There is no "gay gene" just as much as there is no "black gene" or "smart gene". Genetics is a complicated field where several small changes within the human genome can result in absolutely no difference, or a disastrous mutation.
Also, if it's impossible to base something's occurrence on biology because of a lack of genetic information, then the entire biology field is null and void. You're using very juvenile logic of you need to understand everything about a system to understand a small part of it. A child can learn basic addition without knowing calculus; a scientist can determine the extent of biological or environmental correlation without understanding the genetics. A very simple one would be identical twins. Identical twins are more likely than fraternal twins to share the same sexuality, who in turn are more likely than related siblings to share the same sexuality. Even when raised in separate environments, identical twins share their sexuality just as frequently than if they were raised together. The evidence to support a strong biological influence has been coming out steadily for a while now.
And using your logic, more individuals would have been homosexual in ancient times, as consensual homosexual relationships were not only common, but encouraged among males for the sake of developing "brotherhood". However, history shows that humanity not only survived through the ancient era, but didn't even have a decrease in population attributable to a lack of mating.
In addition, males will get an erection from having their prostate massaged. It's an organ that is not reachable except by sticking something into a male's anus. Using your logic, all males who receive a prostate exam are at risk of "contracting" homosexuality. Using your logic, people who masturbate extensively will become homosexual because they achieve pleasure through somebody of their own gender. The environment has routinely been proven to have little correlation with instances of homosexuality. You assume it does though, and fail to bring up proof to defend it. No matter how weak my evidence is, it's stronger than your base-less assumptions.
Homosexual relationships are documented in animal species. Look it up. There are animals that go their whole lives without mating with the other gender, and instead have a steady partner with another animal of the same gender.
Also, if it's impossible to base something's occurrence on biology because of a lack of genetic information, then the entire biology field is null and void. You're using very juvenile logic of you need to understand everything about a system to understand a small part of it. A child can learn basic addition without knowing calculus; a scientist can determine the extent of biological or environmental correlation without understanding the genetics. A very simple one would be identical twins. Identical twins are more likely than fraternal twins to share the same sexuality, who in turn are more likely than related siblings to share the same sexuality. Even when raised in separate environments, identical twins share their sexuality just as frequently than if they were raised together. The evidence to support a strong biological influence has been coming out steadily for a while now.
And using your logic, more individuals would have been homosexual in ancient times, as consensual homosexual relationships were not only common, but encouraged among males for the sake of developing "brotherhood". However, history shows that humanity not only survived through the ancient era, but didn't even have a decrease in population attributable to a lack of mating.
In addition, males will get an erection from having their prostate massaged. It's an organ that is not reachable except by sticking something into a male's anus. Using your logic, all males who receive a prostate exam are at risk of "contracting" homosexuality. Using your logic, people who masturbate extensively will become homosexual because they achieve pleasure through somebody of their own gender. The environment has routinely been proven to have little correlation with instances of homosexuality. You assume it does though, and fail to bring up proof to defend it. No matter how weak my evidence is, it's stronger than your base-less assumptions.
Homosexual relationships are documented in animal species. Look it up. There are animals that go their whole lives without mating with the other gender, and instead have a steady partner with another animal of the same gender.
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Originally Posted by Wolfe
You know, it's funny what pops up when you actually try to google stuff...
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
1,500 species. Enough examples yet?
Would those species last long if they practiced homosexuality regularly? To reproduce, you need a sperm and an egg. Not a sperm and another sperm. If homosexuality was a regular thing, the population would rapidly decrease.
Originally Posted by Oracle
Ever thought that maybe existence of matter didn't suddenly come out of nowhere, and that it was there all along? You assume that there is nothing first, which is the first fundamental flaw of religious logic. It assumed there was nothing, so therefore something had to create something. But if matter is a constant, then the need for something to create matter is non-existent.
So to say that god created everything, you would first have to prove that there was indeed actually nothing at some point. And you would have to prove that it would be impossible otherwise for matter to have arisen from such an environment without the influence of a god. AND you would have to disprove the paradox of, if nothing existed, then a god should not exist either. AND you would then have to explain why a god would suddenly be created out of nothing before matter would (). Needless to say, your work is cut out for you.
You can't start an argument for religion and then use religion to prove your religion is right. That's circular logic at its worst. You have to be able to prove that your religion can be validated outside of it's own existence. Simply put, you can't say religion is right because religion says it's right.
Lets start with time. Time is infinite. In the past, and in the future. For something does not simply just exist and create life. But then again, it is not. Nothing would exist if history was infinite. But what could actually "start" time? Time cannot be produced, touched, seen or smelled. In theory, time is impossible. A god is impossible. Matter is impossible. If there were nothing to start with, would we have what we have now? Yet, it is not impossible; we are here, living, breathing. You said, quote, "quite frankly, the nothing-to-matter jump is a lot more plausible than the nothing-to-supernatural-being-to-matter jump." This is wrong. All religions state that their god has lived forever, infinitely. What makes more sense? Supernatural-being -to-supernatural-being+universe? Or nothing-at-all-to-the-universe? A supernatural being has infinite abilities, right? He/she might, say, create this illusion known as time? Did the big bang create time? For any mix of any kind of matter, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CREATE TIME. To have life, you must need time. Anything to add?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God
This same debate has continued since there were beings. Read up. Every statement is arguable and can be defeated, only for that one to be defeated by another. Thus the cycle continues.
Last edited by PVPPRO; May 29, 2013 at 10:06 AM.
"People should not be afraid of their governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people."
Governments should be afraid of their people."
Uhmm... I'm confused. What the heck are you guys talking about?
"they're like enormous pillows of disgusting girly meat" ~Orih 2016
My Replays
My Replays
