuals who carry them." and their results suggested that "genes predisposing to homosexuality may confer a mating advantage in heterosexuals, which could help explain the evolution and maintenance of homosexuality in the population."

or...

Important new evidence on a plausible mechanism for the evolution of "gay genes" has emerged from the work of Camperio-Ciani.[23] They found in two large, independent studies that the female relatives of homosexual men tended to have significantly more offspring than those of the heterosexual men. Female relatives of the homosexual men on their mother's side tended to have more offspring than those on the father's side. This indicates that females carrying a putative "gay genes" complex are more fecund than women lacking this complex of genes, and thereby can compensate for any decreased fertility of the males carrying the genes. This is a well known phenomenon in evolution known as "sexual antagonism,"[citation needed] and has been widely documented for many traits that are advantageous in one sex but not in the other.[citation needed] This provides solid experimental evidence of how "gay genes" could not only survive but thrive over the course of evolution.[citation needed]

(all from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology...al_orientation )

anyone arguing that gay people are defective or something because they can't reproduce needs to somehow explain why they are still around and why there hasn't, over time, been a decrease in the number of gay people.

 

Originally Posted by OHBEEVEE

If everyone was gay, there wouldn't be people anymore. How is that normal?

Someone answer this question please...

tough to answer questions that dont make sense...
if everyone was black there wouldnt be white people. how's that normal?
see?

EDIT: and obv lol kevmode.

Anyone who is saying it's a choice, can you tell me when you chose to be attracted to women? Because I definitely don't remember ever making that decision.

Edit: and if you do have to consciously decide/force yourself to be attracted to women, that's a pretty good sign you might be gay.

 

Originally Posted by OHBEEVEE

If everyone was gay, there wouldn't be people anymore. How is that normal?

Someone answer this question please...

I believe that Warden's answer is 100% correct, but is also not true that gay people are incapable of reproducing by having heterosexual intercourse. Intercourse is fairly mechanical and doesn't require partners to be attracted to one another.

One thing that seems to be apparent to me is that ignorance of reproductive and genetic principles seems to have a strong correlation with intolerance.

Well Jaybone is half correct.. i really dont mind that fenway or others are calling me out. i mean i am who i am, and i believe its wrong. i just really got pissed about you thinking that i am a product of what happens to kids like the one in the OP. in reality, obv im over the top and fuck around alot. to be honest, i wouldnt obv leave my son high and dry. He means more to me than anything in the world. However, i would be absolutely dissapointed, and im just not sure we would ever be able to bond as much as we would otherwise. Obv im probably totally in the wrong, and thats ok with me. Its just a fundamental difference that i dont agree with. I would cry alot behind closed doors and maybe something at that point would help me come to grips with it, i dont know. Like i said, im not a white picket fence type of guy obv, but the one thing i have always wanted in my life is to have a boy, raise him how i wanted to be raised, and watch him get married and get me a grand baby.. You only live once, and call me selfish, but those are the things i have always thought would be a guarantee in my family.

Fenway, i can also assure you (not that it matters), that i dont treat people any different than the next guy, especially professionally. Like i was saying before either in this thread or another, im already a wierd cat and do so much stupid stuff, its not even funny. So who am i to treat someone else like shit because of how they are? i realize this. i was raised pretty much this way too, to treat everyone with respect, respect your elders even more.. fighting isnt worth it, it just leads to hate. The only people i really despise and wish a slow death are people who harm people because they are gay, black/or whatever race/homeless, whatever. People that hate in their heart, i def discriminate against.

Also, i still dont totally believe that 100% of gays are born with it. i need to do some more research on this, but i would love to see a subjective study to see what the percentages and factors are of this. I cant believe that the spectrum is heavily weighted on your guys side, like you say it is.

 

Originally Posted by Brooklyn999

So being gay = pedophile? Hard to be more of a dumbass than that. facepalm.jpg

 

Originally Posted by Ozzie

tough to answer questions that dont make sense...
if everyone was black there wouldnt be white people. how's that normal?
see?

EDIT: and obv lol kevmode.

That is probably the dumbest response that i thought that little question was going to get.

Well done. Btw, just for fun, within like a 1000 years, it is possible for everyone to be "black", and so yes... it would be completely normal.

Diubt its possible for everyone to be gay in a 1000 years.

well, if everyone was gay then it'd be normal... and if everyone was a horse it'd be normal too. the question is how is [ridiculous premise] normal. duh, it's not. but if it were the case, it would be. but who cares because it's ridiculous...

EDIT: pluv, whats dumb about the post obv wasnt the afterlife question... it was the do you think we came of monkeys or the big bang question. maybe there was more gold but i cant remember, thats all that stayed with me.

 

Originally Posted by Ozzie

well, if everyone was gay then it'd be normal... and if everyone was a horse it'd be normal too. the question is how is [ridiculous premise] normal. duh, it's not. but if it were the case, it would be. but who cares because it's ridiculous...

EDIT: pluv, whats dumb about the post obv wasnt the afterlife question... it was the do you think we came of monkeys or the big bang question. maybe there was more gold but i cant remember, thats all that stayed with me.

Youre right, it would be normal... until the human race stopped producing.

 

Originally Posted by Hughes4

I really hope kevmode is the illest level of all-time. That is how I read his posts and it makes it more fun

I hope so too, he is really bringing down kev's on this site/the internet in general. I can't afford the blow to my reputation when people confuse me with him

 

Originally Posted by FenwayKing

didnt say people of faith were 'the dumbest people alive'...just that kevmode is. my parents are super religious and i don't think they are dumb, i just disagree with them. kevmode, on the other hand, is a bona fide idiot.

reread his post itt (and any of his others) and you'll wholeheartedly agree, i believe

I fully agree that Kevmode post some stupid shit. He is even worse in PD. I was just slightly suprised at the comment because you usually can see both points of view on debatable topics. I consider afterlife to be debatable. (not religious afterlife like heaven...but just that there is more than meets the eye after we die.)