Can any Russian people present their opinions on this?

[Lt_Anders]

This has been said many times before, there are animals in the wild that are homosexual, the "it's-not-natural!" argument is null.

Not a counter for what I stated. Sure they are, I don't care about that. My statement was it was unnatural from the standpoint of Population growth(IE, Children). And in this instance, same sex is 100% incapable of it.(Learn to Fucking Read before you post!)

@mala: Hetero Couples who are barren have been shown to get "Miracle Children"(I know of one that used to work with me, she was unable to have kids, and then...BOOM kid. Course She got Cancer after that, and I don't know how she's doing now as she quit cause of the cancer...)

But In both Instances, we are thankful that we DO have other means of Reproduction beyond the "Old Fashioned Way" that allows this and other such things to be viable.

[Xant]

Except It Is not Natural, because it does not cause a child or growth of the race(IE an increase in population).

Until Same Sex Produces offspring, it will always be an unnatural thing, otherwise the race will die off.
(And for some, they say that's best for the planet if we are dead anyway...)

So which definition of "natural" are you using...?

It happens in nature. Therefore, it's natural. Or how do you think homosexuals are created? Through some torture and brainwashing? Are they forced to do it?

[LordBerenger]

You retards never stop with your senseless internetz arguments.

Here's a new topic for y'all.

'' Obama as president ''

[enigmatic_stranger]

Erm, guys, explain to me what do you mean when you say that something is unnatural? How can any existing object in the universe can be considered as not a part of the universe? How can something that happens in nature (using the 'The material world and its phenomena' definition of 'nature') be defined as unnatural?
It seems to me that many people like to endue human's brain with some mystical power that can produce something, that is not a part of nature. Brain, like any other organ in your body is natural, so any products of brain, any thought, any idea, any concept should be seen as a natural thing, I think.
Unnatural... This word has no sence to me, I don't even know why it has it's place in our language.

[Chosen1]

It's funny how the media makes a big shit storm about protesting the Russian anti-gay laws, when the US allied with countries with far worse anti-gay laws like Saudi Arabia, Uganda, and India where homosexuality is punishable by death or life imprisonment. The MSM is just trying to make Russia look bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory

[Xant]

Erm, guys, explain to me what do you mean when you say that something is unnatural? How can any existing object in the universe can be considered as not a part of the universe? How can something that happens in nature (using the 'The material world and its phenomena' definition of 'nature') be defined as unnatural?
It seems to me that many people like to endue human's brain with some mystical power that can produce something, that is not a part of nature. Brain, like any other organ in your body is natural, so any products of brain, any thought, any idea, any concept should be seen as a natural thing, I think.
Unnatural... This word has no sence to me, I don't even know why it has it's place in our language.

Unnatural as a word is fine and serves its purpose. It's useful and understood by everyone* if you say, for example, "salt eaten in unnatural amounts can be extremely unhealthy because the human body is not equipped to digest it properly." This gets across the idea that it is not "natural" for humans to take in the amounts of salt that we often get nowadays, as it wasn't around in those quantities in the ancestral environment. Same could be said about any other artificial sweeteners or whatever.



*Except Nightmare, probably

[BASNAK]

Oh really? Well, do go on. Tell us how you found out that there is no such gene and also how you found out that it's something that "comes over the years."

"However, despite numerous studies over the last decade searching for polymorphisms associated with homosexuality, no convincing molecular genetic evidence has been found despite the fact that pedigree and twin studies clearly show that homosexuality is familial (reviewed in Ngun et al. 2011). Homosexuality has also been hypothesized to be caused by nongenetic factors such as maternal antibodies against male-specific antigens (reviewed in Bogaert and Skorska 2011)."

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167

If you can't be bothered reading it these guys summarized the article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq5nmUTx6eI
It's rather believed to be epigenetics.
---------

I personally tend to believe that Homosexuality is caused by Psychological factors rather than genetical. Unless there's waterproof research pointing towards genetics and canceling out psychology then I'll change my mind. And then again I'm not really updated when it comes to studies in Homosexuality. Not my biggest concern.

[Tomas_Miles_again]

It's funny how the media makes a big shit storm about protesting the Russian anti-gay laws, when the US allied with countries with far worse anti-gay laws like Saudi Arabia, Uganda, and India where homosexuality is punishable by death or life imprisonment. The MSM is just trying to make Russia look bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory

To be honest, I wasn't aware that any of the other countries with terribad state stances on lgbt rights had a major stake in this community. Not a challenge, but please correct me if I got this wrong.

[HardRice]

Not a counter for what I stated. Sure they are, I don't care about that. My statement was it was unnatural from the standpoint of Population growth(IE, Children). And in this instance, same sex is 100% incapable of it.(Learn to Fucking Read before you post!)

Being a condescending cunt is not a requirement to post here, just so you know.

You said "Until Same Sex Produces offspring, it will always be an unnatural thing, otherwise the race will die off."

In NATURE animals are known to be homosexual (Therefore it is natural. Crazy, right?). You're in the mindset that animals only do things that will help their species survive in the long run. Guess what? That isn't how it works.

What I'm understanding from your argument is that you are concerned because homosexuality does not produce offspring. (Like we need anymore..)

[Leesin]

Anders thinks being gay is a choice and that one day everyone will decide to be gay and we'll die out from not reproducing. LOLOLOL, I really hope this retard has not reproduced yet and never gets the chance to do so.

[Xant]

"However, despite numerous studies over the last decade searching for polymorphisms associated with homosexuality, no convincing molecular genetic evidence has been found despite the fact that pedigree and twin studies clearly show that homosexuality is familial (reviewed in Ngun et al. 2011). Homosexuality has also been hypothesized to be caused by nongenetic factors such as maternal antibodies against male-specific antigens (reviewed in Bogaert and Skorska 2011)."

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167

If you can't be bothered reading it these guys summarized the article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq5nmUTx6eI
It's rather believed to be epigenetics.
---------

I personally tend to believe that Homosexuality is caused by Psychological factors rather than genetical. Unless there's waterproof research pointing towards genetics and canceling out psychology then I'll change my mind. And then again I'm not really updated when it comes to studies in Homosexuality. Not my biggest concern.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists stated in 2007:
“   Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice.

[Macropus]

Nobody here even said sexual orientation was a choise. My point is that it's determined by childhood experience (which still doesn't make it a choice), not by genes, that's all.

[Lt_Anders]

Anders thinks being gay is a choice and that one day everyone will decide to be gay and we'll die out from not reproducing. LOLOLOL, I really hope this retard has not reproduced yet and never gets the chance to do so.

But In both Instances, we are thankful that we DO have other means of Reproduction beyond the "Old Fashioned Way" that allows this and other such things to be viable.

Still In all instances, You guys trust Evolution yes? If so, then by the theory of Evolution, Homosexuality, is an incorrect procedure.
It does not:
Pass on Genetic Material, thereby, contributing to a smaller gene pool and less adaptive traits.
(Which, this would be the number one reason why Homosexuality is an improper procedure)

While It is Observed in Nature, one of the leading Proponents of Homosexuality in Animals (Not Too sure on the first quote, the second is a man who has spent many years researching this) says this:

"The animal kingdom [does] it with much greater sexual diversity – including homosexual, bisexual and nonreproductive sex – than the scientific community and society at large have previously been willing to accept"

(click to show/hide)

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/print/19990201/26501-gay-lib-for-the-animals-a-new-look-at-homosexuality-in-nature.html

"Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity"

(click to show/hide)

http://www.amazon.com/Queer-Science-Abuse-Research-Homosexuality/dp/0262621193

I find this really interesting. Never knew that there was such a tendency amongst Animals, but, from an Evolutionary  it's not always done in the ways "humans" refer to it. (Domestic sheep are 10% Gay Verifiability!)

Homosexuality is not an evolutionary advantage, it's an Evolutionary disadvantage. The only reason why I don't care about gays is for 1 reason: They don't bother me.(A family Member is Lesbian)

[Xant]

Still In all instances, You guys trust Evolution yes? If so, then by the theory of Evolution, Homosexuality, is an incorrect procedure.
It does not:
Pass on Genetic Material, thereby, contributing to a smaller gene pool and less adaptive traits.
(Which, this would be the number one reason why Homosexuality is an improper procedure)

You clearly have no idea how evolution works.

The authors of a 2008 study stated "there is considerable evidence that human sexual orientation is genetically influenced, so it is not known how homosexuality, which tends to lower reproductive success, is maintained in the population at a relatively high frequency". They hypothesized that "while genes predisposing to homosexuality reduce homosexuals' reproductive success, they may confer some advantage in heterosexuals who carry them". Their results suggested that "genes predisposing to homosexuality may confer a mating advantage in heterosexuals, which could help explain the evolution and maintenance of homosexuality in the population".[150] A 2009 study also suggested a significant increase in fecundity in the females related to the homosexual people from the maternal line (but not in those related from the paternal one).[151]
A review paper by Bailey and Zuk looking into studies of same-sex sexual behaviour in animals challenges the view that such behaviour lowers reproductive success, citing several hypotheses about how same-sex sexual behavior might be adaptive

Also, what do you think about sterile ants who only function as doors for their comrades? Is being a sterile door an evolutionary advantage? By your logic, no, it isn't. How come do they still exist, then, and keep on existing generation after generation? Indeed, since they are sterile, how do they keep existing since they can't pass on their own genes?

The answer to both this and "homosexuality not being an evolutionary advantage" are simple if you know how evolution works.

[Prpavi]

visitors can't see pics , please register or login