Explain Atheism to Justinian2

[Resume]

.

Homosexuals require heterosexuals.

I don't think you quite understand what's actually required.

 

[Justinian2]

Thank you for explaining that! The only kind of representative I could think of was a Congressional representative, and I wondered why that wasn't some sort of political scandal: "Congressman sexually harrasses voter." I get it now. In Justinian2's world, gays must have representatives to recruit and further their agenda. Wow. Different world.

From Wikipedia:

Barney Frank (born March 31, 1940) is the U.S. Representative for Massachusetts's 4th congressional district (1981–present). A member of the Democratic Party, he is the former chairman of the House Financial Services Committee (2007–2011) and is considered the most prominent gay politician in the United States.[2][3]

This guy has been a known gay as long as I remember. And he kept getting re-elected. But this is not the guy I was talking about. The guy I was talking about was a state rep. He's long gone from the political scene.

 

[Pup]

Evolution won't wipe out bi-sexuals, but gays are goners.

A gay couple reproduces as well as a couple of mules. Mules aren't extinct though.

While we're waiting for evolution to wipe out gays, could it first hurry up and eliminate children who get cancer?

Children who die of cancer before puberty don't reproduce either, so by the same logic, they should cease to exist before long and no one should die of cancer before they reach adulthood.

Either that or evolution isn't as simple as you think.

 

[Justinian2]

To simply produce offspring (of any sexual "preference"), gay couples need a healthy ovum, viable sperm, and the use of a uterus for about 40 weeks. Nowhere in that combination does it require any of the donors of such things to be heterosexual.

You are right. A lesbian couple and a gay couple could create children and none of the couples would have to be heterosexual. I suppose you know of such conceptions?

 

[Justinian2]

No, I can see that it does not say that. Try again.

What exactly are you talking about?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

You are right. A lesbian couple and a gay couple could create children and none of the couples would have to be heterosexual. I suppose you know of such conceptions?

To forestall your deeevious rhetorical trap, they do it through artificial insemination and thus can remain gay the entire time.

Good try though.

 

[Justinian2]

Probably not, but bless their hearts, they try.

I prefer to use those organs differently.

 

[Twiler]

What exactly are you talking about?

No, the second line in the post I was referring to does not say that. Try again.

 

[Chris L]

Not personally, but it happens often enough for it to be an area of interest for lawyers.

http://www.nataliegambleassociates.com/page/donor_conception_and_co-parenting/3/

 

[Justinian2]

No, the second line in the post I was referring to does not say that. Try again.

Originally Posted by Justinian2
Evolution won't wipe out bi-sexuals, but gays are goners.

A gay couple reproduces as well as a couple of mules. Mules aren't extinct though.

Go to the post I'm quoting here, and look at the second line in the post you've quoted. What does it say?

Originally Posted by Justinian2
Evolution won't wipe out bi-sexuals, but gays are goners.

It says: "A gay couple reproduces as well as a couple of mules. Mules aren't extinct though. "

From Wikipedia:

A mule is the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse.[1] Horses and donkeys are different species, with different numbers of chromosomes. Of the two F1 hybrids between these two species, a mule is easier to obtain than a hinny (the offspring of a male horse and a female donkey). All male mules and most female mules are infertile.

 

[Twiler]

Go to the post I'm quoting here, and look at the second line in the post you've quoted. What does it say?

Try again.

 

[Justinian2]

Try again.

Say what you mean. Otherwise I'll have a list with two people on it.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Homosexuals require heterosexuals.

Feel free to correct me but I think what you're saying is homosexuals, like everyone else, require biological parents.

Are you perhaps labouring under a misapprehension that gay people are predominantly born to gay parents?

If they were, don't you imagine homosexuality would be virtually nonexistent?

 

[Twiler]

Evolution won't wipe out bi-sexuals, but gays are goners.

A gay couple reproduces as well as a couple of mules. Mules aren't extinct though.

Go to the post I'm quoting here, and look at the second line in the post you've quoted, which I have reproduced below for your convenience. What does it say?

So, evolution has had millions of years to wipe out homosexuals. Homosexuals are born to heterosexual couples all the time. It is probably easier now, than ever, for homosexuals to have children.

And you predict, Justinian2, that now evolution is going to wipe out homosexuality?

Good luck with that prediction!

(I think the third point is maybe irrelevant but still shows the 'logic' of this position to be even more of a fail)

 

[Explorer]

Justian2 is another example of someone who is willfully ignorant, and it seems yet again too many on this board are willing to waste their time on his kind(including myself, until I read his rubbish on page 7). Leave him to his delusions and his fellow delusionists to talk among themselves, as they only deserve each other. What is for certain, the rest of of us do not deserve his trite responses and his overblown egotistical and egocentric ramblings.

 

[Justinian2]

Feel free to correct me but I think what you're saying is homosexuals, like everyone else, require biological parents.

Are you perhaps labouring under a misapprehension that gay people are predominantly born to gay parents?

If they were, don't you imagine homosexuality would be virtually nonexistent?

If some of you believe that there is no gene responsible for homosexual tendencies, then just say it and quit beating around the bush. I’m not going to argue this point too much – it was intended as a flip statement.

 

[slingblade]

Well, some few of you please do me and everyone else misposting a favor, and please make us out a comprehensive list of people we're allowed by you to talk to.

We simply don't know who you think it's all right for us to speak to, and who you don't, without a list. And god knows, we want to do things the way you want them done. You're our masters, after all, and we should know better than to talk to people you don't think are worthy.

Hurry up, please, and make us our list of approved people. I simply can't wait.

 

[Belz...]

Evolution won't wipe out bi-sexuals, but gays are goners.

A gay couple reproduces as well as a couple of mules. Mules aren't extinct though.

You know that most bees never reproduce, right ? How do you explain that they're not "wiped away" by evolution ?

 

[Belz...]

If some of you believe that there is no gene responsible for homosexual tendencies, then just say it and quit beating around the bush. I’m not going to argue this point too much – it was intended as a flip statement.

It changes nothing of the question: how do you explain the constancy of homosexuality if they should be wiped out by evolution ? They've been there forever. In fact, since before our own species.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

If some of you believe that there is no gene responsible for homosexual tendencies, then just say it and quit beating around the bush. I’m not going to argue this point too much – it was intended as a flip statement.

I think it must be a little bit more complicated than one gene whose presence just defines gay or not gay.

If it was as simple as that, then the negative selection pressure of gay people's disinclination for straight sex would have remove the gene from the pool in a few generations.


I've read that gay men are disproportionately likely to have older brothers. Now that suggests a nurture rather than nature effect, but the claimed disproportion was not present if their older brother was adopted or was a step brother from a different mother. That suggests something rather more subtle about the interaction between a fetus and a mother who's previously carried a male fetus.