It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is being gay a choice/lifestyle?

page: 21
0
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TACHYON
It is wrong, not only to Nature, but also to religion. It is unnatural, and unreligious. If you are not religious and also gay, then you are still unnatural because you are violating the laws of nature.


If gay people are born gay, it means nature makes people gay.
It is not wrong to nature, neither to religion, read www.godmademegay.com

In all honestly, you know nothing of either the laws of nature, or the laws of religion so why don't you just stop rambling allready.




posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 01:10 PM
link   
I think people are not born gay but rather born with gay tendencies. Some are born with more tendencies than others but in the end, lifestyle determinds which way they fall. A lifestyle is a chose of how we want to live. Certain events in our lives change our wants and needs and we have to focus on those events to figure out why some turn out gay and some straight. In my opinion everyone has gay tendencies when we are born but some events in our lives make the final desicion.

Interesting topic, it is good to get off the Politics for a minute.



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Tachyon your objections only make sense in the context of putting forward gay being a better way than straight argument which I don't think anyone holds as a valid, mankind can certainly handle an estimated one in ten of the poulation not being active in the procreational scheme, in fact it may have it's benefits on an overcrowded planet.

Your objections continue to be based on nature and religion so I'll re-iterate...
1, nature; gay behaviour occurs in nature on many levels and makes very little difference to the species that it occurs within both human and animal, if it occured in man made robots you might have a point, other wise we have to incorporate this as within the natural scheme.
2, religion, a subjective interpretation based on a possible spiritual dimension to our universe which has been just as influenced by man made taboos and regulations relevent to their time, if not always to the present, as to any God. None of which comes close to being concrete fact so condemnation of a homosexual lifestyle whether genetic, chosen or possibly both still remains largely a matter of personal predjudice.



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko

Originally posted by TACHYON
It is wrong, not only to Nature, but also to religion. It is unnatural, and unreligious. If you are not religious and also gay, then you are still unnatural because you are violating the laws of nature.


If gay people are born gay, it means nature makes people gay.
It is not wrong to nature, neither to religion, read www.godmademegay.com

In all honestly, you know nothing of either the laws of nature, or the laws of religion so why don't you just stop rambling allready.


Actually I am well versed with the laws of nature, I am aware of natural selection, evolution, etc. And I have looked at that link before, I think I have already commented on that link. There simply is no way to prove that a gay person was born that way until infants can be made to reason on or close to our level. Nature will eventually eliminate the homosexuals in favor of hetero's. In higher organisms, the species will survive with heterosexuals, but not with homosexuals(Not counting asexual reproduction).



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ubermunche
...
Your objections continue to be based on nature and religion so I'll re-iterate...
1, nature; gay behaviour occurs in nature on many levels and makes very little difference to the species that it occurs within both human and animal, if it occured in man made robots you might have a point, other wise we have to incorporate this as within the natural scheme.
...


You agree with my point, being gay is a behavior(an abnormal one), and is a choice.



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by TACHYON

Nature will eventually eliminate the homosexuals in favor of hetero's.


So you're saying being gay is in the genes after all?
I don't get it, first you say it's a choice and now you say nature will eliminate homosexuals? And how is that?


In higher organisms, the species will survive with heterosexuals, but not with homosexuals(Not counting asexual reproduction).


First of all, when homosexuality is in your genes, it does not always mean your children become homosexual. Sometimes homosexuality skips one or two (or more) generations.
This also explains why there are still homosexuals, and it also explains why the percentage of homosexuals is slowly growing.

TACHYON your theory is flawed, and you never said anything about my link. Besides that it's "not proven". You probably didn't even fully read it.

Some great discussion this is, with someone unable to make progress getting out of his own ignorance.



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko

Originally posted by TACHYON

Nature will eventually eliminate the homosexuals in favor of hetero's.


So you're saying being gay is in the genes after all?
I don't get it, first you say it's a choice and now you say nature will eliminate homosexuals? And how is that?


In higher organisms, the species will survive with heterosexuals, but not with homosexuals(Not counting asexual reproduction).


First of all, when homosexuality is in your genes, it does not always mean your children become homosexual. Sometimes homosexuality skips one or two (or more) generations.
This also explains why there are still homosexuals, and it also explains why the percentage of homosexuals is slowly growing.

TACHYON your theory is flawed, and you never said anything about my link. Besides that it's "not proven". You probably didn't even fully read it.

Some great discussion this is, with someone unable to make progress getting out of his own ignorance.


No I am not saying that they are in the genes, Nature selects based on phenotype not genotype, so the ones whose behavior is abnormal will not survive the "survival of the fittest" test.



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 02:39 AM
link   
Care to explain what makes certain people "behave like this" then?
How can you say nature will rule them out, when you don't even know what being gay is?



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
Care to explain what makes certain people "behave like this" then?
How can you say nature will rule them out, when you don't even know what being gay is?


It is their free will and choice to behave in a homosexual manner.



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 02:48 AM
link   
So how will nature rule them out if it's just a random choice some people choose for?
You kind of talked yourself in the poop now.
Let me explain it.

Being gay is not a choice.
Having the genes to be gay inside of you, does not mean being gay.

Now before you start your "prove it" rambling, let me ask you a simple question;
Do you understand your own sexual desires? Do you think they are based on what you want to desire?
Try to really understand the question this time, desire means wanting to have sex, which is not what I am talking about, I am talking about wanting to have a desire.



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
So how will nature rule them out if it's just a random choice some people choose for?
You kind of talked yourself in the poop now.
Let me explain it.

Being gay is not a choice.
Having the genes to be gay inside of you, does not mean being gay.

Now before you start your "prove it" rambling, let me ask you a simple question;
Do you understand your own sexual desires? Do you think they are based on what you want to desire?
Try to really understand the question this time, desire means wanting to have sex, which is not what I am talking about, I am talking about wanting to have a desire.


Nature will punish a being for stupidity. Will it show mercy on a deer that strayed too far from the herd? It is punishing it for its lack of intelligence and decision making skills.



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 02:54 AM
link   
Lol, that's kinda hilarious!
Maybe instead of those stupid flawed examples, you could explain yourself.
How will nature eliminate something that's (according to you) based on random choice?
how
HOW



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
Lol, that's kinda hilarious!
Maybe instead of those stupid flawed examples, you could explain yourself.
How will nature eliminate something that's (according to you) based on random choice?
how
HOW


It will cease to exist. Either get killed as in my deer example or not procreate in the homosexuality example. If homosexuality is not a choice, why arent a homosexuals kids not gay, and I mean born that way not raised. It cannot be. It has to be a choice.



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 03:02 AM
link   
You make no sense.
Either it's in the genes and according to you nature will get rid of it, or it's a choice and then there's no way for nature to get rid of it, since there will be no connection between gay parents and children.

You are ignorant, you think gay couples raise gay children, you think being gay is a "stupid choice" and you ignore all direct and indirect proof.
Not cool to have a discussion with someone like you.



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
You make no sense.
Either it's in the genes and according to you nature will get rid of it, or it's a choice and then there's no way for nature to get rid of it, since there will be no connection between gay parents and children.

You are ignorant, you think gay couples raise gay children, you think being gay is a "stupid choice" and you ignore all direct and indirect proof.
Not cool to have a discussion with someone like you.


I have state before nature does not select based on the genes, but on the outside, the appearance and intelligence and decision making skills. No where in my posts have I stated that evolution is based on genotype. How have I ignored anything? I have commented on all your responses.

[edit on 24-8-2004 by TACHYON]



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
You make no sense.
Either it's in the genes and according to you nature will get rid of it, or it's a choice and then there's no way for nature to get rid of it, since there will be no connection between gay parents and children.

You are ignorant, you think gay couples raise gay children, you think being gay is a "stupid choice" and you ignore all direct and indirect proof.
Not cool to have a discussion with someone like you.


Ok if a gay couple does not raise gay children what kind of children do they raise? Why do you suppose it is?



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 03:14 AM
link   
You did not explain how nature will eliminate something that's based on choice. If it's choice and you do not know what causes this choice, you can not say anything about how nature will deal with it.
You're just an ignorant troll.



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
You did not explain how nature will eliminate something that's based on choice. If it's choice and you do not know what causes this choice, you can not say anything about how nature will deal with it.
You're just an ignorant troll.



I said that the deer will get killed, by lets say a tiger. It made a bad judgement and strayed too far from the herd, and nature selected it for death. The deer made a bad choice. I have answered all the questions. How many times do I have to say this?And could you please reply an answer to post 748594.

[edit on 24-8-2004 by TACHYON]



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Tachyon, here's an article you might want to read:

Quote: 'Biologists have discovered that an all-female group of animals has been breeding successfully without males for 40 million years.....'

news.bbc.co.uk...

It might seem that your idea of 'normal' is much different to what nature deems as normal.
Nature doesn't discriminate the way humans do.



posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 03:38 AM
link   
This topic not about deers and tigers and herds TACHYON.
Wtf are you talking about?!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join