BC Parents Will Have to Lie to Keep Kids out of Gay Advocacy
Previous 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 28 Next
Hardy @ Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:00 pm
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
You need the 25% to be constantly reshuffling back into the general population for the ratios to hold.
You could start with an entire population with the same recessive gene. If the 25% first generation are virtually removed for non-reproduction, then you only have increasing proportions pure dominant genes, not recessives.
You could start with an entire population with the same recessive gene. If the 25% first generation are virtually removed for non-reproduction, then you only have increasing proportions pure dominant genes, not recessives.
After one generation, you will have a breeding population which is 2/3 carriers, 1/3 non-carriers. For the carriers to maintain their percentage of the breeding population, recessive genes need to have a positive influence on survival -- in the case of sickle cell, it was malaria resistance. What survival traits might be associated with homosexuality-related genes is anyone's guess, since such genes would have to be isolated before they could be analysed, and none have yet been isolated.
If one parent has sickle cell anemia and the other isn't even a carrier, all offspring will be carriers, so occasional exceptions will make a significant difference. And we haven't really considered the role of bisexuality, which could be quite large. Not just bisexuals who seem quite comfortable with the opposite sex, like Angelina Jolie, but those who definitely prefer the same sex, like Oscar Wilde, who yet had 2 kids.
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
All I've ever said.
I know. We're not really disagreeing about any facts. But you are having fun throwing out incomplete statements of truth, and baiting people with suggestions of genetic screening and so on. That's why I'm nitpicking.
And what would you expect me to do? Pass the time by debating Maggiemygosh?
Jaime_Souviens @ Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:00 pm
lily lily:
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
You went off on a high and indignant rage over a simple paragraph that you didn't bother to read fully.
You didn't know what the hell you were talking about.
Yeah, that's a misreading.
Pretend to be the aggreived party here, you look like a fooking idiot.
You didn't know what the hell you were talking about.
Yeah, that's a misreading.
Pretend to be the aggreived party here, you look like a fooking idiot.
You have got to be kidding. I'm in a high and indignant rage?
Someone's a bit of a drama queen tonight.
I've read and reread your "simple paragraph" and I stand behind what I wrote.
Then you're a liar.
And I demand an apology for your misrepresentation of my post.
Jaime_Souviens @ Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:01 pm
IceOwl IceOwl:
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
IceOwl IceOwl:
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
$1:
Seems you've run out of steam, since there is not a single dispassionate and even remotely factual soundbite in your latest reply. Please, if you're going to attack me, refute my statement. Just try.
What?
Do you realize this was not a response to you?
You saw fit to include my name as an attack on someone else. Are you that much of a coward, or are you going to take up my challenge? It shouldn't be that difficult if you're correct.
You had a challenge out? ---I don't really read your posts.
No, you read my posts, you just have a conveniently short memory, you pathetic coward.
But just to be sure it doesn't go by the wayside, I'm challenging you to refute any one of my arguments, since you seem to think they're inane enough to use as a rather weak insult when you've been disarmed of all other avenues of rebuttal.
What one of your arguments?
SireJoe @ Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:03 pm
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
SireJoe SireJoe:
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
SireJoe SireJoe:
lol God. Your like the playground bully. Tryin to act all tough on the outside and crying a little on the inside. Stay strong little lady, stay strong. One day your simplistic views may come to fruition. Probably not, but dont lose that hope!
Keep going....
I know you realize that you were wrong, and are now trying to avoid the issue.
Fine with me.
Awwww ya you keep those dukes up little boy. We all know yer a little tuffy! Go get 'im tiger! lol
Can't face it, can you?
Alright there little butternuts. Seeing as how you still wanna show off your little penis....this is how this all came about:
$1:
Of course, by doing this, the people who have adopted this position have also undercut their own cause. If it's only genetic, we can screen for it and eliminate it. If it's only genetic, then pleas for understanding are meaningless. If its only genetic, then it's not something that can fight for dignity and self-respect, it's just a condition.
$1:
You stupid idiot, by insisting it's biological, you're the one on the disease side of the equation.
See how you STARTED this little ranting and raving of ours to IMPLY that I am saying that being gay is genetic equates me to saying that, it being genetic means its a disease.
Your the fucking idiot whole started the whole thing by IMPLYING SOMETHING I NEVER SAID. Can you understand any of this, or is it WAY over your head now. Your implication to the fact that one can SCREEN it out brings to light your obvious bias bigotted attitude. If it were indeed a genetic trait your claim is that it is then a defect.
YOUR THE ONE SAYING IT. Your a fucking idiot who cannot even understand his own postings. Get a grip.
Edit: sp.
hwacker @ Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:07 pm
IceOwl IceOwl:
Make up your mind then. Are people who are past their prime and no longer capable of reproducing defective if they never had children before but want them now?
capable ? like Warren Beatty, 63, Tony Randall, 79, Saul Bellow, 84.
A defect is something you’re born with. Bad heart, kidney, retarded, gay.
Hardy @ Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:10 pm
lily lily:
In that same vein... I'm wondering why Jaime thought to add the bit about screening and eliminating it as if it's naturally a "defect".
See my comment above about Jaime's having fun baiting people.
Jaime_Souviens @ Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:10 pm
Hardy Hardy:
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
You need the 25% to be constantly reshuffling back into the general population for the ratios to hold.
You could start with an entire population with the same recessive gene. If the 25% first generation are virtually removed for non-reproduction, then you only have increasing proportions pure dominant genes, not recessives.
You could start with an entire population with the same recessive gene. If the 25% first generation are virtually removed for non-reproduction, then you only have increasing proportions pure dominant genes, not recessives.
After one generation, you will have a breeding population which is 2/3 carriers, 1/3 non-carriers. For the carriers to maintain their percentage of the breeding population, recessive genes need to have a positive influence on survival -- in the case of sickle cell, it was malaria resistance. What survival traits might be associated with homosexuality-related genes is anyone's guess, since such genes would have to be isolated before they could be analysed, and none have yet been isolated.
If one parent has sickle cell anemia and the other isn't even a carrier, all offspring will be carriers, so occasional exceptions will make a significant difference. And we haven't really considered the role of bisexuality, which could be quite large. Not just bisexuals who seem quite comfortable with the opposite sex, like Angelina Jolie, but those who definitely prefer the same sex, like Oscar Wilde, who yet had 2 kids.
Oh, so you want to introduce factors no one knows of or understands to keep the inevitable math from taking it's course?
As I said, you need the 25% full-recessives to be constantly feeding back into the equation or it peters out. The likelihood of that, given that the only reproduction in that group is anomolous, is fairly slim.
Hardy Hardy:
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
All I've ever said.
I know. We're not really disagreeing about any facts. But you are having fun throwing out incomplete statements of truth, and baiting people with suggestions of genetic screening and so on. That's why I'm nitpicking.
I was not baiting people, I was just trying to show where their position led. And I'm not going to stand by and let people make unpleasant accusations. At least one of them claims to be an adult, and should be able to have better self-control.
Hardy Hardy:
And what would you expect me to do? Pass the time by debating Maggiemygosh?
Don't worry about her, she's just a made up persona.
But fair enough, and thanks.
Jaime_Souviens @ Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:12 pm
lily lily:
In that same vein... I'm wondering why Jaime thought to add the bit about screening and eliminating it as if it's naturally a "defect".
Liar.
SireJoe @ Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:14 pm
Aww, little Jaime cant reply to my post? Now its time to be the adult and admit your the wrong party here little lady. Come on now, put the dukes down. Fess up.
Jaime_Souviens @ Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:18 pm
SireJoe SireJoe:
Alright there little butternuts. Seeing as how you still wanna show off your little penis....this is how this all came about:
See how you STARTED this little ranting and raving of ours to IMPLY that I am saying that being gay is genetic equates me to saying that it being genetic means its a disease.
$1:
Of course, by doing this, the people who have adopted this position have also undercut their own cause. If it's only genetic, we can screen for it and eliminate it. If it's only genetic, then pleas for understanding are meaningless. If its only genetic, then it's not something that can fight for dignity and self-respect, it's just a condition.
$1:
You stupid idiot, by insisting it's biological, you're the one on the disease side of the equation.
See how you STARTED this little ranting and raving of ours to IMPLY that I am saying that being gay is genetic equates me to saying that it being genetic means its a disease.
I started your raving?
SireJoe SireJoe:
Your the fucking idiot who started the who thing by IMPLYING SOMETHING I NEVER SAID. Can you understand any of this, or is it WAY over your head now. Your implication to the fact that one can SCREEN it out brings to light your obvious bias bigotted attitude. If it were indeed a genetic trait your claim is that it is then a defect.
Idiot.
I never advocated screening for homosexuality. I don't think you can. I don't think it's genetic.
If you don't like where your position leads, then think about what the fuck you're saying.
Jaime_Souviens @ Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:20 pm
SireJoe SireJoe:
Aww, little Jaime cant reply to my post? Now its time to be the adult and admit your the wrong party here little lady. Come on now, put the dukes down. Fess up.
I was responding to other people. Jackass.
SireJoe @ Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:23 pm
lol you cant even dispute your own bloody words! Your dancing around like....like...like a little princess! Thats no way to be the playground bully!
Get over yourself. Its obvious what you said. Time to give it up already.
Jaime_Souviens @ Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:25 pm
SireJoe SireJoe:
lol you cant even dispute your own bloody words! Your dancing around like....like...like a little princess! Thats no way to be the playground bully!
Get over yourself. Its obvious what you said. Time to give it up already.
Get over yourself. Its obvious what you said. Time to give it up already.
It's obvious?
Quote me.
SireJoe @ Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:26 pm
I did you fucking idiot! Did you not even read the fucking post? Talk about confused. Sounds like your getting a touch of the hwacker.
Previous 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 28 Next