Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 10/19/11 01:52 PM, DonCarrera wrote:

At 10/19/11 01:50 PM, Hybridization wrote: Lol, this needs to be on a T-shirt.

Find a website where you can add your own custom captions to T-Shirts and do it!
No one is stopping you, girl.

I love GIMP!

---

At 10/19/11 01:50 PM, Hybridization wrote:

At 10/16/11 08:41 PM, camobch0 wrote: ... (I'm pretty sure there aren't any animals who want to fuck a human)

Lol, this needs to be on a T-shirt.

Even though if you watch the donkey video I posted a few pages back it invalidates this!

---

If you don't have a fetish then you wouldn't understand, they're like any other fetish. It's not like gays, pedos, or furries really make a choice to have a sexual attraction to whatever they like, they're just more discriminated against (Pedophilia I understand because it affects humans too young to make conscious decisions in most cases) because they're more mainstream in the sense that more people acted out in their urges in a bad or illegal situation.

---

At 10/19/11 09:10 PM, AIDSMcGuff wrote: If you don't have a fetish then you wouldn't understand, they're like any other fetish. It's not like gays, pedos, or furries really make a choice to have a sexual attraction to whatever they like, they're just more discriminated against (Pedophilia I understand because it affects humans too young to make conscious decisions in most cases) because they're more mainstream in the sense that more people acted out in their urges in a bad or illegal situation.

I agree with you 100%. So I'll pose the initial question again. If all three are the same thing, be it a mental defect or a natural sexual preference, then why is someone who comes up with treatments for pedo and zoo made heroes, whereas someone who tries to do the same for homosexuality takes flak and is called a biggot?

---

At 10/20/11 12:02 AM, StCyril wrote:
I agree with you 100%. So I'll pose the initial question again. If all three are the same thing, be it a mental defect or a natural sexual preference, then why is someone who comes up with treatments for pedo and zoo made heroes, whereas someone who tries to do the same for homosexuality takes flak and is called a biggot?

Because fucking animals, and pre-pubescent humans is different than fucking an of age same sex partner! Why don't you understand that?

---

Sounds awfully delectable.

---

At 10/20/11 12:07 AM, TruBluFoxx wrote:
Because fucking animals, and pre-pubescent humans is different than fucking an of age same sex partner! Why don't you understand that?

Can you try reading the post? I'm not talking about statutory rape, I'm talking about pedophilia. Not talking about bestiality, talking about zoophilia. NOT talking about gay sex, talking about homosexuality.

I'm not comparing the legal or moral aspect, I'm talking about the mental conditions! I'm talking about having those type of attractions, not what happens when you act on them.

Jesus... how many times do I have to repeat this?

---

At 10/20/11 12:10 AM, StCyril wrote:

At 10/20/11 12:07 AM, TruBluFoxx wrote:
Because fucking animals, and pre-pubescent humans is different than fucking an of age same sex partner! Why don't you understand that?

Can you try reading the post? I'm not talking about statutory rape, I'm talking about pedophilia. Not talking about bestiality, talking about zoophilia. NOT talking about gay sex, talking about homosexuality.

I'm not comparing the legal or moral aspect, I'm talking about the mental conditions! I'm talking about having those type of attractions, not what happens when you act on them.

Jesus... how many times do I have to repeat this?

Sorry, midnight mind.

I guess it's the view that homosexuality is not devious? Homosexuality has also been accepted before in Roman times, and even before that. I don't think that zoo, or pedophilia have ever been accepted (except for pedo in some churches :P).

---

At 10/19/11 12:46 PM, Hybridization wrote:
The genes themselves don't deteriorate, but after several generations, the number of carriers can easily disappear within the species - I don't know how you can argue against this.

Not really. By your logic, all autosomal recessive disorders(Like color blindness) would've disappeared ages ago.

You may not have ignored it, but you certainly don't understand it.

Says the person who said that genes can "deteriorate(besides instances of exposure to radiation)."

You're not mistaken; but again, you misunderstand the subject. Given what I have said above, dominant genes would build at a faster rate than the recessive (understandably?),

so how on Earth could this recessive gene overtake a dominant gene when it would have to build at a less than 25% rate EVEN IF "homosexuality" could be passed on through family. The dominant gene would overtake nearly all recessive very rapidly. (An example of this would be purple-colored irises).

You're telling me that I misunderstand the subject...

...but you just went on to make up some stuff about genetics and then subtly admit that this may be bullshit....

I believe someone else had suggested that it could be a mutation. If this was not you, I apologize. However, the point is still valid. And, I believe I thoroughly explained your second question already.

OK.

Haha, what world do you live in? Are you saying that there aren't many people who claim they are homosexual?

Define "many."

And, you've dismissed the scientific reasoning I've provided throughout our entire "debate". Stop asking for it if you don't understand it.

What exactly am I dismissing here? Your "scientific reasoning" is completely unsubstantiated.

No they don't. They're talked about all of the time.

And they are immediately dismissed and ignored when brought to the table (much like this entire thread). You try to argue that homosexuality is natural, yet, you dismiss contradicting evidence (environment), even fail to address it thoroughly enough for anyone to make a counter-argument.

You didn't present much in the way of "evidence" with regard to environmental influence. You just asserted that homosexuality is somehow shaped by the environment.

You failed to provide any proof of that, however.

Also, how can homosexuality only exist as a biological trait in the form of a mutation?

Because it is theoretically impossible to be passed on.

Not really.

My points before have been hypotheticals that would disprove the idea even if it was possible for same-sex couples to have genetic children (is this too hard to understand too?).

If these were hypotheticals "that disproved the idea", you would've won a Nobel prize for discovering what doesn't cause homosexuality.

But no, that's not the case.

This is simply not true - clearly an absolute stab in the dark, and a subject you have no background in whatsoever.

The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and National Association of Social Workers stated this in 2006:

"Currently, there is no scientific consensus about the specific factors that cause an individual to become heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual-including possible biological, psychological, or social effects of the parents' sexual orientation. However, the available evidence indicates that the vast majority of lesbian and gay adults were raised by heterosexual parents and the vast majority of children raised by lesbian and gay parents eventually grow up to be heterosexual."

And you say that I'm uninformed.

It's pretty fucking obvious if you ask me.

Apparently not if I cued for elaboration, idiot.

It's kind of explicit and self-explanatory.
So, you are using this to argue against a hypothetical that already accepts the fact that homosexuality is a gene at all? You're not (or, rather, your source is not) addressing the issue or defending your argument in the slightest.
No, you said that homosexuality is a mental disorder. I countered your claim with expert opinion.

The American Psychological Association disagrees with you, and I'm much more inclined to agree with them than I am with you.

Great! I'm sure the psychology program administrators and Phd's in the field at my university would love to argue about how your sacred APA doesn't address the problem.

What problem is there? No, really?

But, good for you not thinking for yourself! I could care less if you agree with me or not, but you're forfeiting the argument in a childish "talk-to-the-hand" method.

It's childish to cite expert opinion to substantiate one's point? By your logic, it's also childish to write research papers in college.

I guess people aren't thinking for themselves if they don't agree with you or something.

It's funny because homosexuality has been thoroughly observed in hundreds of species in the animal kingdom and those species don't seem to have much internal trouble increasing their numbers.

It's funny because "homosexuality" is a human construct that defines gay sexual acts;

How is a sexual orientation now a human construct? If some animals like to fuck each other and happen to be of the same sex, then they're exhibiting homosexual behavior. Simple as that.

and therefore, your point furthers my argument that it is not a biological "anything". Nice work!

I think you just committed a nonsequitur fallacy here.

Your argument doesn't logically follow to its conclusion.

Are you going to cry now? Or do I have to explain it to you.

Cry? I've kept myself composed throughout this conversation I've had with you. But you on the other hand, have belittled me and have been condescending for a while now, not that I'm affected much by it, though.

Believe it or not, you're closer to crying and losing your self-control than I am.

You say you're being "scientific" on the matter, but most scientists would disagree with you in a heartbeat.

I'm sorry, I didn't know you were a scientist. This is a surprise! Unfortunately, you also need a degree in psychology. Oh but I'm sure your knowledge of the community's stance is more than enough!

Actually, it is. When you stated your rather unscientific opinion, I stated that the overwhelming scientific consensus is contradictory to what you said.

What?

Hmmm, I guess you're not a scientist after all...Why did you lie to me :(

I never said I was a scientist.

I know, that's why I gave an example. (?)

Then didn't you just contradict yourself earlier when you dismissed what I said about homosexuality in animals as a "human construct"?

OK then, so if I enjoy fucking a guy in the ass...and I'm a guy, then it's not homosexual behavior...It's just "gay."

*Facepalm.*

I'm just using your definition.

Biological homosexuality? You know, the subject our argument has been on this whole time? Where have I used the phrase "homosexual behavior",

Didn't say you did. I just happened to respond to that statement you made.

and then please direct me to the response that I suggested it was any different than "gay acts".

There's none, but gay acts =/= homosexuality.

And to this complete nonsense: yes it would be homosexual behavior (and also gay, obviously?).

However, it would not indicate that you were naturally gay.

True.

But why would animals in the Animal Kingdom engage in such behavior if there are no benefits brought to the species as a whole?

And those measurements are subjective from person to person. (Hence, the definition).

You're making yourself look like a fool.

So says the person who claimed that genes deteriorate rapidly as they are passed from generation to generation.

Don't worry. I'm confident you had no idea what we were talking about to begin with.

You also claimed that dominant genes build faster than recessive genes. I've never heard of that before, and I scored above the 90th percentile in most of the areas of the biology state test in high school, lol.

---

On a different note, the word "disorder" can be defined in various ways. With negative and neutral connotations.

According to encarta,

The first definition is disorder as an illness, while the second definition in encarta is "a lack of systematic or orderly arrangement".

The most logical definition when looking at the root of the word "disorder" is the second. Placing negative connotations on the word "disorder" seems to be an outlook of our society.

Although homosexuality occurs, being is gay isn't the most normal thing on the planet, thus it is a disorder.

Place whatever connotations you want on the word.

---

At 10/19/11 03:51 PM, Ericho wrote: You certainly see gay animals, but you don't see a lot of animals having sex with underaged animals...I don't think?

Wait, I spoke too soon, saw that "South Park" episode last night.

---

At 10/20/11 12:32 PM, Ericho wrote:

At 10/19/11 03:51 PM, Ericho wrote: You certainly see gay animals, but you don't see a lot of animals having sex with underaged animals...I don't think?

Wait, I spoke too soon, saw that "South Park" episode last night.

LOL Yeah I remember that episode... didn't George Clooney play the dog?