FurtiveFox Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 Where do you get this information from was my point. I suppose you have a self-built satellite attached to the top of your head that allows you to pick up unfiltered absolute truths from outer space and the corridors of power? You live and learn through dealing with a variety of people. Humans do not like the inconvenience of thinking things through and frankly with the time pressures most are under are more than happy to be effectively told what to think. You come across relatively few that properly rationalise things.
FuriousFox46 Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 Couldn't care less about gay marriage. If we're going to discuss gay rights then their right to bring up children is much more important. Personally I am against it for the sake of the child.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 I'm not sure you understand what a satellite is? If everything on this earth, by your dubious understanding, is therefore a satellite, then the use of the word itself in the context was completely unnecessary. One of these. On his head. A satellite dish. I picture his in silver though with a nice foil-like finish edit - I know I didn't say dish earlier but you knew what I meant. I appreciate it is Friday and we are all excited about getting ****ed up later but there is still no need for that level of pedantry
Leicester Piggott Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 One of these. On his head. A satellite dish. I picture his in silver though with a nice foil-like finish Oh I see! Sorry, I think i was being a diq.
FuriousFox46 Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 The church does not own marriage. No religion is being forced to perform a same-sex marriage, they are simply being allowed to. Something, churches like the Quakers have wanted to do for a long time. Marriage is a HUMAN right granted by the state. Last time, I checked, gay men and women were humans. The reason the argument is so heated is because a 'civil partnership' is not equal. In terms of rights, the two unions are similar but if one name is needed for a certain group of people then it is not EQUALITY. This is the same sort of issue as the limited rights of black people and women. Punished by the law for a uncontrollable predisposition. It's simply ludicrous that so many MPs voted to be on the wrong side of history including many from Leicestershire. This should clarify my views of this topic; http://thechriswhitingshow.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/the-gay-marriage-debate/ Failing that please view these;
FurtiveFox Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 The church does not own marriage. No religion is being forced to perform a same-sex marriage, they are simply being allowed to. Something, churches like the Quakers have wanted to do for a long time. Marriage is a HUMAN right granted by the state. Last time, I checked, gay men and women were humans. The reason the argument is so heated is because a 'civil partnership' is not equal. In terms of rights, the two unions are similar but if one name is needed for a certain group of people then it is not EQUALITY. This is the same sort of issue as the limited rights of black people and women. Punished by the law for a uncontrollable predisposition. It's simply ludicrous that so many MPs voted to be on the wrong side of history including many from Leicestershire. This should clarify my views of this topic; http://thechriswhiti...arriage-debate/ Failing that please view these; Marriage - civil partnership. Just splitting hairs. If in future years we can eliminate the defective gay gene civil partnerships will fall away anyway.
BoneDog Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 Oh, and your sexuality is in your genetics, it has nothing to do with being trendy. This 'trendy' idea gets rammed down our throats all the time. Surely you've noticed. How come that gayism has increased rapidly since tv and media hark on about it being cool? I don't believe that all of them were in the closet. It seems that now 'gay' is 'trendy', lots of people of all ages are opting for a crack at it. Explains all the bi's aswell. I've known people who think it's 'cool' to hang around with a lesbian or gay. Ridiculous attitude. Any grown adult that thinks anything is 'trendy' or 'cool' should get a grip. Some would argue AIDS is God's way of saying there are certain things you really shouldn't be doing. Personally I think this is a trifle severe but can understand the viewpoint. I wouldn't say it's 'Gods way', but I would say it's a natural occurrence. If we lick poo, eat poo or get it inside our body or an open wound, it infects. When gays, 'do the do' they must get some poo germs up their japsy. Same can be said of men who do the bum sex with women. So like I say, pretty sure it's just a natural occurrence for diseases to spread that way, and not Gods will. Not 100% on that though. Remember guys....GLOVE UP.
Guest Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 One of these. On his head. A satellite dish. I picture his in silver though with a nice foil-like finish edit - I know I didn't say dish earlier but you knew what I meant. I appreciate it is Friday and we are all excited about getting ****ed up later but there is still no need for that level of pedantry Still it is kinda funny. Blue Brett being ripped one by a couple of WUMs. I like it.
BoneDog Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 Fine, until someone (me) points out that God doesn't exist and is a human construct. It's all well and good you pointing out that a Creator doesn't exist, but if I show you my new torch and told you it just appeared and created itself out of a big jumble you'd be dubious. The biggest brains in science haven't the foggiest what happened billions of years ago, nor the foggiest how things came together, so you can't say you know that for sure.
Guest BlueBrett Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 Still it is kinda funny. Blue Brett being ripped one by a couple of WUMs. I like it. Do I represent a major scalp in your book then? Thanks
Leicester Piggott Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 It's all well and good you pointing out that a Creator doesn't exist, but if I show you my new torch and told you it just appeared and created itself out of a big jumble you'd be dubious. The biggest brains in science haven't the foggiest what happened billions of years ago, nor the foggiest how things came together, so you can't say you know that for sure. I know. Just because I can't explain it though, it doesn't make the existence of God very likely! If I showed you a jumper and said where was this made and you didn't know and had no way of telling, that doesn't mean you have to accept my ridiculous explanation that my mate Alfred the Amiable Alien of Alius Abergufnal Azzergurd Planet made it for me as a thank you for me sending him over John Prine CDs in a format they could play, does it?
BoneDog Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 There are several ways of looking at it. If we consider evolution and the progress of some species over others, humans have flourished due to our ability to adapt to our surroundings, solve problems, innovate and to continue to reproduce. Slugs have flourished. The slimy bastards. Not sure how good they are at solving problems.
Leicester Piggott Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 Slugs have flourished. The slimy bastards. Not sure how good they are at solving problems. I'm not quite sure they've flourished. Sure, they've survived and yeah, sometimes they eat my hostas, but flourished? Nah. Not for me.
Guest Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 It's all well and good you pointing out that a Creator doesn't exist, but if I show you my new torch and told you it just appeared and created itself out of a big jumble you'd be dubious. The biggest brains in science haven't the foggiest what happened billions of years ago, nor the foggiest how things came together, so you can't say you know that for sure. I think it's a conspiracy.
BoneDog Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 I know. Just because I can't explain it though, it doesn't make the existence of God very likely! If I showed you a jumper and said where was this made and you didn't know and had no way of telling, that doesn't mean you have to accept my ridiculous explanation that my mate Alfred the Amiable Alien of Alius Abergufnal Azzergurd Planet made it for me as a thank you for me sending him over John Prine CDs in a format they could play, does it? I know what you mean, but would like to say that I don't actually follow the 'books' so to speak, but do believe in some sort of Creative intelligent force and not randomness with no purpose. Seperate issue though, this is the gay debate!
Guest Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 I know what you mean, but would like to say that I don't actually follow the 'books' so to speak, but do believe in some sort of Creative intelligent force and not randomness with no purpose. Seperate issue though, this is the gay debate! was/is your creative intelligent force gay or opposed to gays?
Leicester Piggott Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 I know what you mean, but would like to say that I don't actually follow the 'books' so to speak, but do believe in some sort of Creative intelligent force and not randomness with no purpose. Seperate issue though, this is the gay debate! Not as separate as you might think, my mate Alfred the Amiable Alien of Alius Abergufnal Azzergurd Planet is as gay as they come (very gay) and could out-gay any of you lot in a gay-off.
BoneDog Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 Don't forget Chimps, they started all this AIDS stuff. Some mad scientists started all this AIDS stuff. Released it in the chimp community.
FurtiveFox Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 Some mad scientists started all this AIDS stuff. Released it in the chimp community. and the gay chimps spread it to the gay humans?
The Doctor Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 It does actually answer your question. The public are brainwashed by the media to believe virtually anything but they have their own masters. Cool story, but I rarely pay attention to the media, so I don't think it does. This 'trendy' idea gets rammed down our throats all the time. Surely you've noticed. How come that gayism has increased rapidly since tv and media hark on about it being cool? I don't believe that all of them were in the closet. It seems that now 'gay' is 'trendy', lots of people of all ages are opting for a crack at it. Explains all the bi's aswell. I've known people who think it's 'cool' to hang around with a lesbian or gay. Ridiculous attitude. Any grown adult that thinks anything is 'trendy' or 'cool' should get a grip. It's really not - it's a case of society being more open and tolerant about sexuality - meaning people are more willing to be open about themselves. Some mad scientists started all this AIDS stuff. Released it in the chimp community. No, they really didn't. Science did not create the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, put the tin foil away. Now then, since I'm back at my laptop: http://www.jstor.org.../10.1086/668167 Male and female homosexuality have substantial prevalence in humans. Pedigree and twin studies indicate that homosexuality has substantial heritability in both sexes, yet concordance between identical twins is low and molecular studies have failed to find associated DNA markers. This paradoxical pattern calls for an explanation. We use published data on fetal androgen signaling and gene regulation via nongenetic changes in DNA packaging (epigenetics) to develop a new model for homosexuality. It is well established that fetal androgen signaling strongly influences sexual development. We show that an unappreciated feature of this process is reduced androgen sensitivity in XX fetuses and enhanced sensitivity in XY fetuses, and that this difference is most feasibly caused by numerous sex-specific epigenetic modifications (“epi-marksâ€) originating in embryonic stem cells. These epi-marks buffer XX fetuses from masculinization due to excess fetal androgen exposure and similarly buffer XY fetuses from androgen underexposure.Extant data indicates that individual epi-marks influence some but not other sexually dimorphic traits, vary in strength across individuals, and are produced during ontogeny and erased between generations. Those that escape erasure will steer development of the sexual phenotypes they influence in a gonad-discordant direction in opposite sex offspring, mosaically feminizing XY offspring and masculinizing XX offspring. Such sex-specific epi-marks are sexually antagonistic (SA-epi-marks)because they canalize sexual development in the parent that produced them, but contribute to gonad-trait discordances in opposite-sex offspring when unerased. In this model, homosexuality occurs when stronger-than-average SA-epi-marks (influencing sexual preference) from an opposite-sex parent escape erasure and are then paired with a weaker-than-average de novo sex-specific epi-marks produced in opposite-sex offspring. Our model predicts that homosexuality is part of a wider phenomenon in which recently evolved androgen-influenced traits commonly display gonad-trait discordances at substantial frequency, and that the molecular feature underlying most homosexuality is not DNA polymorphism(s), but epi-marks that evolved to canalize sexual dimorphic development that sometimes carry over across generations and contribute to gonad-trait discordances in opposite-sex descendants. So in summary: Fetal Androgen signalling affects sexual development via epi-marks, in foetuses this is usually erased, causing masculinisation of XY (male) foetuses and preventing it in XX (female) foetuses. If it's not erased it causes the reverse, feminising XY foetuses and masculinising XX foetuses. If those sexually antagonistic epi-marks are stronger than average and avoid erasure then it results in homosexuality.
BoneDog Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 I'm not going to spell it out for you. Because sexuality is also a genetic trait. I'm in a lecture at the moment, but I'll pull up the papers on that when i'm back at a pc. PAPERS SCHMAPERS He's a gothic rocker type. To him kissing involves biting and thus blood and thus aids.
The Doctor Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 PAPERS SCHMAPERS Indeed, who needs science when you can make shit up?
Guest Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 Indeed, who needs science when you can make shit up? So now papers = science though in another post on this page you RARELY take notice of the media (btw papers = a medium). Can you try to have some consistency in this thread? Shouldn't you have been concentrating on your lecture anyway - NOT reading a football gen chat forum.
The Doctor Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 So now papers = science though in another post on this page you RARELY take notice of the media (btw papers = a medium). Can you try to have some consistency in this thread? Shouldn't you have been concentrating on your lecture anyway - NOT reading a football gen chat forum. Scientific papers you jebend. They aren't the media - they are long pieces written on a particular bit of research or experimentation, then published for peer-review by other members of the scientific community. We'd got to the point where they were just giving feedback on a presentation we'd done before chrimble - no need to pay attention there.
Guest Posted 8 February 2013 Posted 8 February 2013 Scientific papers you jebend. They aren't the media - they are long pieces written on a particular bit of research or experimentation, then published for peer-review by other members of the scientific community. We'd got to the point where they were just giving feedback on a presentation we'd done before chrimble - no need to pay attention there. oops. I guess I'm a Jebend (whatever that is) and I should read the threads instead of skimming. Isn't feedback the fuel for future advancement?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.