Reply With Quote
Right...but pleasure is not the natural function of sex. Reproduction is.
Statement One (Gays want equal rights)
Statement Two (Gays want extra rights)
It's not that simple when we're one of the few species that has sex for pleasure.
Right...but pleasure is not the natural function of sex. Reproduction is.
Yes, I do That is why so many have such a hard time understanding how I can be Pro-life, yet be pro-choice. Although I believe life begins at conception I will not push my beliefs on a woman's right to choose. But that is a different subject,
He can't. As best as I'm understanding it most of the scientific studies show that portions of genes associated with certain types of behavior create the so called "gay gene". At best its view as a compilation of portions that show up at higher percentages based on heredity.
The studies done on twins and family trees lends a tremendous amount of credibility to the argument. Only guys like Blake refuse to acknowledge that this could be a composite of many variables all rooted in genetic makeup. They require a single item to be pointed to. This is why you see zero scientists again ZERO scientist taking a full stance that its not genetic. At best you'll get a "maybe". I wonder how many of those "maybe" scientists are bible thumpers.
There are so many tangents this could easily go off on.
I'd rather not.
Which should indicate how foolish it is to argue that we are naturally or normally motivated by functionality.
Now how do we know that?
If this is entirely true, why then did nature make sex pleasurable for us?
It's not his fault, no one can.
I haven't forgotten how you suck at reading comprehension.
Try reading post #157 again and see if you can understand it.
It wasn't nature.
Got nothing, huh?
So nature didn't give us massive amounts of nerve endings in our genitals that create pleasurable feelings?
I don't have the data at my fingertips, but studies show that we and just a couple other groups of primates have sex for pleasure. All other species have sex ONLY with the intention of procreation and/or dominance.
This is not to suggest that there aren't other species for whom the sex act is pleasurable (I don't know those figures, frankly, and would assume it to be a hard thing to measure), but behavioral studies have shown very few animal groups for whom sexual pleasure is the goal and not merely a coincidence.
No...using your body parts for their intended purpose requires no motivation. No one has to motivate you to see with your eyes, or hear with your ears, or walk on your feet. But, something has to motivate you to walk on your hands. There is an outside source that tells you to use your hands for something different that what their natural function is.
The motivation is not required to function as intended, it is required to function in a different capacity than what is intended.
So what can we argue about next?
Don't worry Blake you'll still be allowed to rant and rave without supporting factual evidence to back anything up.
No, I've pretty clearly stated that I can't prove a hetero gene.
You are an illiterate idiot.
If it didn't feel good, would you do it?
My experience says otherwise.
I guess behavioral scientists believe that. IMO, no way we can know that.
Again, it's just not that simple when all of us, as humans, use our sexual organs for something other than their "intended" reproductive functions. Straight/gay/bi/whatever, we all for the fun of it.
To use your analogy, we all have made the decision to walk on our hands. The question then becomes why do some of us walk on open palms while others walk on closed fists?
. Ironic considering that isn't what I asked you to provide. I wasn't the poster who suggested researching a hetero gene.
I asked you to provide research or case studies that conclude or support the belief or fact that sexuality isn't genetically based.
I'm not the one that resorts to shouting curse words and posting in giant blue fonts and I have provided a link to the WHO website which reiiterates what I've been saying: "there is no proof of any gay gene"
but here's a monozygotic twin study for you:
There is no proof of a gay gene.The role of genetics in establishing sexual orientation (the degree of sexual attraction to men or women) and its link to sexuality have been hotly debated in the relevant scientific literature and the media. Studies of identical twins have revealed that sexual orientation, like the overwhelming majority of human traits and characteristics, is not exclusively governed by genetics, but is more likely the result of a gene-environment interaction. For example, if sexuality was exclusively controlled by genes then either both members of a set of identical twins would be sexual or neither would be. Multiple studies have shown that if one twin is sexual his or her sibling is also sexual less than 40% of the time.
Michael Bailey et al. systematically evaluated gender iden y and sexual orientation of twins and reported their findings in "Genetic and Environmental Influences on Sexual Orientation and Its Correlates in an Australian Twin Sample [Personality Processes and Individual Differences]" (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 78, no. 3, March 2000). Bailey et al. observed that both male and female sexuality appears to run in families and that studies of unseparated twins suggest that this is primarily due to genetic rather than familial environmental influences. They also observe that previous research suffers from limitations such as recruiting subjects via publications aimed at sexuals or by word of mouth—strategies likely to bias the samples and results.
To overcome these limitations, Bailey and his colleagues assessed twins from the Australian Twin Registry rather than sample those recruited especially for the purpose of their research. Using proband-wise concordance (an estimate of the probability that a twin is nonheterosexual given that his or her co-twin is nonheterosexual), they found lower rates of twin concordance for nonheterosexual orientation than in previous studies. The most striking difference was between the researchers' proband-wise concordance rates and those of past twin studies of sexual orientation. Previously, the lowest concordances for single-sex identical twins were 47% for women and 48% for men. This study do ents concordances of just 20% for women and 24% for men, significantly lower than the rates reported for the two largest prior twin studies of sexual orientation. Bailey et al. concluded that sexual orientation is familial; however, their study does not provide statistically significant support for the importance of genetic factors for this trait. They caution that this does not mean that their results entirely exclude heritability. In fact, they consider their findings consistent with moderate heritability for male and female sexual orientation, even though their male monozygotic concordance suggests that any major gene for sexuality has either low penetrance or low frequency.
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/22...N-STUDIES.html
There is no proof of a straight gene.
There is no proof there isn't a gay gene or straight gene.
There is proof that B2B, peewee and disgruntled lion fan #76762832942823 are illiterate idiots.
I'm surprised you also haven't asked me to prove that God "doesn't" exist.
I asked you to provide research or case studies that conclude or support the belief or fact that sexuality isn't genetically based.
You are truly an idiot.
For me, there would be no reason to do it. I don't want kids so reproduction means nothing to me.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions