The most incredibly stupid ignorant hateful thing I've read Follow

Show me the **** gene first. Then we'll talk.

Totem

As Mindel already pointed out, it may not be genetic but neurological.

Try to keep up, dear.

Allow me to put forward what you are asking of me: Even in the absence of scientific proof, you are demanding that homosexuals be given rights based on the sketchy data that says homosexuality is who they are, part and parcel. You are asking for the benefit of the doubt.

I'd say, "Fine, but then that same benefit of the doubt needs to be given an unborn child for the right to live-- just to be sure that we haven't trampled on the rights on a minority with no voice."

Fair enough, right? But no each of you will equivocate and say that they aren't in the same discussion, worthy of being mentioned in the same topic, a woman's rights supercede some faceless blob in the womb, blah blah blah.

It is a simple test. What is good for the goose should be good for the gander.

Totem

Genetic determinism relies on overly simplistic views of gender and sexuality to be demonstrated scientifically at this point in our history. Again, this isn't a scientific issue--this is about allowing equal protections and equal rights under the law.

Edited, Nov 6th 2008 1:04pm by Annabella

And empiracal data has shown homosexuality can be unlearned, Mindel-- if those who claim to have done so are to believed. But there again, that'd be ancedotal evidence because homosexual urges are entirely subjective.

Totem

No, the only data that points to the ability to "unlearn" homosexuality is entirely anecdotal. The idea of curing homosexuality has been largely rejected by the psychological, medical, and scientific communities because what little evidence exists is suspect, even by the standards of anecdotal evidence.

That's idiotic. One's sexual orientation is not dictated by a single sexual encounter.

So let's get back to the issue of scientific data, shall we? Most respected scientific studies say that the majority of fetuses in women's wombs will become functioning, sentient human beings-- somewhere on the order of 53% of said fetuses. The remaining 47% are likely to result in kittens, maple trees, and in rare cases, species closely related to Smasharoo.

Based on this hard data, we can extrapolate that these quiet, unassuming fetuses are people-- some of which may even engage in homosexual behavior if other independent studies are to be believed. Granted, these fetuses haven't voted or even spoken yet, but given enough time will likely do so and would probably state how thankful they are to be given the opportunity to engage in such activities as voting or homosexuality.

And since we cannot precisely determine when such a fetus become an-honst-to-goodness future taxpaying human citizen, isn't it prudent to err on the side of caution and give them the benefit of the doubt by allowing them to live? After all, in the absence of specific scientific data that eliminates each of them individually from being considered viable human beings we must protect their rights as a minority-- even if the majority wishes to deny them those rights.

Can't we all agree on this blatently obvious truth?

Totem

Ummm, I dunno, Mindel. Gazing at a dude's junk is highly suspect according to (heterosexual) Man Law. And that could conceivably include watching ****, bi-sexual participation in orgies, maybe even high school wrestling where your opponent full souffles you into his crotch.

It's all subjective, very very subjective.

Totem

Every sperm is sacred.

I know my sperm is scared, err, sacred.

Totem

HAWT. That's some funny sh*t btw. XD

Gayer than Spain, Gayer than Greece, even Gayer than France.

Edited, Nov 6th 2008 2:36pm by Annabella