Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Pride - who will it be ?

Who will be the pride of Pride ?

  • Algae

    Votes: 17 56.7%
  • Jevs

    Votes: 3 10.0%
  • Looney

    Votes: 10 33.3%

  • Total voters
    30
  • Poll closed .


The Large One

Who's Next?
Jul 7, 2003
52,343
97.2FM
nope. I think it's far more nature than nurture.

Stands to reason - otherwise a gay person would have all gay brothers and sisters.

If we are born with a 'gay gene', then surely the inheritence of that gene through birth would be far higher - especially within siblings? Not necessarily, obviously, but the opposite argument can be made. By the same token, I could also infer from that that, assuming we all have the same experiences and operate within the same environment that we would all respond in exactly the same way. The point is, of course, we don't.

As an example in its crudest form, for instance, I could sit next to my brother on a rollercoaster. He'd love it - I'd hate it. Or, I could sit and watch the Albion play with him, and we could argue the toss as to whether we enjoyed the game or not, or who played well and who didn't...

There is no hard and fast scientific evidence (it's mostly anecdotal or political) to support the theory that you're born gay. If nothing else, there's an over-simplification of the sexual orientations being either straight or gay. Is there, for instance, a genetic code which makes people have a sexual preference for, say, blondes or redheads or short people or beards or stuffed toys or blow-up dolls or animals or none of the above or all of the above or a complicated combination of the above? If so, has it been found yet?
 
Last edited:




nope. I think it's far more nature than nurture.

Stands to reason - otherwise a gay person would have all gay brothers and sisters.

If it's nature OR nurture, then genetically ginadim's twin pals would both have to be gay or both straight.
It's a sexual choice, just like any sexual perversion.

Okay, what's next - why not let a man marry two or more women?? :cheery::p :cheery:
Or a woman have several husbands? :afro: :cheery: :love: :mushy:
Why is THIS not socially accepted and legally sanctioned?
 


Clothes Peg

New member
Mar 3, 2007
2,305
If it's nature OR nurture, then genetically ginadim's twin pals would both have to be gay or both straight.
It's a sexual choice, just like any sexual perversion.

Okay, what's next - why not let a man marry two or more women?? :cheery::p :cheery:
Or a woman have several husbands? :afro: :cheery: :love: :mushy:
Why is THIS not socially accepted and legally sanctioned?

The use of emoticons there really made me laugh.

N.B; those twins are non-identical if that changes the way we look at it genetically.

100 years ago, homosexuality was illegal and wrong, but now society accepts it. What if the same approach was applied to paedophilia and the sexual abuse of children. Now that is worrying. The way society changes is strange.
 


Buzzer

Languidly Clinical
Oct 1, 2006
26,121
If it's nature OR nurture, then genetically ginadim's twin pals would both have to be gay or both straight.
It's a sexual choice, just like any sexual perversion.

Okay, what's next - why not let a man marry two or more women?? :cheery::p :cheery:
Or a woman have several husbands? :afro: :cheery: :love: :mushy:
Why is THIS not socially accepted and legally sanctioned?

our resident eugenist.

What do you care, anyway? You want them all gassed or blown up.
 








Who defines what is perversion and what is 'normal'? You?

Good question, I'm not sure who decides that.
You brought an interesting question there, let me know when you find out.

Social mores must be based on some social judging group.
Is it about time they allowed a man to marry several wives, and a woman several husbands?
Consenting adults, all spit-roasting each other in the privacy of their own homes - so why not allow it?
 






Cian

Well-known member
Jul 16, 2003
14,262
Dublin, Ireland
Good question, I'm not sure who decides that.
You brought an interesting question there, let me know when you find out.

Social mores must be based on some social judging group.
Is it about time they allowed a man to marry several wives, and a woman several husbands?
Consenting adults, all spit-roasting each other in the privacy of their own homes - so why not allow it?

Again making an apples/oranges comparison to avoid answering the question properly, I see.
 


Cian

Well-known member
Jul 16, 2003
14,262
Dublin, Ireland
Why do we seem to reach this impasse, whenever I 'hit the nail on the head'?

Perversion it is, whether you like the word, or not.

Are you quite completely deluded? You haven't "hit the nail on the head", you're just repeatedly showing yourself to be in a little world of your own, well, you, algie & co.

Its no more perverted than heterosexual sex, whether you want to admit that or not.
 


Again making an apples/oranges comparison to avoid answering the question properly, I see.

Again disregarding a tangible comparison without addressing it IN THE SLIGHTEST.

It's sad how you are incapable of tackling things when required to face any real questions. You'd be MUCH better off taking on the nazi style arguments like "feckin' queers should all be shot" and the like. Then you can dismiss with alacrity, so much easier to wave away.

I did approach the questions properly; WHY NOT ALLOW POLYGAMISTS TO MARRY AND ADOPT??

wasting my time on debating things with someone as poor as you.
 




Cian

Well-known member
Jul 16, 2003
14,262
Dublin, Ireland
Again disregarding a tangible comparison without addressing it IN THE SLIGHTEST.

But its not tangiable

Monogamous relationship between consenting adults.

Polygamous to massively polygamous relationship.

Not comparable, except in your strange little world obviously.
 


Are you quite completely deluded? You haven't "hit the nail on the head", you're just repeatedly showing yourself to be in a little world of your own, well, you, algie & co.

Its no more perverted than heterosexual sex, whether you want to admit that or not.

To use the word "admit" intimates that there is some honest and righteous answer I am failing to accede to. So, unless I EVER agree with you, I must therefore be wrong?
Of course you would hate to face the truth, that homosexuality is refusal or failure to recognize NATURE in the very genitalia you can see right under your naval. (I won't say your nose, because it's probably someone else's genitals there).

Nature is the very body you were CREATED IN. Do you also refuse to believe you are a mammal?? How about Homo Sapien....that shouldn't be too tough to recognize surely?

So how is it a your nob and a woman's vagina don't seem to suggest to you for one brief moment that nature created your sexuality so that you should naturally mate with a woman?

Homosexuality = perversion. QED.
 








Cian

Well-known member
Jul 16, 2003
14,262
Dublin, Ireland
To use the word "admit" intimates that there is some honest and righteous answer I am failing to accede to. So, unless I EVER agree with you, I must therefore be wrong?
Of course you would hate to face the truth, that homosexuality is refusal or failure to recognize NATURE in the very genitalia you can see right under your naval. (I won't say your nose, because it's probably someone else's genitals there).

Nature is the very body you were CREATED IN. Do you also refuse to believe you are a mammal?? How about Homo Sapien....that shouldn't be too tough to recognize surely?

So how is it a your nob and a woman's vagina don't seem to suggest to you for one brief moment that nature created your sexuality so that you should naturally mate with a woman?

Homosexuality = perversion. QED.

To expand on my original gut reaction post, I fail to see the use of arguing with a dyed-in-the-wool bigot like you on this issue. You're living in a pre-1967 world, and virtually everyone else on this thread is living in the present. You're not going to change your bigoted views or warped perception of reality, whereas thankfully virtually everyone else in this part of the world has.

However, I'll add one more point - many humans are infertile, incapable of having children. Based on your argument, does this make them 'unnatural' due to their lack of pro-creation?
 










Dave the OAP

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
46,690
at home
*pops in to see what is going on*

* gulps*

*shuts door on way out*
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here