on. Ok im tell me if im wrong but do you Aithests beilive that we human beings are just animals like any other common animal on the planet, that reproduce and eat sleep crap, and so on and so forth.
And if so would you find being homosexual a defect because you wouldn't want to reproduce, and its every organisms duty to spread their genes and expand their species ?
Or do you think that we humans are so advanced that we dont need to have the drive to reproduce because we can just do genetic engineering? Im trying to be as serious as possible, not gay bashing or nothing my mind just wanders when im bored is all.
Homosexuality is still a wanting to reproduce, only with the wrong gender. So, from a biological standpoint, it's kind of odd, but from a political standpoint, I has no problems wih it.
Not wanting to reproduce would be just that. People who dont get horny no matter what happens because of the way their brain is wired.
I've never met someone like that, though.
If love is blind, and God is love, and Ray Charles is blind, then God plays the piano.
Surreal landscape sigs > all others
At 9/20/08 08:56 PM, CherinoGears wrote: And if so would you find being homosexual a defect because you wouldn't want to reproduce, and its every organisms duty to spread their genes and expand their species ?
Nope.
Because homosexual isn't genetic. (afaik, I know some people claim it is, but fuck them)
It's a lifestyle choice, not a problem.
From a purely genetic point of view, yes, the whole survival of the fittest thing will ensure that if there is one, the 'gay gene' wouldn't be carried on to the next generation, however I believe that shit about a 'gay gene' is complete speculation and bulllllllshit.
Not all atheists think that we're just like animals.
I'm atheist, but i think we're on a higher level than animals
i think that we are.
we just stand out from all the other animals because we have the ability to reason and shit.
some lizards can walk upside-down, we humans can reason.
From a biological view, it doesn't make sense since you can't carry your genes on to the next generation.
However, it's not like we need more of us, seeing as there's like 9 million of us.
And because of that, then we find it (mostly) acceptable to be gay/lesbian.
Personally, I don't mind gay/lesbian people.
One thing you forgot though, is that (most) athiests don't violently enforce their rules, as opposed to those silly evangalists who hold up anti-gay signs.
At 9/20/08 09:04 PM, MikeRomanul wrote: However, it's not like we need more of us, seeing as there's like 9 million of us.
try 7 billion. 9 million is like the population of a medium sized first world country.
i believe that we are on a higher level, but not as high of a level as we would like to believe. Even though we shape a lot of the world the world still shapes us.
"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things: Of shoes and ships and sealing-wax. Of cabbages and kings!"
At 9/20/08 09:05 PM, D3NTATUS wrote: try 7 billion. 9 million is like the population of a medium sized first world country.
er, not medium sized, small to medium small.
whatever.
Basically you're correct on the "homo gene defect", but later on when humans are more advanced, genetic engineering will be our way of reproducing, so the homo gene won't really be a defect anymore.
At 9/20/08 09:00 PM, BananaBreadMuffin wrote: From a purely genetic point of view, yes, the whole survival of the fittest thing will ensure that if there is one, the 'gay gene' wouldn't be carried on to the next generation, however I believe that shit about a 'gay gene' is complete speculation and bulllllllshit.
It's the result of genetic susceptibility to conditioned genes. Genes have a mechanism by which they can be 'switched off' through the course of one's life. There're also studies that identify increased incidence of homosexuality the more older siblings one has. Epigenetics.
Anyway, the OP is oversimplifying things a bit here. To call something a genetic defect implies that the defect is such that one is incapable of reproducing. Homosexuals are still capable of reproducing, although they typically are interested in sexual lifestyles which do not result in reproduction. Simply because intercourse does not result in reproduction does not mean there is something wrong with the participants. I mean, the only people willing to condemn those who have sex without reproduction are those who follow religious doctrine. People using any form of birth control don't typically have children, but you wouldn't say they were defective for not wanting children every time they had sex, would you?
and to clear up ANY confusion, im talking about from a pure BIOLOGICAL standpoint, not POLIDICAL or MORAL in any way beacuse politics and morals are man made not having anything to do with naturalism. So yeah it dosnt matter if your gay or not im just asking if its biologically sound.
I personally think that it would hinder a race because of that reason, that is if enough of the poplulation was homosexual.
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.18 / 5.00 3,534 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.80 / 5.00 4,200 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
