Is it OK to mock ideas and idealogies?

[vanesch]

now it not only takes the views of the people into account, thus is democratic but it covers and extremely small group and one that is likely not going to be added to in the near future

1)sexuality
5) age

Uh !
So pedophily IS, after all, protected now

 

[russ_watters]

Are you honestly saying that our system has a written constitution because your sorely mistaken if you believe that...

Sorry, I misread that one link. The only thing it appears they have is the convention on human rights. That is not a constitution, but they are working on one. So you may get one.

Every country has a constitution: the difference is ours isn't cast in stone or in writing, and therefore doesn't suffer from the inevitable obselence of outmoded laws.

Oh, ok, you don't like writing. Well how about one written in pencil so it can be changed? Ya know - like ours!

No but I might ammend it. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

If you don't say what you mean, I have to interpret. I asked a direct question on how you would amend it and you responded that we shouldn't have a written Constitution. You didn't say you would amend it - now you have. So how about answering the question?

 

[whatta]

Right ok if a government decides for the good of the nation...

errr, back then in 193x, the nazi government has decided that reparation payments and other imposed limitations were not for the good of the nation, and I think you know where does this story ends. important bit is that all nazi actions were government decisions supported and implemented by majority.

for another example, I was born in ussr where millions of people were "fine" with the system which is now condemned with various henocides and crimes. again, it was not stalin, not beria, not a hundred of military police officers, but majority people, who supported and implemented decisions of government.

This becomes the norm in many countries

This was ALWAYS a norm, in all countries: one rules as long as he keeps majority happy.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm interested in more on this:

I pointed out the problems with written constitutions ages ago, but obviously you never read it. That's why your one of the few countries that has one, because they're stupid, when written sensible, now your hog tied by it.

Would you say that "few" countries in europe have them? Can you give some examples?

 

[vanesch]

1)sexuality
2)race
3)creed
4)sex
5)age

Well, concerning discrimination, I'm almost with it. I would prefer to limit the list to those things that are naturally unalterable, which are race, sex and age. After all, your sexual practices are a choice, and your religion is your choice. I'm explicitly NOT willing to accept complete non-discrimination on the basis of those choices. These are personal choices, like growing a beard, washing one-self or not, putting on clothes or not, having sex with (consenting) animals or not etc... Depending on the matter, I could imagine it makes a difference in certain cases.

Moreover, for *some* aspects of life, it will be hard not to make distinctions based upon age and sex. I could go to the women's rest room for that matter, and if some ladies protest, I could say that I'm executing my right of sex-non-discrimination
Also, I don't see how for certain things, one cannot make any distinction on the basis of age (such as adulthood!).

This leaves us with the one single aspect, which is genetic origin. I can live with that. I don't think one should discriminate between people because of their genetic material.

 

[marlon]

But you didn't get my arguments then. The specific contents of the holocaust ban are of course of almost no consequence (positive or negative) as it is a law that forbids you to deny a fact. The law that forbids you to say that the number pi is anything else but 3.1415... would be of the same kind and would have no positive or negative effect BY ITSELF.

If that were true then you should NOT have started your first post by saying "this law does more harm than good to our society". Bad formulation, so it seems.

What I'm objecting to, is that for such a non-sense law to have been put in place, we've BROKEN THE MOST PRECIOUS THING WE HAD.

Untrue, freedom of speach is not broken because this law does not just say "you cannot say this or that". Again, you always talk about freedom of speach but NEVER about the associated responsability that automatically comes with it.

I can of course not give you any example of a bad consequence of the contents of the law, as it is essentially content-less.

Yeah, the law is contentless, yeah...

I gave examples of other situations where the SIMILAR BREAKING OF OUR PRECIOUS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION by law WAS harmful (at least in my opinion).

Harmful in what way ? GIVE ME EXAMPLES ! The only thing you say is "freedom of speach is broken and that is harmful". This is nothing but hollow mumbo jumbo.

Well I look at the country I live in (France - which is historically a source of ideals of freedom), and I'm horrified by certain things that happen here.

Nono, you can excercise freedom of speach in France, Belgium, etc etc...You really cannot complain about that. You say you are horrified by certain things that happen in France ? If you are talking about the colonisation stuff, i would say : what is the problem. It was discussed and rejected. So what ? But that is a luxury problem, what other horrible things are there happening in France except the fact that Royal could become president.

No, the holocaust law forbids you to deny the scale on which things happened. THIS is what the holocaust denial law says. It is because at a certain moment in time, people had difficulties believing the scale of the massacre, and conspiracy theories were abound, and indeed, linked with the general anti-semitic feeling which was pan-European at that time.

No not only that. It forbids you to publically deny whatever holocaust-aspect that is historically proven.

Again, I'm not talking about laws that forbid to call for racial/ethnic hate. As I said, calls for illegal and violent action are not an expression of opinion, but an organization of a crime. I have nothing against laws that forbid you to explicitly call for violent action. I have something against laws that forbid you to state your opinion, no matter how lowly and disgusting it might be.

And what if someone says "we should kill these people for this reason". If this person has that opinion, what are you going to do. You cannot decide what is an opinion and what is NOT and that is exactly what you are doing.

Holocaust denial IS an opinion but it is not banned just because it is violating a fact, you know...

If LYING for political gain is not allowed, 80% of all politicians should go to jail!

That is not what is was saying. I was talking about the connection between political gain and holocaust denial.

And, BTW, that would mean that I can deny the holocaust numbers as long as I'm not running for political office, which is not true.

No, i just gave one example, AS I CLEARLY STATED !

There is a HUGE difference. PF is a privately owned discussion board, and the owners have the right to decide what can and what cannot be discussed. You don't go to jail for a crackpot post on PF.

You are missing the point. Do you really think i did not know the difference between a privately owned forum and an entire society. C'mon, cut me some slack here. I am not a retard. What i meant to say is this : in a society there are rules. You cannot just say anything at anytime anywhere. Rules, as approved by the majority, need to be respected at all time (such as the holocaust denial ban).

I'm only pointing out that this is a stupid law. It is not because it is a law, that I cannot find it stupid (as for now... for as long as I still can).

And i am pointing out to you that you have no arguments as to why you find this law stupid.

And YES you can find it stupid, thanks to our precious freedom of speach WHICH STILL EXISTS eventhough we have broke it

One is NOT allowed to say publicly politically-not-correct ideas. I'm NOT allowed publicly, to say: "I really don't like to live in the neighbourhood of <insert favorite minority here>. I would like to send my kids to a school where no <insert favorite minority here> are present, and I'm willing to pay quite a lot of money for that" for instance. Nevertheless, I know quite some people who think exactly that, who act accordingly and all that. It is not "hate speech", it doesn't call for any violence, and it is a pure expression of opinion.

As I said, I think people are responsible for what they say. But *a priori* they should have the right to say it. If somebody is convinced that he/she suffers harm because of it, that person can still go to court. Like any other "freedom": you are free to drive your car on the road, but if you hurt someone, then that is your responsibility.
You CAN drive over the crossing. Only, you have to make sure that you don't hurt anyone in doing so, and bear the responsibility. But you don't go *a priori* to jail for driving over the crossing.

Yes, many people think like that (INCLUDING ME). They have every right to do so. I know that it is not popular to say stuff like that. With that point i also agree very much. Far to easily, one is considered to be a "right wing *******". This is indeed a manifestation of this stupid "i want to be politically correct"-attitude of left wing people. But, this has NOTHING to do with the ban on holocaust denial.

marlon

 

[whatta]

GIVE ME EXAMPLES ! The only thing you say is "freedom of speach is broken and that is harmful". This is nothing but hollow mumbo jumbo.

are you serious? how about examples of killing people being harmful? all they say "the man is killed and that is harmful", you know. define "harmful", may be? I say, whenever somebody creates an obstacle for me to meet my goal, he is causing harm. then, forbidding me to speak when I am willing to is harful by definition.

 

[marlon]

are you serious? how about examples of killing people being harmful? all they say "the man is killed and that is harmful", you know. define "harmful", may be? I say, whenever somebody creates an obstacle for me to meet my goal, he is causing harm. then, forbidding me to speak when I am willing to is harful by definition.

Well, it is not me who used this terminology and it is me who is asking for clarification.

marlon

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Well, concerning discrimination, I'm almost with it. I would prefer to limit the list to those things that are naturally unalterable, which are race, sex and age. After all, your sexual practices are a choice, and your religion is your choice. I'm explicitly NOT willing to accept complete non-discrimination on the basis of those choices. These are personal choices, like growing a beard, washing one-self or not, putting on clothes or not, having sex with (consenting) animals or not etc... Depending on the matter, I could imagine it makes a difference in certain cases.

Moreover, for *some* aspects of life, it will be hard not to make distinctions based upon age and sex. I could go to the women's rest room for that matter, and if some ladies protest, I could say that I'm executing my right of sex-non-discrimination
Also, I don't see how for certain things, one cannot make any distinction on the basis of age (such as adulthood!).

This leaves us with the one single aspect, which is genetic origin. I can live with that. I don't think one should discriminate between people because of their genetic material.

Well obviously you already have sexual discrimination laws you can't discriminate against a woman on the basis of sex nor persecute nor encourage hatred towards women, and laws against discrimination against race, sexuality is very European and I wouldn't expect the US to be tolerant enough to accept that, too many fundies running round spouting their vaccuous nonsense. I'm sure it'd never get through congress.

Creed is basically IMO a given by your constitution anyway, kind of your allowed freedom of religion or indeed from it, so this wouldn't take much, I don't personally have a problem with saying you can't bar someone from a job because they were Mormon, because their beliefs have absolutely no bearing on whether they can do the job, discrimination against religion is fine, provided it's not hateful. or liable to inspire hate you can say what you like, Jesus is gay, the Popes a x etc, it's just when you start saying things like Catholics are bad people, Muslims are human garbage etc, that you cross a line, and since most people in america are religious anyway, it's probably tacitly this way without the need for a law, although I supose there is discrimination between religious groups in particular, fundies don't seem to like Mormons much and Catholics are sort of mistrusted by protestants and so on and so forth.

As for age this is a new one, and it's probably impossible to enforce unless someone is blatantly discriminatory and tells you to your face who you are going to hire based on his age or something like that, which is pretty unlikely, but it does ensure that employers are accountable and that you can't walk into the town square and start saying euthanise the old, etc. Strange one this.

If you don't say what you mean, I have to interpret. I asked a direct question on how you would amend it and you responded that we shouldn't have a written Constitution. You didn't say you would amend it - now you have. So how about answering the question?

I already did, since you have a written constituion I would ammend it.

 

[vanesch]

If that were true then you should NOT have started your first post by saying "this law does more harm than good to our society". Bad formulation, so it seems.

Untrue, freedom of speach is not broken because this law does not just say "you cannot say this or that".

This is nevertheless exactly what the law states. If tomorrow I write a book (hypothetical! Really! I'm just giving an example in an argument, your Honor! Please don't put me in jail for that!) in which I try to explain that I'm convinced that the holocaust actually concerns the execution of 50000 Jews, and that all the rest is propaganda invented by the Americans and British at the end of WWII to vilify Adolf Hitler a bit more and to justify their military intervention in continental Europe with all the losses it entailed towards their public opinion (a bit like the "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq), then *I go to court for just that*. Even if my book is NOT about Nazism, NOT about anything anti-semitic, but just about a conspiracy theory concerning the allied forces in WWII.

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

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

Again, you always talk about freedom of speach but NEVER about the associated responsability that automatically comes with it.

I don't stop repeating that...

Harmful in what way ? GIVE ME EXAMPLES ! The only thing you say is "freedom of speach is broken and that is harmful". This is nothing but hollow mumbo jumbo.

Now, THAT's a great argument. You won
OF COURSE it is a limitation of the free expression of one's opinion. EVEN without any hate speech.

Nono, you can excercise freedom of speach in France, Belgium, etc etc...You really cannot complain about that. You say you are horrified by certain things that happen in France ?

The fact that a satiric journal goes to court for a few drawings I think should be compulsory in middle school !

except the fact that Royal could become president.

God beware

No not only that. It forbids you to publically deny whatever holocaust-aspect that is historically proven.

It is difficult to *prove* historic facts, if you are a believer in a conspiracy. There is no difference between the fact of the holocaust, and other facts, such as biological evolution, the age of the Earth etc, which are ALSO disputed for ideologic/political reasons... nevertheless, this single fact has been singled out to be *enforced by law*. The Bible should be forbidden because it is full of factual errors, and because it has been the basis for a lot of violence, then, too. And other erroneous bases for organized religions.

And what if someone says "we should kill these people for this reason". If this person has that opinion, what are you going to do. You cannot decide what is an opinion and what is NOT and that is exactly what you are doing.

I don't think this expression of opinion should be forbidden, but it is borderline, and if someone thinks he suffers potential damage for it, he can go to court.

I'm of the opinion that for ecological reasons, we should exterminate 90% of the Earth's population (I belong to the 10% survivors of course). Now there. Maybe this is the ONLY WAY to save humankind, and the idea has been banned by law. So humankind is doomed because of a stupid law

You cannot just say anything at anytime anywhere. Rules, as approved by the majority, need to be respected at all time (such as the holocaust denial ban).

In the "good ol' days", the rules, as approved by the majority, required the Jews to have a big yellow star on their coat.

And YES you can find it stupid, thanks to our precious freedom of speach WHICH STILL EXISTS eventhough we have broke it

For how long ?

Yes, many people think like that (INCLUDING ME). They have every right to do so. I know that it is not popular to say stuff like that. With that point i also agree very much.

Just try to put up a note in the local newspaper: "looking for a nice apartment near town center, not more than 250.000 Euro, no <insert favorite minority here> in the building and nearby, near school where almost no <insert favorite minority here> go, contact marlon by private message on PF".

I don't know in Belgium, but in France, you go to court for that (probably the newspaper wouldn't even accept).

 

[vanesch]

As for age this is a new one, and it's probably impossible to enforce unless someone is blatantly discriminatory and tells you to your face who you are going to hire based on his age or something like that, which is pretty unlikely, but it does ensure that employers are accountable and that you can't walk into the town square and start saying euthanise the old, etc. Strange one this.

Well, for most state functions in several European countries, there is already an *age discrimination*. For most state jobs, you have to apply before you reach the age of 48 or 35 years old, in France. For several schools, there's an upper age limit (25 for Polytechnic, if I remember well). For certain bank accounts, you have to be below 25 year old.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I'm interested in more on this: Would you say that "few" countries in europe have them? Can you give some examples?

France, Germany, Belgium there's a few more than I thought actually.

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

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

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

Looking at them briefly most of them seem to be pretty basic.

 

[Gokul43201]

I am asking you to clarify your point and i am explaining why i disagree. I would say that is a pretty basic approach, no ?

Yes, it is a pretty basic approach. You should consider using it.

Your argument is that the holocaust denial ban makes for a smoother functioning of society. That is the same argument used by Turkey in their Armenian massacre acknowledgment ban!

 

[marlon]

Yes, it is a pretty basic approach. You should consider using it.

No, YOU should consider using it since YOU are the one who refuses to explain his point. Regurgitating general remarks is not very convincing, you know.

Your argument is that the holocaust denial ban makes for a smoother functioning of society. That is the same argument used by Turkey in their Armenian massacre acknowledgment ban!

But the ban you quote contradicts with history. I would say that is a pretty big difference !

marlon

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Well, concerning discrimination, I'm almost with it. I would prefer to limit the list to those things that are naturally unalterable, which are race, sex and age. After all, your sexual practices are a choice, and your religion is your choice. I'm explicitly NOT willing to accept complete non-discrimination on the basis of those choices. These are personal choices, like growing a beard, washing one-self or not, putting on clothes or not, having sex with (consenting) animals or not etc... Depending on the matter, I could imagine it makes a difference in certain cases.

Moreover, for *some* aspects of life, it will be hard not to make distinctions based upon age and sex. I could go to the women's rest room for that matter, and if some ladies protest, I could say that I'm executing my right of sex-non-discrimination
Also, I don't see how for certain things, one cannot make any distinction on the basis of age (such as adulthood!).

This leaves us with the one single aspect, which is genetic origin. I can live with that. I don't think one should discriminate between people because of their genetic material.

Sexuality is at least by science coming to be more considered to be a trait more like left handedness than a choice although the court is still out, but there is no proof that it is pure choice and the more boys you have the more chance one will be gay regardless of whether they grew up in the same environment or not, tends to suggest against evolutionary reason that it's a trait, although that said a tentative study in Italy has shown that women with gay siblings tend to have more children, so there's at least some tentative evidence that it may in fact be of benefit to the gene pool in some unkown ways, and why it is so prevalent amongst higher order mammals and flies? I'll provide links by request if you like.Did you know one in ten rams are gay so much for their macho image.

This is why it's no longer illegal in Europe, and why it's no longer classified as a mental illness or disorder by both the BMA and AMA. So technically speaking at least for homosexuality you'd have to include sexuality too, did you know that bisexuality in women is far more common than in men, any explanations as to why? I can think of one, women just look a lot better than men, but I'm biased

 

[whatta]

Did you know one in ten rams are gay

One can speculate that's a side-effect of long-term cultivation without natural selection. We were always only interested in their wool and meat, so nothing was done to prosecute irrelevant genes. Nature is not so merciful. Or, do you have any examples of gay animals that actually rised own/relative offspring?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

One can speculate that's a side-effect of long-term cultivation without natural selection. We were always only interested in their wool and meat, so nothing was done to prosecute irrelevant genes. Nature is not so merciful. Or, do you have any examples of gay animals that actually rised own/relative offspring?

I think you'll find it existed long before humans started herding animals, the fact is logically speaking homosexuality should not survive in the gene pool of any animal, after all what benefit is their in limitting your offspring to 0? So why does it exist?

 

[whatta]

because other genes, irrelevant to sexuality, but relevant to survival, are bearing that garbage on their back.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

because other genes, irrelevant to sexuality, but relevant to survival, are bearing that garbage on their back.

No evidence of that? In fact I can show evidence of positive benefits to birth numbers of homosexuality in the gene pool, any more suggestions? Apart from the usual it's like sickle cell one, which doesn't pan out. What about the fact that when rats are over populated they resort to two types of behaviour, 1 is canabalism the other homosexuality, how would this benefit do you think? Define garbage?

 

[whatta]

that's because gay males leave females to better ones.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

that's because gay males leave females to better ones.

Nope, it's because female with gay siblings have more young, so the represented xx chromosomal benficial nature may well be what makes the difference as this in xy may mean homosexuality but in xx may mean incresed fertility, thus I ask again define garbage? This is only tentative research at the moment based on one study, but it's clear their is some sort of pattern in male offspring, as you have more boys, the likelihood of them being gay starts to rise dramatically? Why? Why would this benefit the gene pool? Remember any trait that inhibits the birth of young, dies out quickly so you have an enigma here?

 

[whatta]

nope it's just shows how broken our genetic system is. more people is born, more failures it produces.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

nope it's just shows how broken our genetic system is. more people is born, more failures it produces.

No evidence of this, I suppose I'll have to put the links up.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn9413-male-sexuality-may-be-decided-in-the-womb.html

If you are male, having more older brothers makes it more likely you will be gay - and a new study suggests the basis of this is biological rather than environmental. The crucial factor influencing the likelihood of male homosexuality may be how many brothers were born before you to the same mother, not how many brothers you were brought up with.

The “fraternal birth order effect” - the finding that each additional older brother increases your chances of being homosexual by about 30% - has long been dogged by the suggestion that social factors rather than biological ones underpin it (see The big brother effect).

Some proposed that perhaps rough-and-tumble play between brothers, or even sexual abuse, may have led the impressionable younger boys to become gay.

Now Anthony Bogaert at Brock University in St Catharines, Canada, has largely ruled that out. He examined four population samples of homosexual and heterosexual men - 944 men in total.

The fourth sample included gay men who had grown up with non-biological male siblings. Bogaert reasoned that if simply being raised around a lot of older brothers had produced the effect, it should not matter whether they were born to the same mother or not.

In fact, it did matter: only the number of biological older brothers predicted sexual orientation in men, Bogaert found. This was true even when the biological older brothers lived separately. “It’s pretty strong in suggesting a prenatal origin,” he says.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel...omplexity-of-sex.html;jsessionid=EOLMIBEEBBAB

BACK in 1993, when Dean Hamer discovered what appeared to be a gene that predisposed men to homosexuality, he created a paradox. According to Darwinian thinking, if homosexual men have fewer children than straight men the "gay gene" should quickly disappear from the population. Yet we know that homosexuality persists.

So what is the mechanism that keeps the gene in circulation? Perhaps gay men are good at looking after their straight brothers, who share a proportion of their genes. That way, the gay gene may be passed on by the brothers of gay men, even if they themselves have no children. Unfortunately for this idea, studies so far have found that gay men do not help out their brothers financially or emotionally any more than straight men do.

Another idea espoused by Hamer and others is that a gene which predisposes men to homosexuality might also increase a woman's chances of having more children. In this way, the reduced likelihood of gay men passing on the gene would be more than compensated for by women carrying the same gene. This is precisely what a group of researchers from Italy have found. The mothers and maternal aunts of gay men had more children than those of straight men (see "Gay genetics"). And this difference does not appear in the father's family.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6519-survival-of-genetic-homosexual-traits-explained.html

Survival of genetic homosexual traits explained

Italian geneticists may have explained how genes apparently linked to male homosexuality survive, despite gay men seldom having children. Their findings also undermine the theory of a single “gay gene”.

The researchers discovered that women tend to have more children when they inherit the same - as yet unidentified - genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men. This fertility boost more than compensates for the lack of offspring fathered by gay men, and keeps the “gay” genetic factors in circulation.

The findings represent the best explanation yet for the Darwinian paradox presented by homosexuality: it is a genetic dead-end, yet the trait persists generation after generation.

“We have finally solved this paradox,” says Andrea Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padua. “The same factor that influences sexual orientation in males promotes higher fecundity in females.”
Relative differences

Camperio-Ciani's team questioned 98 gay and 100 straight men about their closest relatives - 4600 people in total. They found that female relatives of gay men had more children on average than the female relatives of straight men. But the effect was only seen on their mother’s side of the family.

Mothers of gay men produced an average of 2.7 babies compared with 2.3 born to mothers of straight men. And maternal aunts of gay men had 2.0 babies compared with 1.5 born to the maternal aunts of straight men.

“This is a novel finding," says Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist and commentator on sexuality at Stanford University in California. “We think of it as genes for ‘male homosexuality’, but it might really be genes for sexual attraction to men. These could predispose men towards homosexuality and women towards ‘hyper-heterosexuality’, causing women to have more sex with men and thus have more offspring.”

Camperio-Ciani stresses that whatever the genetic factors are, there is no single gene accounting for his observations. And the tendency of the trait to be passed through the female line backs previous research suggesting that some of the factors involved are on the male “X” chromosome, the only sex chromosome passed down by women. “It’s a combination of something on the X chromosome with other genetic factors on the non-sex chromosomes,” he says.
Immune system

Helen Wallace, of the UK lobby group GeneWatch, welcomes the new research that moves away from the controversial single-gene theory for homosexuality. “But it’s worth noting that the data on the sexuality of family members may be unreliable, so more studies are likely to be needed to confirm these findings,” she says.

Even if the maternal factors identified by Camperio-Ciani’s team are linked with male homosexuality, the research team’s calculations suggest they account for only about 14% of the incidence.

Their findings also support earlier findings that when mothers have several sons, the younger ones are progressively more likely to be gay. This might be due to effects changes to the mother’s immune system with each son they carry.

But Camperio-Ciani calculates the contribution of this effect to male homosexuality at 7% at most. So together, he says, the “maternal” and “immune” effects only account for 21% of male homosexuality, leaving 79% of the causation still a mystery.

This leaves a major role for environmental factors, or perhaps more genetic factors. “Genes must develop in an environment, so if the environment changes, genes go in a new direction,” he says. “Our findings are only one piece in a much larger puzzle on the nature of human sexuality.”

 

[whatta]

No evidence of this

what you mean no evidence, it's in your post: "as you have more boys, the likelihood of them being gay starts to rise dramatically"

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

what you mean no evidence, it's in your post: "as you have more boys, the likelihood of them being gay starts to rise dramatically"

But this means if you have more gay boys than straight boys the gene pool suffers, if that is the only reason, what on Earth is the benefit of having gay siblings at all? It's a genetic dead end, more gay boys, less offspring? There must by Darwinian law be some benefit,or like ginger haried people no disadvantage and perhaps some small advantage in cooler climates. What is the mechanism that keeps something so detrimental in the gene pool? And don't say it's broken because it would die out if that was the only reason? You're going round in circles here. What do you mean by garbage?

 

[whatta]

so I said: mere failures of our genetic system. since it apparently was not created by god, it's not perfect.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

so I said: mere failures of our genetic system. since it apparently was not created by god, it's not perfect.

I'm thinking you don't understand evolution to well so here's a basic tennant, any characteristic that is detremental to the gene pool will by natural selection be removed, especially terminal ones or ones that lead to fewer offspring. Thus only traits that benefit a system should be introduced into further generations, with detrimental factors only remaining existent if they have some unkown benefit that mitigate the disadvantage, usually this is localised, but not always.

So placing the research above into the context of this what can you surmise about your views of homosexulaity meaning the gene pool is carrying garbage? Define garbage?

 

[whatta]

Define garbage?

Under system you are advocating in this thread, I would be probably shot for doing so :)

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Under system you are advocating in this thread, I would be probably shot for doing so :)

No not at all, you have a right to say anything you like about homosexuals, I take the piss and I have bisexual and homosexual friends, I've been known to say yeah but your gay so your opinion doesn't count or I remember saying when I was a teenager to a friend it's not fair x is gay and he's gotten more action with the ladies than I have, or that gays are just wrong in jest or whatever, just as long as it's not liable to lead to hate crimes or violence against them, although you do need to understand that it's not a choice any more than what hand you favour to write with, if you believe that you might as well believe the BS Fred Phelps spouts out his hate filled mouth, and go live in a cave with all his fundie friends. God put homosexuality in the gene pool to test fundies in the smae way as he did dinosaurs in teh ground, no your just a sanctimonious hypocrite now shut up your making yourself look more and more stupid.

It's probably a complex mix of genes birth conditions and nurture, but to lable it as a choice is not only naive, it's kind of nonsensicle. Especially considering how prevalent it is in animal and human gene pools, bisexuality now maybe that is a choice? Who knows? But then it's relatively rare in men, and relatively more common in women? Why do you think that is, genetic or social reasons?

 

[radou]

I remember saying when I was a teenager to a friend it's not fair x is gay and he's gotten more action with the ladies than I have