OT: The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools

[NotCranky]

I enjoyed the conversations, but based on the direction taken by the OP , in the face of such discussions, this is for all practical purposes a “Troll” post. O.K., so I am slow on some things.

[scaredyclassic]

i am way too lazy to cheat on my wife. I think it wouldn’t take that much energy to be a homophobe, but maybe I underestimate the calorie drain expended in a slow, smoldering hate…

could hatred be part of an effective weightloss program?

cheating. ach. another woman to deal with. if i were going to cheat I’d want something way different, say, like a homosexual relationship. or maybe a space alien. but I don’t want to sleep with men, …aliens, I’d have to check them out…….I was just looking for variety….cheating with another woman seems kind of unimaginative…

[zippythepinhead]

Paramount, I sympathize with you on what is age appropriate. My wife and I felt compelled to put our kids in parochial schools which is quite expensive these days. Home schooling may be another option for some. Good luck with it!

[njtosd]

[quote=spdrun]Why — the world is overpopulated as it is. Fewer breeders would be a good thing.

(OK, maybe not for the R.E. market, but places like CA will always be desirable.)[/quote]

We’ll – it sounds like you haven’t yet – so feel free to not procreate. The problem with that is that any genetic predisposition to not procreate will disappear from a population. Think about it.

[NotCranky]

[quote=njtosd][quote=spdrun]Why — the world is overpopulated as it is. Fewer breeders would be a good thing.

(OK, maybe not for the R.E. market, but places like CA will always be desirable.)[/quote]

We’ll – it sounds like you haven’t yet – so feel free to not procreate. The problem with that is that any genetic predisposition to not procreate will disappear from a population. Think about it.[/quote]

Not if most people are bisexual or if women carry the gene. Not that I am stating either to be facts ….but think about it.

[NotCranky]

del.

[spdrun]

You miss my point — in primitive, tribal societies, people not procreating could make or break a clan. Nowadays, we have enough people to go around, so the 10% of homosexuals that happen to exist (and not breed “naturally”) aren’t a huge survival risk.

And actually, recessive traits that don’t permit procreation don’t disappear … think of Tay-Sachs Disease or anything that causes children to die young. I do realize that homosexuality is more complicated than that, but it’s not as simple as you make out either.

[njtosd]

[quote=spdrun]You miss my point — in primitive, tribal societies, people not procreating could make or break a clan. Nowadays, we have enough people to go around, so the 10% of homosexuals that happen to exist (and not breed “naturally”) aren’t a huge survival risk.

And actually, recessive traits that don’t permit procreation don’t disappear … think of Tay-Sachs Disease or anything that causes children to die young. I do realize that homosexuality is more complicated than that, but it’s not as simple as you make out either.[/quote]

First of all, i wasnt refering to homosexuality, just your consistent anti-having kids viewpoint. And actually, given enough time, they do almost disappear, unless there is a selective advantage to being heterozygous. For example sickle cell anemia requires two recessive genes; those with only one sickle cell gene are more resistant to malaria. There is some suggestion that people heterozygous for Tay Sachs are more resistant to tuberculosis, which was an advantage for most of history. And it’s too long to go into, but natural selection acts at the level of the individual. If you have a gene that makes you less likely to procreate than the girl or guy next door, their gene will slowly gain representation in the population and yours will slowly become vanishingly small, unless there is a heterozygote advantage.

[njtosd]

[quote=Blogstar][quote=njtosd][quote=spdrun]Why — the world is overpopulated as it is. Fewer breeders would be a good thing.

(OK, maybe not for the R.E. market, but places like CA will always be desirable.)[/quote]

We’ll – it sounds like you haven’t yet – so feel free to not procreate. The problem with that is that any genetic predisposition to not procreate will disappear from a population. Think about it.[/quote]

Not if most people are bisexual or if women carry the gene. Not that I am stating either to be facts ….but think about it.[/quote]

You realize that there are no genes that only women carry …….right? We all have x chromosomes – only half of us have Ys. And yes, those are the boys. The thing about bisexuality makes no sense on so many levels I’m just going to assume biology wasn’t your thing.

[spdrun]

First of all, i wasnt refering to homosexuality, just your consistent anti-having kids viewpoint.

I’m not anti-kid, I’m anti having more than two kids.

[NotCranky]

Go ahead and explain why bi-sexuality makes no sense on so many levels.
If I am wrong about the other that’t my fault but I read it in a peer reviewed paper, I believe.

There are also ideas that the transference of the trait falls under the realm of cultural anthropology. It is in all primate social orders and probably always has been.

[njtosd]

[quote=Blogstar]Go ahead and explain why bi-sexuality makes no sense on some many levels.
If I am wrong about the other that’t my fault but I read it in a peer reviewed paper, I believe.[/quote]

No, I didn’t say bisexuality didn’t make sense. I meant you didn’t make sense. Regardless of sexual orientation, genes the discourage procreation are selected against. Thats evolution 101. If you need a “peer reviewed” source, read The Origin of Species.

You are wrong about the other. Mitochondrial genes are only passed down by the mother, but we all have them.

[NotCranky]

Nice bluff,

I think you could do some more reading. The scientific debate does involve the things I mentioned. We don’t know everything Darwin or not. We do know that all primates exhibit homosexual activities and always have. Making this a moral issue comes from the church(well before darwin) and some state’s agendas. I am sure some of us can be free from influence of those institutions ,or think we are, and be prejudiced too.

[njtosd]

[quote=Blogstar]Nice bluff,

I think you could do some more reading. The scientific debate does involve the things I mentioned. We don’t know everything Darwin or not. We do know that all primates exhibit homosexual activities and always have. Making this a moral issue comes from the church(well before darwin) and some state’s agendas. I am sure some of us can be free from influence of those institutions ,or think we are, and be prejudiced too.[/quote]

Nice bluff? I’m trying not to be too harsh about your, well, hand waving. Just to clarify – since you want to talk about homosexuality (which I told spdrun I wasn’t) there’s significant support for the proposition that there are likely both genetic and developmental factors influencing homosexuality, and that the increase in fertility among gay men’s female relatives “makes up” for their lower level of reproduction.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2158795/Gay-gene-survives-generations-female-relatives-homosexual-men-babies.html
Furthermore, there is a lot of evidence that the maternal immune response to the fetus may also play a part.

Blogstar, there is no question in my mind that you’re rather uninformed on the science relating to this topic. Read before you write . . .

[NotCranky]

I am not that uninformed. I misunderstood your point in at least some places and your general stance(which you have made clear). It didn’t help that you were acting like such a blowhard. A lot of theories are in the realm of possibility.

[Author]

Posts