|
Post by Lakeland Potter on May 29, 2010 6:44:47 GMT
"that line of genes dies out" - Northwich, that is the biggest load of crap I have heard. If it were true then how is it that all primate species have individuals who exhibit homosexual behaviour? I doubt if there is a gene for homosexuality - although there could be a random combination of genes which predisposes someone to be homosexual. However, it is never going to "die out" as you put it, because it will continue to crop up like clockwork in every generation. Always has and always will. What would be unnatural would be if it suddenly stopped happening. Scientists would be tearing their hair out to find out why a natural phenomenon which has been with us since we became Homo Sapiens had suddenly "switched itself off". bit like most of your arse licking posts then forny If a homosexual animal in the animal kingdom does not mate then how is it going to reproduce? That line of genes dies out, it's bleeding obvious, try watching your squirrels for a while As I said above - I doubt very much if there is a gene for homosexuality. But there might be a combination of genes which predispose the individual to homosexuality. If that is so then there is no gene for homosexuality to die out - just the same genes that are in the rest of the population.
|
|
|
Post by Stoke-on-Toronto on May 29, 2010 6:46:18 GMT
Northwichstokie, back it up with evidence. Please!
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on May 29, 2010 6:46:32 GMT
It's pointless when people condemn or justify human behaviour by comparing with animals. Are we wrong not to chew the could? Am I unnatural to be going baldy because monkeys don't? The word is "cud" Joe! ;D
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on May 29, 2010 6:47:48 GMT
I have no idea how many northwhich. You can't really believe rape and infanticide don't exist in nature, or in human history (or homosexuality for that matter). I merely asked if it was more natural to rape a woman than have consenting sex with a man?
Following your rationale, is it possible that your 'homosexual gene' would be nature's way of tackling over population and is therefore nature's bidding and the most natural thing in the world?
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on May 29, 2010 6:49:15 GMT
CUD CUD!! CHEW THE CUD!! ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Stoke-on-Toronto on May 29, 2010 6:49:18 GMT
Following your rationale, is it possible that your 'homosexual gene' would be nature's way of tackling over population and is therefore nature's bidding and the most natural thing in the world? makes more sense than the ridiculous accusations he's spewing.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on May 29, 2010 7:13:57 GMT
back to the program, fans have no problems taking the piss out of the sexuality of players they rightly or wrongly assume to be gay - sol, le saux etc. in todays game could a footballer come out
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on May 29, 2010 7:24:33 GMT
I suspect many gay footballers will have come out to their team mates but I can understand why few would wish to come out to the general public. Football fans rarely pass up an opportunity to have a go at opposition players for anythng.
|
|
|
Post by One-Two on May 29, 2010 12:11:32 GMT
How is it 'not natural' if much of it is due to genes? Fuck me, some of you live in the 70's. I couldn't give a shit if they're cavemen or raging homosexuals. It's human nature. Everyone's different. P.S I also know a girl who went out with Pique, although they may have been more of an 'item' if what I was told is correct. Natural, how is it natural? Male and female together are natural, male and male or female and female, or man and goat is un-natural. You say it's the gene's which make it natural? well it's defective genes which has made it happen, therefore it's not natural it's a defect of nature which is un-natural. The penis is meant to go in the vagina, the bowels are meant for storing waste from the body, how is it natural to put a penis in the bowels? Therefore It's defective nature, in the animal kingdon a defect would easily be spotted and that line of genes dies out. How are faulty genes unnatural? Without faulty genes we wouldn't be here now, we wouldn't be able to see, hear, speak, even think. We started out as single cell organisms, able to do hardly anything at all, and it is through these "unnatural" faulty genes that we have become what we are in present day, this is evolution. A random mistake in the copying of a genetic code is what has made us human, so if you think like that, we as a species are unnatural.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on May 29, 2010 12:25:18 GMT
Natural, how is it natural? Male and female together are natural, male and male or female and female, or man and goat is un-natural. You say it's the gene's which make it natural? well it's defective genes which has made it happen, therefore it's not natural it's a defect of nature which is un-natural. The penis is meant to go in the vagina, the bowels are meant for storing waste from the body, how is it natural to put a penis in the bowels? Therefore It's defective nature, in the animal kingdon a defect would easily be spotted and that line of genes dies out. How are faulty genes unnatural? Without faulty genes we wouldn't be here now, we wouldn't be able to see, hear, speak, even think. We started out as single cell organisms, able to do hardly anything at all, and it is through these "unnatural" faulty genes that we have become what we are in present day, this is evolution. A random mistake in the copying of a genetic code is what has made us human, so if you think like that, we as a species are unnatural. True - and white skin is not the colour we had when we first stood upright in Africa. However, whatever scientists say, in REAL the world of the Oatie message board, natural is what Northwichstokie says is natural! ;D
|
|
|
Post by amancalledhorse on May 29, 2010 14:00:17 GMT
Certain species I believe use rape as the main mating strategy, mallards being the one that comes to mind. There's a story on the internet about two mallards who tried to rape a lady in flight and when one smashed his face into a building and died his mate came and bummed his dead duck hole. www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/mar/08/highereducation.researchI was under the impression that homosexuality was exhibited in 10% of all mammals with some species being much higher. Is it giraffes or penguins that fuck like a load of Greeks scholars on E?
|
|
|
Post by Jimmy Cooper on May 29, 2010 14:22:15 GMT
Natural, how is it natural? Male and female together are natural, male and male or female and female, or man and goat is un-natural. You say it's the gene's which make it natural? well it's defective genes which has made it happen, therefore it's not natural it's a defect of nature which is un-natural. The penis is meant to go in the vagina, the bowels are meant for storing waste from the body, how is it natural to put a penis in the bowels? Therefore It's defective nature, in the animal kingdon a defect would easily be spotted and that line of genes dies out.Then surely the gene would have 'died out' in humans too? It's not hereditary (how could it be?). And a defect of nature is still natural, just not the usual- that's how evolution works sweetcheeks
|
|
|
Post by Northy on May 29, 2010 15:30:35 GMT
I have no idea how many northwhich. You can't really believe rape and infanticide don't exist in nature, or in human history (or homosexuality for that matter). I merely asked if it was more natural to rape a woman than have consenting sex with a man? Following your rationale, is it possible that your 'homosexual gene' would be nature's way of tackling over population and is therefore nature's bidding and the most natural thing in the world? no, that would be starvation
|
|
|
Post by Northy on May 29, 2010 15:38:08 GMT
How are faulty genes unnatural? Without faulty genes we wouldn't be here now, we wouldn't be able to see, hear, speak, even think. We started out as single cell organisms, able to do hardly anything at all, and it is through these "unnatural" faulty genes that we have become what we are in present day, this is evolution. A random mistake in the copying of a genetic code is what has made us human, so if you think like that, we as a species are unnatural. True - and white skin is not the colour we had when we first stood upright in Africa. However, whatever scientists say, in REAL the world of the Oatie message board, natural is what Northwichstokie says is natural! ;D How do you know what colour the skin was? Nobody has ever found any have they? We probably evolved from single cells into something better to what we are now, and that wasn't creating genes that made us so we couldn't reproduce, otherwise we wouldn't be here would we?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on May 29, 2010 15:42:27 GMT
Have I entered the 70's? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Northy on May 29, 2010 15:45:37 GMT
Northwichstokie, back it up with evidence. Please! One of the most influential studies on the genetics of homosexuality was done by Dean Hamer and his co-workers at the National Cancer Institute in Washington DC (1993). Hamer's research involved studying thirty-two pairs of brothers who were either "exclusively or mostly" homosexual. None of the sets of brothers were related. Of the thirty-two pairs, Hamer and his colleagues found that two-thirds of them (twenty-two of the sets of brothers) shared the same type of genetic material. This strongly supports the hypothesis that there is an existing gene that influences homosexuality. Hamer then looked closely at the DNA of these gay brothers to try and find the region of the X chromosome (since the earlier research suggested that the gene was passed down maternally) that most of the homosexual brothers shared. He discovered that homosexual brothers have a much higher likelihood of inheriting the same genetic sequence on the region of the X chromosome identified by Xq28, than heterosexual brothers of the same gay men.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on May 29, 2010 15:46:47 GMT
Isn't DNA for want of a better word, natural?
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on May 29, 2010 16:09:37 GMT
Northwichstokie, back it up with evidence. Please! One of the most influential studies on the genetics of homosexuality was done by Dean Hamer and his co-workers at the National Cancer Institute in Washington DC (1993). Hamer's research involved studying thirty-two pairs of brothers who were either "exclusively or mostly" homosexual. None of the sets of brothers were related. Of the thirty-two pairs, Hamer and his colleagues found that two-thirds of them (twenty-two of the sets of brothers) shared the same type of genetic material. This strongly supports the hypothesis that there is an existing gene that influences homosexuality. Hamer then looked closely at the DNA of these gay brothers to try and find the region of the X chromosome (since the earlier research suggested that the gene was passed down maternally) that most of the homosexual brothers shared. He discovered that homosexual brothers have a much higher likelihood of inheriting the same genetic sequence on the region of the X chromosome identified by Xq28, than heterosexual brothers of the same gay men. You seem to be arguing against your own claim that homosexuality isn't natural. What is unnatural about a gene sequence which, if Hamer's theory is true, is shared by many millions of men? Note: his theory doesn't hold true for female homosexuals and his research findings have been replicated by some other studies but not by others.
|
|
|
Post by Orbs on May 29, 2010 16:36:09 GMT
For what it's worth I wrote to Richard Dawkins a few years back and asked him about homosexuality in animals (I include humans as animals ) as I couldn't work out how if the DNA characteristics are passed on through genes then by definition homosexuality should not continue. It is obvious that because homosexuals can't reproduce then the 'trait' of being a homosexual can not be passed on to the next generation. Dawkins basically said he didn't know and "it remained a problem" Either that are he couldn't be arsed to answer me properly as he was being gobbled by Doctor Who's assistant.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on May 29, 2010 16:45:09 GMT
For what it's worth I wrote to Richard Dawkins a few years back and asked him about homosexuality in animals (I include humans as animals ) as I couldn't work out how if the DNA characteristics are passed on through genes then by definition homosexuality should not continue. It is obvious that because homosexuals can't reproduce then the 'trait' of being a homosexual can not be passed on to the next generation.Dawkins basically said he didn't know and "it remained a problem" Either that are he couldn't be arsed to answer me properly as he was being gobbled by Doctor Who's assistant. Too simplistic, orbital. A Homosexual gene would certainly die out if there was one. But as suggested in several posts above by myself and Northwich, a combination or sequence of genes could be inherited from one or both heterosexual parents and might predispose the person inheriting that sequence to homosexuality.
|
|
|
Post by Orbs on May 29, 2010 16:50:35 GMT
For what it's worth I wrote to Richard Dawkins a few years back and asked him about homosexuality in animals (I include humans as animals ) as I couldn't work out how if the DNA characteristics are passed on through genes then by definition homosexuality should not continue. It is obvious that because homosexuals can't reproduce then the 'trait' of being a homosexual can not be passed on to the next generation.Dawkins basically said he didn't know and "it remained a problem" Either that are he couldn't be arsed to answer me properly as he was being gobbled by Doctor Who's assistant. Too simplistic, orbital. A Homosexual gene would certainly die out if there was one. But as suggested in several posts above by myself and Northwich, a combination or sequence of genes could be inherited from one or both heterosexual parents and might predispose the person inheriting that sequence to homosexuality. Oh right. Nicely explained LP ;D Where the fuck is this thread btw? I can't find it anywhere ???
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on May 29, 2010 17:07:01 GMT
Gay Military Dating add. ;D One for the navy.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on May 29, 2010 17:21:47 GMT
Gay Military Dating add. ;D One for the navy. hello sailor ns ;D
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on May 29, 2010 17:33:16 GMT
;D
|
|
|
Post by Northy on May 29, 2010 17:48:07 GMT
Gay Military Dating add. ;D One for the navy. I got out before it was allowed to have homosexuals in the forces, you are still in aren't you Salop
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on May 29, 2010 18:01:42 GMT
Gay Military Dating add. ;D One for the navy. I got out before it was allowed to have homosexuals in the forces, you are still in aren't you Salop
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on May 29, 2010 19:58:11 GMT
It's smoking wot does it. Wasn't there a thread once on the GDB with posters boasting that they loved putting it up their lady's shitter? I wonder what jeans they wear? Probably ones Made in China with some stitches missing. Ferfuxache...this is the 21st century we're living in and not the fucking Inquisition. As far as passing on the 'faulty' jeans, haven't any of you heard of bi-sexuals? I hear there's a lot about. OS.
|
|
|
Post by lagwafis on May 29, 2010 20:28:45 GMT
can mallards be bisexual?
|
|
|
Post by soicowboy2 on May 30, 2010 0:22:59 GMT
Wasn't Gary Hackett gay? Apparently Alan Ball gave him a tough time over it before selling him.
I mean the player Gary Hackett not the guy who posts innacurate transfer rumours. He uses his arse for talking through.
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on May 30, 2010 6:54:24 GMT
Elton John is gay. Honest!!
|
|