British Gas Boiler Cover...please...
Home & Garden1 min ago
How On Earth Can This Be Still Legal?
104 Answers
When I read this I was in disbelief, I just couldn't get that some still believe you can change the way someone is born in this day and age, it's just disgusting and inedible.
Just who are these people? Religious fanatics I suppose make up the bulk but if so how do you stop it as much is done in secret and 'voluntary'.
http://
Just who are these people? Religious fanatics I suppose make up the bulk but if so how do you stop it as much is done in secret and 'voluntary'.
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Gness
//I hope you answer me, Hazi.....// I'll do my best Gness!
//if a person is not born gay when and how does that person "become" gay?.. // There is no evidence anyone is born 'gay'. Simply put, the natural world has no use for same-sex attraction, as nature relies on reproduction to exist. Same-sex relationships are un-natural. During adolescence many experience or go through a 'phase' of same-sex attraction, to a greater or lesser degree. It is during this stage that it is critical what the person does with those thoughts/feelings/inclinations. If acted upon, this can have a long-lasting psychological effect, very often meaning that the person finds normal heterosexual relationships difficult or impossible. I believe that it is during this fragile period of adolescence that a person will often conclude they are 'gay because they are experiencing these thoughts and feelings. To compound this confusion, they are surrounded by a society actively promoting embracing and taking pride in a un-natural lifestyle. Thus a person may conclude they are 'gay' when in reality they are not.
// And if a person, in your opinion, isn't born gay is it the same for bi-sexual and straight people?// As above- there are clearly hormonal differences person to person, but the natural state is heterosexuality. People are not pre-programmed to pursue a homosexual lifestyle, no.
//Those of us who are straight or bi-sexual are not born that way?// I believe that heterosexuality to be the natural state (basic biology) and we are not born bisexual. I hope this helps you understand a little clearer, Gness. Best wishes.
//I hope you answer me, Hazi.....// I'll do my best Gness!
//if a person is not born gay when and how does that person "become" gay?.. // There is no evidence anyone is born 'gay'. Simply put, the natural world has no use for same-sex attraction, as nature relies on reproduction to exist. Same-sex relationships are un-natural. During adolescence many experience or go through a 'phase' of same-sex attraction, to a greater or lesser degree. It is during this stage that it is critical what the person does with those thoughts/feelings/inclinations. If acted upon, this can have a long-lasting psychological effect, very often meaning that the person finds normal heterosexual relationships difficult or impossible. I believe that it is during this fragile period of adolescence that a person will often conclude they are 'gay because they are experiencing these thoughts and feelings. To compound this confusion, they are surrounded by a society actively promoting embracing and taking pride in a un-natural lifestyle. Thus a person may conclude they are 'gay' when in reality they are not.
// And if a person, in your opinion, isn't born gay is it the same for bi-sexual and straight people?// As above- there are clearly hormonal differences person to person, but the natural state is heterosexuality. People are not pre-programmed to pursue a homosexual lifestyle, no.
//Those of us who are straight or bi-sexual are not born that way?// I believe that heterosexuality to be the natural state (basic biology) and we are not born bisexual. I hope this helps you understand a little clearer, Gness. Best wishes.
//Simply put, the natural world has no use for same-sex attraction, as nature relies on reproduction to exist.//
And yet...
https:/
http://
You're just saying what you want to be true, Hazi.
And yet...
https:/
http://
You're just saying what you want to be true, Hazi.
While we're at it Hazi, if people aren't born gay/bi then how do you explain the well documented fact that the likelihood of a man growing up to be homosexual increases significantly with the number of older brothers he has?
https:/
https:/
Krom, I’m not sure this claim of homosexuality in the natural world is valid. Yes, animals do display homosexual behaviour, but the question is why? Unlike human beings I doubt very much that animals seek specifically homosexual encounters – or restrict themselves to homosexual encounters. I think of dogs that attempt to ‘bonk’ people’s legs and that sort of thing. They don’t do it because they’re attracted to human legs – they do it because they’re attempting to satisfy their sexual urges in any way they can – and I think the rest of the animal kingdom does likewise.
Thanks for going to the trouble of trawling the internet to find links showing the pro-homo theories, Krom. . There are many studies/reports/theories emanating out of universities which are clearly the result of the pro-gay agenda, and there will always be freaks of nature such as "gay" penguins etc. It doesn't make a jot of difference to the basic fact that homosexuality is un-natural and is not conducive to reproduction of species. The idea that babies are pre-wired by nature to be "gay" is absolutely illogical as it would spell the end of a species. The fact that some "scientists" with letters behind their name will propound theories that appease the gay agenda is wholly irrelevant, and it's clear that some don't let their education get in the way of their ignorance.
Naomi makes a good point very succinctly!
Naomi makes a good point very succinctly!
//There are many studies/reports/theories emanating out of universities which are clearly the result of the pro-gay agenda//
Go on then prove them wrong with your dizzying intellect. I'll take them over "old man on the internet" unless you can back up your point.
The sibling correlation, for example, is very difficuly to deny. How do you explain it?
//The idea that babies are pre-wired by nature to be "gay" is absolutely illogical as it would spell the end of a species.//
Only if 100% of babies were. If a small proportion are born that way, though, it can actually benefit the herd because it gives them a collective advantage in child-rearing.
Go on then prove them wrong with your dizzying intellect. I'll take them over "old man on the internet" unless you can back up your point.
The sibling correlation, for example, is very difficuly to deny. How do you explain it?
//The idea that babies are pre-wired by nature to be "gay" is absolutely illogical as it would spell the end of a species.//
Only if 100% of babies were. If a small proportion are born that way, though, it can actually benefit the herd because it gives them a collective advantage in child-rearing.
Doesn't bringing animals into the equation actually confuse the issue? Guinea pigs eat their young, but that doesn't normalise human cannibalism. Gorillas eat their own faeces- that doesn't make consumption of excrement normal activity for humans. Birds lay eggs, but that doesn't mean it's natural for humans to do so... It's a bit of a non-starter of an argument to suggest that because some rats, lions or penguins appear to engage in a bit of "hows yer father" with the same gender that it is in any way linked to homosexuality in humans. In my opinion :)
Krom, //The sibling correlation, for example, is very difficuly to deny. How do you explain it?//
My friend was married to a man who, after fathering her two children and raising them, declared he was gay and left her for a man. Both her children subsequently declared that they too were gay. I hesitate to suggest - but I will – that if children are indeed born gay, then a rogue gene could be responsible – just as rogue genes are responsible for inherited disease. Possible?
My friend was married to a man who, after fathering her two children and raising them, declared he was gay and left her for a man. Both her children subsequently declared that they too were gay. I hesitate to suggest - but I will – that if children are indeed born gay, then a rogue gene could be responsible – just as rogue genes are responsible for inherited disease. Possible?
Krom- //Go on then prove them wrong [pro-gay theories] with your dizzying intellect. I'll take them over "old man on the internet" unless you can back up your point. // You're very welcome- I am not trying to make any "point" as such, simply endorsing very basic biology.
//The sibling correlation, for example, is very difficuly to deny. How do you explain it? // If you're referring to the Brock study, this is an isolated study carried out on a very limited number of people and is certainly not conclusive. As the New Scientist points out "the team’s study only looked at a very small number of people, so strong conclusions CANNOT be drawn yet. The significance of this preliminary observation, IF it can be replicated, is that it identifies specific molecules in the brain that may be important for heterosexual as well as homosexual development,” says Dean Hamer, a pioneer of researching the biological determinants of sexual orientation. The finding “COULD pave the way to a detailed neurobiological and genetic understanding of this fascinating aspect of human development”, he says. "- (my capitalisation).
//The idea that babies are pre-wired by nature to be "gay" is absolutely illogical as it would spell the end of a species.//
Krom- //Only if 100% of babies were. If a small proportion are born that way, though, it can actually benefit the herd because it gives them a collective advantage in child-rearing. // The same way that it benefits the "herd" if a certain number are heterosexual females? And as for small proportion, some would argue that the proportion of homosexuals in society is anything but! :)
//The sibling correlation, for example, is very difficuly to deny. How do you explain it? // If you're referring to the Brock study, this is an isolated study carried out on a very limited number of people and is certainly not conclusive. As the New Scientist points out "the team’s study only looked at a very small number of people, so strong conclusions CANNOT be drawn yet. The significance of this preliminary observation, IF it can be replicated, is that it identifies specific molecules in the brain that may be important for heterosexual as well as homosexual development,” says Dean Hamer, a pioneer of researching the biological determinants of sexual orientation. The finding “COULD pave the way to a detailed neurobiological and genetic understanding of this fascinating aspect of human development”, he says. "- (my capitalisation).
//The idea that babies are pre-wired by nature to be "gay" is absolutely illogical as it would spell the end of a species.//
Krom- //Only if 100% of babies were. If a small proportion are born that way, though, it can actually benefit the herd because it gives them a collective advantage in child-rearing. // The same way that it benefits the "herd" if a certain number are heterosexual females? And as for small proportion, some would argue that the proportion of homosexuals in society is anything but! :)
Latest Posts
News1 min ago
Starmer And The Southpost Triple...
News7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
Film, Media & TV13 mins ago
ChatterBank20 mins ago
