GUNWOUNDS Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 Gunwounds, your posts in this thread have bordered on, then fallen headlong into, arrogance, not to mention rudeness.If you want to continue arguments, I suggest you base your case on purely biological evidence (as opposed to psychological evidence, or, as is more apt in your case, plain assertion).perhaps you
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 We should make some rule like preventing Gunwounds posting in other threads than in his own ones. Half of PRP are his forums anyway...CAIDÂ my post about the animals and ecology were purely scientific just like Nema asked... take your ad hominem somewhere else..
Dante Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 Don't try to pin the blame on someone else.We should make some rule like preventing Gunwounds posting in other threads than in his own ones. Half of PRP are his forums anyway...Like emprworm it's not what he says but how he says it....*thinks*...*re-reads Gunwounds' last post*Alright, it is what he says. Couldn't a male being gay, be the genes doing whatever they would to a woman, to make her appreciate men, accidently being put in a man... and vice versa for lesbians ?Bit like the guys born with no knobs, and all that...The genes getting mixed up I mean.No links, nothing, cause I saw it on tv, and I aint going to search the net unless someone really want me to. Surely you clever people know what I mean though ?Or is this a theory thats been blasted out of the windows before ?That's a GOOD theory.
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 That's a GOOD theory.I disagree....As i said before .... yes there are hermaphrodites and there men are who take female hormones.
Dante Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 The words were 'bit like.' Not 'exactly in this case.' There was reference to genes and implication to the theory Wolfwiz and I agree on. Perfectly relevent.
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 The words were 'bit like.' Not 'exactly in this case.' There was reference to genes and implication to the theory Wolfwiz and I agree on. Perfectly relevent. then you agree that "true" homosexuality is caused by trauma (hormonal imbalance, missing penis, molestation, psychological trauma) ? anything else would be someone making a purely psychological choice to engage in taboo sex then correct?
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 Well since you contradicted yourself i will take that as a yes.
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 Gunwounds, your posts in this thread have bordered on, then fallen headlong into, arrogance, not to mention rudeness.If you want to continue arguments, I suggest you base your case on purely biological evidence (as opposed to psychological evidence, or, as is more apt in your case, plain assertion)..... Dan and dustscout are the ones claiming that you must be "gay" to be
Acriku Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 Indeed, it is nothing real but chemical reactions, but so is heterosexual love and love period. If the love between a man and a woman is anything, then the love between the same sex is the same thing. Maybe some wires are crossed, I don't know, we haven't found evidence for there being a gene relation to homosexuality so it's up in the air.
Caid Ivik Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 Well since you contradicted yourself i will take that as a yes.When our honor prevents us cleaning the dirt, you answer for your own question yourself... Interesant behavior ::)
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 Indeed, it is nothing real but chemical reactions, but so is heterosexual love and love period. If the love between a man and a woman is anything, then the love between the same sex is the same thing. Maybe some wires are crossed, I don't know, we haven't found evidence for there being a gene relation to homosexuality so it's up in the air.well a gene relation would be too simple of an answer....
Acriku Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 And if the boy got the right dosage, are you saying that he wouldn't be homosexual? I'm trying to understand your point.
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 And if the boy got the right dosage, are you saying that he wouldn't be homosexual? I'm trying to understand your point.yes he wouldnt be homosexual by default due to his genetics.... that doesnt mean he couldnt be traumatized later in life (molestation , whatever) and become that way.
Wolf Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 Where did I say it was psychological? I thought that chemical imbalances in the mother's womb affected the child's brain, and, thus, his sexual orientation.I never heard that "we all start out as female" thing before, is that true?Also, I tend to doubt that homosexuality is genetic. In order for it to be genetic, or inherited through heredity, heterosexual intercourse that produces a child is necessary. As I explained above, the odds are against this. Maybe they aren't, and generations of homosexual men have had heterosexual intercourse, but the core thesis remains true.
erjin999 Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 2. Yes, I believe it is true. The blokes develope the extras. Although I was never taught this, perhaps I'll start a thread on how crap the education system in England can be !3. I said that it was in the genes, IMO, but not genetically inherited. The genes in a child are not the same as the ones in the parents. Not exactly, otherwise, my son would not be left handed (something else I think is "in the genes"). Actually, this brings me on to a point I was wondering about that has some relevance.I am speaking as someone who has only thought about this, not read any medical material or anything, but isnt the dominant hand chosen genetically. Or do we belive it is a choice made, a phycological effect, as it were ? Personally, I see similarity between the people who use left hands and people being gay. NOT CORRELATION OF ANY SORTS !Don't think I am saying something totally silly like left handed people are gay, or gay people are left handed ::)I am saying that genes can affect us in ways we dont understand.Any thought ? Anyone know of any proof in this area ?
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 2. Yes, I believe it is true. The blokes develope the extras. Although I was never taught this, perhaps I'll start a thread on how crap the education system in England can be !3. I said that it was in the genes, IMO, but not genetically inherited. The genes in a child are not the same as the ones in the parents. Not exactly, otherwise, my son would not be left handed (something else I think is "in the genes"). Actually, this brings me on to a point I was wondering about that has some relevance.I am speaking as someone who has only thought about this, not read any medical material or anything, but isnt the dominant hand chosen genetically. Or do we belive it is a choice made, a phycological effect, as it were ? Personally, I see similarity between the people who use left hands and people being gay. NOT CORRELATION OF ANY SORTS !Don't think I am saying something totally silly like left handed people are gay, or gay people are left handed
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 21, 2004 Posted June 21, 2004 Personally, I see similarity between the people who use left hands and people being gay. Well as i explained above, the use of whatever hand you chose to use is genetic BUT it also has a part in your fetal development.... the "line" or "groove" that forms on either side of your brain determines what hand you will be able to use and this is developed while in the womb.Now your hormone levels and sexual development are also determined in the womb as well.However there can be no error with "handedness" because whether the groove develops on the left or right side of your brain doesnt matter.However there can be an error in the womb with sexual development.
nemafakei Posted June 22, 2004 Posted June 22, 2004 It think it's accurate to say that both times Gunwounds quoted me, the replies showed that my words had not been understood. I can't, frankly, be bothered to waste time repeating myself; I've already sent one IM to clarify.On scientific matters... Wolfwiz "In order for it to be genetic, or inherited through heredity, heterosexual intercourse that produces a child is necessary."Some genes are passed on not through those for whom the phenotype is expressed, but through their relatives. There are suggestions that mitochondrial DNA has something to do with homosexuality - the maternal family of homosexuals often have others. The gene persists in the family and within society at large becauseof possible benefits to that society as mentioned in my above situation.A similar example is colourblindess. I am colourblind - the faulty gene resides on my X-chromosome, and the Y-chromosome has no backup. Assuming I have a wife with good vision, any daughters I have will be carriers, but not colourblind themselves (they get my faulty X), and any sons will be free of it, since I give them my Y-chromosome. Note also that I have two relatives on my mother's side with colourblindness.Now, although it restricts my breeding potential, it doesn't restrict that of any sisters I have (50% of whom are carriers).There are also suggestions that certain mDNA in mothers that make their daughters more likely to be mates have a side-effect on their sons - they are predisposed to be homosexual. The former ensures the gene's survival, (mDNA is passed on through females only anyway).
Dante Posted June 22, 2004 Posted June 22, 2004 Well since you contradicted yourself i will take that as a yes.Show me the contradiction.... Dan and dustscout are the ones claiming that you must be "gay" to be
Wolf Posted June 22, 2004 Posted June 22, 2004 Yes, Nema, that, too, is true. But, your daughters acquired the gene through a heterosexual act; their conception after intercourse. Color-blindness, I do not think, really restricts your ability to conceive children. Homosexuality doesn't necessarily do this, either, but it makes heterosexual intercourse and, thus, the conception of children more unlikely. This is, assuming, that homosexuality is clearly genetic. And, while only half your children will be affected, in order for them to even be carriers, they must first be conceived -- through heterosexual intercourse. Therefore, homosexuality is a barrier to this.
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 23, 2004 Posted June 23, 2004 wow look at dustscout .. he can post "nuh-uh" responses and he can quote Politically Correct Rhetoric from government subsidised associations.... i wouldnt have expected the APA to say anything different from what they said.. and they are ambiguous as hell on their main website.. basically their main statement was .... "There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. "wow basically the APA is saying that kids are molded at a young age by their environment.... wow... no shit sherlock... tell me something i dont know. That doesnt contradict the trauma theory or the voluntary decision claim at all. It is so ambiguous it doesnt go against anythingwow thanks for contributing such meaningless crap to the debate.also where the APA says above that the decision is not voluntary..... if they are referring to "trauma" then i agree with them trauma isnt voluntary... but if they are saying it isnt voluntary in all cases then that is bullshit because there are gay men who exist who chose that lifestyle. And they probably didnt mention it because they are being PC to cover their asses.... when you get federal funds you have to be PC. Thus their overall credibility is degraded.
GUNWOUNDS Posted June 23, 2004 Posted June 23, 2004 Yes, Nema, that, too, is true. But, your daughters acquired the gene through a heterosexual act; their conception after intercourse. Color-blindness, I do not think, really restricts your ability to conceive children. Homosexuality doesn't necessarily do this, either, but it makes heterosexual intercourse and, thus, the conception of children more unlikely. This is, assuming, that homosexuality is clearly genetic. And, while only half your children will be affected, in order for them to even be carriers, they must first be conceived -- through heterosexual intercourse. Therefore, homosexuality is a barrier to this.But the problem with your theory wolfwiz is that "bisexuals" exist
Dante Posted June 23, 2004 Posted June 23, 2004 "If you can't logically deny it, throw insults at it in the hope that it will go away."You live your life by this motto, don't you Gunwounds?
Recommended Posts