|
On July 28 2012 11:32 sinii wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 11:30 HTOMario wrote:On July 28 2012 11:29 sinii wrote:On July 28 2012 11:20 HTOMario wrote:
Now that I think on it more, here is how I feel. If being gay is defined by a gene. I would feel like we should work on correcting this in the future with science, just like diabetes. However until then they reserve the right to be happy as well. How many rights I would give them I would have to think on. If being gay was scientifically proven to be something we just believe we are. Frankly I would feel the person would need counseling. I am not pro gay, I am pro for people being happy but also improving themselves toward a definite perfection. I may be a dreamer in believing one day we might just create utopia instead of believing a god will send us there. Hahah funny paragraph right here. Being gay isn't a defect it's a part of evolution the same thing that made us what we are today. There's nothing wrong with it at all. I thought evolution was to help us survive? How does being gay help us reproduce? How do you know widespread reproduction by 100% of the population is pivotal to the survival of our species and not the recipe for extinction?
I am pretty positive that the more humans there are on earth the more chance we have of geniuses being born that can help us survive past the earth.
I am also pretty positive that a widespread non reproduction by 100% would be extinction
Not to mention the only species that are alive today ARE reproducing.
I believe you to be mocking my view and posts with a limited mind. You clearly didn't acknowledge my anti religion statement either. You're very adamant about trying to argue with the homosexual paragraph. This and you're counter posts to mine are to be fair simplistic and don't hold much merit.
|
On July 28 2012 11:36 HTOMario wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 11:32 sinii wrote:On July 28 2012 11:30 HTOMario wrote:On July 28 2012 11:29 sinii wrote:On July 28 2012 11:20 HTOMario wrote:
Now that I think on it more, here is how I feel. If being gay is defined by a gene. I would feel like we should work on correcting this in the future with science, just like diabetes. However until then they reserve the right to be happy as well. How many rights I would give them I would have to think on. If being gay was scientifically proven to be something we just believe we are. Frankly I would feel the person would need counseling. I am not pro gay, I am pro for people being happy but also improving themselves toward a definite perfection. I may be a dreamer in believing one day we might just create utopia instead of believing a god will send us there. Hahah funny paragraph right here. Being gay isn't a defect it's a part of evolution the same thing that made us what we are today. There's nothing wrong with it at all. I thought evolution was to help us survive? How does being gay help us reproduce? How do you know widespread reproduction by 100% of the population is pivotal to the survival of our species and not the recipe for extinction? I am pretty positive that the more humans there are on earth the more chance we have of geniuses being born that can help us survive past the earth. I am also pretty positive that a widespread non reproduction by 100% would be extinction Not to mention the only species that are alive today ARE reproducing. I believe you to be mocking my view and posts with a limited mind. You clearly didn't acknowledge my anti religion statement either. You're very adamant about trying to argue with the homosexual paragraph. This and you're counter posts to mine are to be fair simplistic and don't hold much merit.
My logic is fine, your the one with the 'limited mind'.
|
On July 28 2012 11:35 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 11:30 HTOMario wrote:On July 28 2012 11:29 sinii wrote:On July 28 2012 11:20 HTOMario wrote:
Now that I think on it more, here is how I feel. If being gay is defined by a gene. I would feel like we should work on correcting this in the future with science, just like diabetes. However until then they reserve the right to be happy as well. How many rights I would give them I would have to think on. If being gay was scientifically proven to be something we just believe we are. Frankly I would feel the person would need counseling. I am not pro gay, I am pro for people being happy but also improving themselves toward a definite perfection. I may be a dreamer in believing one day we might just create utopia instead of believing a god will send us there. Hahah funny paragraph right here. Being gay isn't a defect it's a part of evolution the same thing that made us what we are today. There's nothing wrong with it at all. I thought evolution was to help us survive? How does being gay help us reproduce? Having bad eye sight is not good for evolution either. Doesn't mean we should kill off or subjugate or oppress everyone who has poor eye sight. Evolution seeks to transmit the best traits to the next generation. This happens because the creatures with the bad traits do not survive as well as the creatures with the good traits and as such creatures with good traits reproduce more and the species is kept alive by bad traits going away and good traits flourishing. Being gay isn't a negative trait though. It doesn't effect an individuals chances of survival in the wild nearly as much as poor eye sight does. edit: And, because I think I missed my point, humans don't even live in the wild. Most of us live in what might as well be described as a controlled environment. Being gay or bad eye sight or brown hair isn't going to make us prey nor is it going to shorten our lives.
I don't recalling asking the world to off the head from anyone whom is gay or blind. I merely said that there are a lot of genetic deficiencies that I don't believe should be able to have the same rights as other humans. I never stated that being homosexual was one of these, just that being gay could be a deficiency as we don't know enough information about it to clearly say for or otherwise.
|
On July 28 2012 11:38 sinii wrote:
My logic is fine, your the one with the 'limited mind'.
I can't respond to you if you aren't contributing to the conversation. I stated my thoughts and explained as to why they were my thoughts, could you do the same without trying to just insult me? ^^
|
On July 28 2012 11:38 HTOMario wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 11:35 overt wrote:On July 28 2012 11:30 HTOMario wrote:On July 28 2012 11:29 sinii wrote:On July 28 2012 11:20 HTOMario wrote:
Now that I think on it more, here is how I feel. If being gay is defined by a gene. I would feel like we should work on correcting this in the future with science, just like diabetes. However until then they reserve the right to be happy as well. How many rights I would give them I would have to think on. If being gay was scientifically proven to be something we just believe we are. Frankly I would feel the person would need counseling. I am not pro gay, I am pro for people being happy but also improving themselves toward a definite perfection. I may be a dreamer in believing one day we might just create utopia instead of believing a god will send us there. Hahah funny paragraph right here. Being gay isn't a defect it's a part of evolution the same thing that made us what we are today. There's nothing wrong with it at all. I thought evolution was to help us survive? How does being gay help us reproduce? Having bad eye sight is not good for evolution either. Doesn't mean we should kill off or subjugate or oppress everyone who has poor eye sight. Evolution seeks to transmit the best traits to the next generation. This happens because the creatures with the bad traits do not survive as well as the creatures with the good traits and as such creatures with good traits reproduce more and the species is kept alive by bad traits going away and good traits flourishing. Being gay isn't a negative trait though. It doesn't effect an individuals chances of survival in the wild nearly as much as poor eye sight does. edit: And, because I think I missed my point, humans don't even live in the wild. Most of us live in what might as well be described as a controlled environment. Being gay or bad eye sight or brown hair isn't going to make us prey nor is it going to shorten our lives. I don't recalling asking the world to off the head from anyone whom is gay or blind. I merely said that there are a lot of genetic deficiencies that I don't believe should be able to have the same rights as other humans. I never stated that being homosexual was one of these, just that being gay could be a deficiency as we don't know enough information about it to clearly say for or otherwise.
Then your guess is merely a guess lol. I haven't seen any scientist offer sound proof as to how homosexuality occurs yet. As of yet, all we know is that homosexuality happens among anywhere from 500 to 1500 species. Ours being one of them. Until we know more there's no logical or scientific reason to deny homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals.
|
Ok how about this, we started as this:
and have ended up as this:
All through the process of natural selection, including your 'defect genes' playing a pivotal role in it all, I'm not about to question it's methods and neither should you.
|
On July 28 2012 11:40 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 11:38 HTOMario wrote:On July 28 2012 11:35 overt wrote:On July 28 2012 11:30 HTOMario wrote:On July 28 2012 11:29 sinii wrote:On July 28 2012 11:20 HTOMario wrote:
Now that I think on it more, here is how I feel. If being gay is defined by a gene. I would feel like we should work on correcting this in the future with science, just like diabetes. However until then they reserve the right to be happy as well. How many rights I would give them I would have to think on. If being gay was scientifically proven to be something we just believe we are. Frankly I would feel the person would need counseling. I am not pro gay, I am pro for people being happy but also improving themselves toward a definite perfection. I may be a dreamer in believing one day we might just create utopia instead of believing a god will send us there. Hahah funny paragraph right here. Being gay isn't a defect it's a part of evolution the same thing that made us what we are today. There's nothing wrong with it at all. I thought evolution was to help us survive? How does being gay help us reproduce? Having bad eye sight is not good for evolution either. Doesn't mean we should kill off or subjugate or oppress everyone who has poor eye sight. Evolution seeks to transmit the best traits to the next generation. This happens because the creatures with the bad traits do not survive as well as the creatures with the good traits and as such creatures with good traits reproduce more and the species is kept alive by bad traits going away and good traits flourishing. Being gay isn't a negative trait though. It doesn't effect an individuals chances of survival in the wild nearly as much as poor eye sight does. edit: And, because I think I missed my point, humans don't even live in the wild. Most of us live in what might as well be described as a controlled environment. Being gay or bad eye sight or brown hair isn't going to make us prey nor is it going to shorten our lives. I don't recalling asking the world to off the head from anyone whom is gay or blind. I merely said that there are a lot of genetic deficiencies that I don't believe should be able to have the same rights as other humans. I never stated that being homosexual was one of these, just that being gay could be a deficiency as we don't know enough information about it to clearly say for or otherwise. Then your guess is merely a guess lol. I haven't seen any scientist offer sound proof as to how homosexuality occurs yet. As of yet, all we know is that homosexuality happens among anywhere from 500 to 1500 species. Ours being one of them. Until we know more there's no logical or scientific reason to deny homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals.
Minority groups have always been targeted by the majority groups, being gay is no different. People are afraid of what they don't understand or what is different, until proven one way or another there will always be discrimination to some sorts. You still see racism to this day.
|
On July 28 2012 11:44 sinii wrote:
All through the process of natural selection, including your 'defect genes' playing a pivotal role in it all, I'm not about to question it's methods and neither should you.
Our local adepts of eugenics respectfully disagree!
|
[QUOTE]On July 28 2012 11:44 sinii wrote:
[QUOTE]On July 28 2012 11:39 HTOMario wrote:
[QUOTE]On July 28 2012 11:38 sinii wrote:
My logic is fine, your the one with the 'limited mind'.[/QUOTE]
Ok how about this, we started as this:
[img]http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/imgs/homo%20sapien%20male2.jpg&sa=X&ei=U1ETUM7LOeet0QW954HwAw&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNEOacUyZNhzy9e3RflgdL2TqcYIMw[/img]
and have ended up as this:
[img]http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://www.gosugamers.net/warcraft/images/people/flash_rolster_proleague2010.jpg&sa=X&ei=0lETUOa0Fu6r0AXUhoHIAg&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNGFH9X69tNy0YNlc3N6011Q4MMj9w[/img]
All through the process of natural selection, including your 'defect genes' playing a pivotal role in it all, I'm not about to question it's methods and neither should you.[/QUOTE]
There are people born without eye sights, hearing, limbs, comprehension every single day. People born with genetic defects that cause the inability to live. We try to fix those? We try to play god in these? We certainly have the technology to do it in a lot of areas this in my view is just another category being homosexual "can" reside in if not proven otherwise.
Do we give blind men drivers licences?
Do we endorse people cutting themselves because it feels right to them?
Do we endorse people running around naked in the streets because they feel they should have the same rights based on their believes and choices?
More food for thought.
|
On July 28 2012 11:36 HTOMario wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 11:32 sinii wrote:On July 28 2012 11:30 HTOMario wrote:On July 28 2012 11:29 sinii wrote:On July 28 2012 11:20 HTOMario wrote:
Now that I think on it more, here is how I feel. If being gay is defined by a gene. I would feel like we should work on correcting this in the future with science, just like diabetes. However until then they reserve the right to be happy as well. How many rights I would give them I would have to think on. If being gay was scientifically proven to be something we just believe we are. Frankly I would feel the person would need counseling. I am not pro gay, I am pro for people being happy but also improving themselves toward a definite perfection. I may be a dreamer in believing one day we might just create utopia instead of believing a god will send us there. Hahah funny paragraph right here. Being gay isn't a defect it's a part of evolution the same thing that made us what we are today. There's nothing wrong with it at all. I thought evolution was to help us survive? How does being gay help us reproduce? How do you know widespread reproduction by 100% of the population is pivotal to the survival of our species and not the recipe for extinction? I am pretty positive that the more humans there are on earth the more chance we have of geniuses being born that can help us survive past the earth. I am also pretty positive that a widespread non reproduction by 100% would be extinction Not to mention the only species that are alive today ARE reproducing. I believe you to be mocking my view and posts with a limited mind. You clearly didn't acknowledge my anti religion statement either. You're very adamant about trying to argue with the homosexual paragraph. This and you're counter posts to mine are to be fair simplistic and don't hold much merit.
What if there is no amount of genius that can solve the overpopulation problem? What if the only solution to keep our species, as a whole, surviving longer is less reproduction due to the limited resources of the planet? You can't be pretty positive about something so hopeful and lacking any basis of proof it will happen.
|
On July 28 2012 11:48 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 11:36 HTOMario wrote:On July 28 2012 11:32 sinii wrote:On July 28 2012 11:30 HTOMario wrote:On July 28 2012 11:29 sinii wrote:On July 28 2012 11:20 HTOMario wrote:
Now that I think on it more, here is how I feel. If being gay is defined by a gene. I would feel like we should work on correcting this in the future with science, just like diabetes. However until then they reserve the right to be happy as well. How many rights I would give them I would have to think on. If being gay was scientifically proven to be something we just believe we are. Frankly I would feel the person would need counseling. I am not pro gay, I am pro for people being happy but also improving themselves toward a definite perfection. I may be a dreamer in believing one day we might just create utopia instead of believing a god will send us there. Hahah funny paragraph right here. Being gay isn't a defect it's a part of evolution the same thing that made us what we are today. There's nothing wrong with it at all. I thought evolution was to help us survive? How does being gay help us reproduce? How do you know widespread reproduction by 100% of the population is pivotal to the survival of our species and not the recipe for extinction? I am pretty positive that the more humans there are on earth the more chance we have of geniuses being born that can help us survive past the earth. I am also pretty positive that a widespread non reproduction by 100% would be extinction Not to mention the only species that are alive today ARE reproducing. I believe you to be mocking my view and posts with a limited mind. You clearly didn't acknowledge my anti religion statement either. You're very adamant about trying to argue with the homosexual paragraph. This and you're counter posts to mine are to be fair simplistic and don't hold much merit. What if there is no amount of genius that can solve the overpopulation problem? What if the only solution to keep our species, as a whole, surviving longer is less reproduction due to the limited resources of the planet? You can't be pretty positive about something so hopeful and lacking any basis of proof it will happen.
If this turns out to be the case and we would die if we don't under populate. Don't we already have the tools for that?
Again, I'm not against gay's. I'm simply stating reasons as to why I don't fully agree with their side of the argument.
|
On July 28 2012 11:51 HTOMario wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 11:48 TwoToneTerran wrote:On July 28 2012 11:36 HTOMario wrote:On July 28 2012 11:32 sinii wrote:On July 28 2012 11:30 HTOMario wrote:On July 28 2012 11:29 sinii wrote:On July 28 2012 11:20 HTOMario wrote:
Now that I think on it more, here is how I feel. If being gay is defined by a gene. I would feel like we should work on correcting this in the future with science, just like diabetes. However until then they reserve the right to be happy as well. How many rights I would give them I would have to think on. If being gay was scientifically proven to be something we just believe we are. Frankly I would feel the person would need counseling. I am not pro gay, I am pro for people being happy but also improving themselves toward a definite perfection. I may be a dreamer in believing one day we might just create utopia instead of believing a god will send us there. Hahah funny paragraph right here. Being gay isn't a defect it's a part of evolution the same thing that made us what we are today. There's nothing wrong with it at all. I thought evolution was to help us survive? How does being gay help us reproduce? How do you know widespread reproduction by 100% of the population is pivotal to the survival of our species and not the recipe for extinction? I am pretty positive that the more humans there are on earth the more chance we have of geniuses being born that can help us survive past the earth. I am also pretty positive that a widespread non reproduction by 100% would be extinction Not to mention the only species that are alive today ARE reproducing. I believe you to be mocking my view and posts with a limited mind. You clearly didn't acknowledge my anti religion statement either. You're very adamant about trying to argue with the homosexual paragraph. This and you're counter posts to mine are to be fair simplistic and don't hold much merit. What if there is no amount of genius that can solve the overpopulation problem? What if the only solution to keep our species, as a whole, surviving longer is less reproduction due to the limited resources of the planet? You can't be pretty positive about something so hopeful and lacking any basis of proof it will happen. If this turns out to be the case and we would die if we don't under populate. Don't we already have the tools for that? Again, I'm not against gay's. I'm simply stating reasons as to why I don't fully agree with their side of the argument.
The tools for lowering population are mass murder and less reproducing. One's a bit less messy.
|
On July 28 2012 11:51 HTOMario wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 11:48 TwoToneTerran wrote:On July 28 2012 11:36 HTOMario wrote:On July 28 2012 11:32 sinii wrote:On July 28 2012 11:30 HTOMario wrote:On July 28 2012 11:29 sinii wrote:On July 28 2012 11:20 HTOMario wrote:
Now that I think on it more, here is how I feel. If being gay is defined by a gene. I would feel like we should work on correcting this in the future with science, just like diabetes. However until then they reserve the right to be happy as well. How many rights I would give them I would have to think on. If being gay was scientifically proven to be something we just believe we are. Frankly I would feel the person would need counseling. I am not pro gay, I am pro for people being happy but also improving themselves toward a definite perfection. I may be a dreamer in believing one day we might just create utopia instead of believing a god will send us there. Hahah funny paragraph right here. Being gay isn't a defect it's a part of evolution the same thing that made us what we are today. There's nothing wrong with it at all. I thought evolution was to help us survive? How does being gay help us reproduce? How do you know widespread reproduction by 100% of the population is pivotal to the survival of our species and not the recipe for extinction? I am pretty positive that the more humans there are on earth the more chance we have of geniuses being born that can help us survive past the earth. I am also pretty positive that a widespread non reproduction by 100% would be extinction Not to mention the only species that are alive today ARE reproducing. I believe you to be mocking my view and posts with a limited mind. You clearly didn't acknowledge my anti religion statement either. You're very adamant about trying to argue with the homosexual paragraph. This and you're counter posts to mine are to be fair simplistic and don't hold much merit. What if there is no amount of genius that can solve the overpopulation problem? What if the only solution to keep our species, as a whole, surviving longer is less reproduction due to the limited resources of the planet? You can't be pretty positive about something so hopeful and lacking any basis of proof it will happen. If this turns out to be the case and we would die if we don't under populate. Don't we already have the tools for that?
We have the tools to bring the world pop to 0 in an oopsie right now. Bad things are going to happen when you decide to forcibly reduce the world population for resources.
|
On July 28 2012 11:51 HTOMario wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 11:48 TwoToneTerran wrote:On July 28 2012 11:36 HTOMario wrote:On July 28 2012 11:32 sinii wrote:On July 28 2012 11:30 HTOMario wrote:On July 28 2012 11:29 sinii wrote:On July 28 2012 11:20 HTOMario wrote:
Now that I think on it more, here is how I feel. If being gay is defined by a gene. I would feel like we should work on correcting this in the future with science, just like diabetes. However until then they reserve the right to be happy as well. How many rights I would give them I would have to think on. If being gay was scientifically proven to be something we just believe we are. Frankly I would feel the person would need counseling. I am not pro gay, I am pro for people being happy but also improving themselves toward a definite perfection. I may be a dreamer in believing one day we might just create utopia instead of believing a god will send us there. Hahah funny paragraph right here. Being gay isn't a defect it's a part of evolution the same thing that made us what we are today. There's nothing wrong with it at all. I thought evolution was to help us survive? How does being gay help us reproduce? How do you know widespread reproduction by 100% of the population is pivotal to the survival of our species and not the recipe for extinction? I am pretty positive that the more humans there are on earth the more chance we have of geniuses being born that can help us survive past the earth. I am also pretty positive that a widespread non reproduction by 100% would be extinction Not to mention the only species that are alive today ARE reproducing. I believe you to be mocking my view and posts with a limited mind. You clearly didn't acknowledge my anti religion statement either. You're very adamant about trying to argue with the homosexual paragraph. This and you're counter posts to mine are to be fair simplistic and don't hold much merit. What if there is no amount of genius that can solve the overpopulation problem? What if the only solution to keep our species, as a whole, surviving longer is less reproduction due to the limited resources of the planet? You can't be pretty positive about something so hopeful and lacking any basis of proof it will happen. If this turns out to be the case and we would die if we don't under populate. Don't we already have the tools for that? Again, I'm not against gay's. I'm simply stating reasons as to why I don't fully agree with their side of the argument.
OK so what are these tools? A repeat of the holocaust?
That sounds much more humane then the method nature employs.
|
On July 28 2012 11:55 sinii wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 11:51 HTOMario wrote:On July 28 2012 11:48 TwoToneTerran wrote:On July 28 2012 11:36 HTOMario wrote:On July 28 2012 11:32 sinii wrote:On July 28 2012 11:30 HTOMario wrote:On July 28 2012 11:29 sinii wrote:On July 28 2012 11:20 HTOMario wrote:
Now that I think on it more, here is how I feel. If being gay is defined by a gene. I would feel like we should work on correcting this in the future with science, just like diabetes. However until then they reserve the right to be happy as well. How many rights I would give them I would have to think on. If being gay was scientifically proven to be something we just believe we are. Frankly I would feel the person would need counseling. I am not pro gay, I am pro for people being happy but also improving themselves toward a definite perfection. I may be a dreamer in believing one day we might just create utopia instead of believing a god will send us there. Hahah funny paragraph right here. Being gay isn't a defect it's a part of evolution the same thing that made us what we are today. There's nothing wrong with it at all. I thought evolution was to help us survive? How does being gay help us reproduce? How do you know widespread reproduction by 100% of the population is pivotal to the survival of our species and not the recipe for extinction? I am pretty positive that the more humans there are on earth the more chance we have of geniuses being born that can help us survive past the earth. I am also pretty positive that a widespread non reproduction by 100% would be extinction Not to mention the only species that are alive today ARE reproducing. I believe you to be mocking my view and posts with a limited mind. You clearly didn't acknowledge my anti religion statement either. You're very adamant about trying to argue with the homosexual paragraph. This and you're counter posts to mine are to be fair simplistic and don't hold much merit. What if there is no amount of genius that can solve the overpopulation problem? What if the only solution to keep our species, as a whole, surviving longer is less reproduction due to the limited resources of the planet? You can't be pretty positive about something so hopeful and lacking any basis of proof it will happen. If this turns out to be the case and we would die if we don't under populate. Don't we already have the tools for that? Again, I'm not against gay's. I'm simply stating reasons as to why I don't fully agree with their side of the argument. OK so what are these tools? A repeat of the holocaust? That sounds much more humane then the method nature employs.
There must be reasons as to why humans are so hell bent on killing each other through wars for as far back as history goes? Maybe that is natures way of reducing the population?
|
|
|
On July 28 2012 11:57 HTOMario wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 11:55 sinii wrote:On July 28 2012 11:51 HTOMario wrote:On July 28 2012 11:48 TwoToneTerran wrote:On July 28 2012 11:36 HTOMario wrote:On July 28 2012 11:32 sinii wrote:On July 28 2012 11:30 HTOMario wrote:On July 28 2012 11:29 sinii wrote:On July 28 2012 11:20 HTOMario wrote:
Now that I think on it more, here is how I feel. If being gay is defined by a gene. I would feel like we should work on correcting this in the future with science, just like diabetes. However until then they reserve the right to be happy as well. How many rights I would give them I would have to think on. If being gay was scientifically proven to be something we just believe we are. Frankly I would feel the person would need counseling. I am not pro gay, I am pro for people being happy but also improving themselves toward a definite perfection. I may be a dreamer in believing one day we might just create utopia instead of believing a god will send us there. Hahah funny paragraph right here. Being gay isn't a defect it's a part of evolution the same thing that made us what we are today. There's nothing wrong with it at all. I thought evolution was to help us survive? How does being gay help us reproduce? How do you know widespread reproduction by 100% of the population is pivotal to the survival of our species and not the recipe for extinction? I am pretty positive that the more humans there are on earth the more chance we have of geniuses being born that can help us survive past the earth. I am also pretty positive that a widespread non reproduction by 100% would be extinction Not to mention the only species that are alive today ARE reproducing. I believe you to be mocking my view and posts with a limited mind. You clearly didn't acknowledge my anti religion statement either. You're very adamant about trying to argue with the homosexual paragraph. This and you're counter posts to mine are to be fair simplistic and don't hold much merit. What if there is no amount of genius that can solve the overpopulation problem? What if the only solution to keep our species, as a whole, surviving longer is less reproduction due to the limited resources of the planet? You can't be pretty positive about something so hopeful and lacking any basis of proof it will happen. If this turns out to be the case and we would die if we don't under populate. Don't we already have the tools for that? Again, I'm not against gay's. I'm simply stating reasons as to why I don't fully agree with their side of the argument. OK so what are these tools? A repeat of the holocaust? That sounds much more humane then the method nature employs. There must be reasons as to why humans are so hell bent on killing each other through wars for as far back as history goes? Maybe that is natures way of reducing the population?
Alternatively not at all and the various reasons for killing each other are quite obvious.
|
On July 28 2012 11:57 HTOMario wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 11:55 sinii wrote:On July 28 2012 11:51 HTOMario wrote:On July 28 2012 11:48 TwoToneTerran wrote:On July 28 2012 11:36 HTOMario wrote:On July 28 2012 11:32 sinii wrote:On July 28 2012 11:30 HTOMario wrote:On July 28 2012 11:29 sinii wrote:On July 28 2012 11:20 HTOMario wrote:
Now that I think on it more, here is how I feel. If being gay is defined by a gene. I would feel like we should work on correcting this in the future with science, just like diabetes. However until then they reserve the right to be happy as well. How many rights I would give them I would have to think on. If being gay was scientifically proven to be something we just believe we are. Frankly I would feel the person would need counseling. I am not pro gay, I am pro for people being happy but also improving themselves toward a definite perfection. I may be a dreamer in believing one day we might just create utopia instead of believing a god will send us there. Hahah funny paragraph right here. Being gay isn't a defect it's a part of evolution the same thing that made us what we are today. There's nothing wrong with it at all. I thought evolution was to help us survive? How does being gay help us reproduce? How do you know widespread reproduction by 100% of the population is pivotal to the survival of our species and not the recipe for extinction? I am pretty positive that the more humans there are on earth the more chance we have of geniuses being born that can help us survive past the earth. I am also pretty positive that a widespread non reproduction by 100% would be extinction Not to mention the only species that are alive today ARE reproducing. I believe you to be mocking my view and posts with a limited mind. You clearly didn't acknowledge my anti religion statement either. You're very adamant about trying to argue with the homosexual paragraph. This and you're counter posts to mine are to be fair simplistic and don't hold much merit. What if there is no amount of genius that can solve the overpopulation problem? What if the only solution to keep our species, as a whole, surviving longer is less reproduction due to the limited resources of the planet? You can't be pretty positive about something so hopeful and lacking any basis of proof it will happen. If this turns out to be the case and we would die if we don't under populate. Don't we already have the tools for that? Again, I'm not against gay's. I'm simply stating reasons as to why I don't fully agree with their side of the argument. OK so what are these tools? A repeat of the holocaust? That sounds much more humane then the method nature employs. There must be reasons as to why humans are so hell bent on killing each other through wars for as far back as history goes? Maybe that is natures way of reducing the population?
Oh no I don't question that at all, fighting is a vital tool in natural selection and has been forever, in the same way homosexuality has been as well.
|
On July 28 2012 11:59 sinii wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2012 11:57 HTOMario wrote:On July 28 2012 11:55 sinii wrote:On July 28 2012 11:51 HTOMario wrote:On July 28 2012 11:48 TwoToneTerran wrote:On July 28 2012 11:36 HTOMario wrote:On July 28 2012 11:32 sinii wrote:On July 28 2012 11:30 HTOMario wrote:On July 28 2012 11:29 sinii wrote:On July 28 2012 11:20 HTOMario wrote:
Now that I think on it more, here is how I feel. If being gay is defined by a gene. I would feel like we should work on correcting this in the future with science, just like diabetes. However until then they reserve the right to be happy as well. How many rights I would give them I would have to think on. If being gay was scientifically proven to be something we just believe we are. Frankly I would feel the person would need counseling. I am not pro gay, I am pro for people being happy but also improving themselves toward a definite perfection. I may be a dreamer in believing one day we might just create utopia instead of believing a god will send us there. Hahah funny paragraph right here. Being gay isn't a defect it's a part of evolution the same thing that made us what we are today. There's nothing wrong with it at all. I thought evolution was to help us survive? How does being gay help us reproduce? How do you know widespread reproduction by 100% of the population is pivotal to the survival of our species and not the recipe for extinction? I am pretty positive that the more humans there are on earth the more chance we have of geniuses being born that can help us survive past the earth. I am also pretty positive that a widespread non reproduction by 100% would be extinction Not to mention the only species that are alive today ARE reproducing. I believe you to be mocking my view and posts with a limited mind. You clearly didn't acknowledge my anti religion statement either. You're very adamant about trying to argue with the homosexual paragraph. This and you're counter posts to mine are to be fair simplistic and don't hold much merit. What if there is no amount of genius that can solve the overpopulation problem? What if the only solution to keep our species, as a whole, surviving longer is less reproduction due to the limited resources of the planet? You can't be pretty positive about something so hopeful and lacking any basis of proof it will happen. If this turns out to be the case and we would die if we don't under populate. Don't we already have the tools for that? Again, I'm not against gay's. I'm simply stating reasons as to why I don't fully agree with their side of the argument. OK so what are these tools? A repeat of the holocaust? That sounds much more humane then the method nature employs. There must be reasons as to why humans are so hell bent on killing each other through wars for as far back as history goes? Maybe that is natures way of reducing the population? Oh no I don't question that at all, fighting is a vital tool in natural selection and has been forever, in the same way homosexuality has been as well.
as such is being born with genetic defects. I however am now leaving this topic as it would seem the claims for the fast food chains are incorrect.
|
The first one is true, the second one is outright false and the link is to some religious website (nice source Denny Burk).
"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about," -Dan Cathy
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/imgs/homo%20sapien%20male2.jpg&sa=X&ei=U1ETUM7LOeet0QW954HwAw&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNEOacUyZNhzy9e3RflgdL2TqcYIMw)
![[image loading]](http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://www.gosugamers.net/warcraft/images/people/flash_rolster_proleague2010.jpg&sa=X&ei=0lETUOa0Fu6r0AXUhoHIAg&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNGFH9X69tNy0YNlc3N6011Q4MMj9w)
