6/11/2013 7:48 AM
I knew the opening would present itself if I checked in long enough.

Anyway, back to the point, animals have sex to procreate.   To the best of my knowledge, they don't go out, get drunk and have casual sex.    Maybe there's some study out there where some wolf is shoving his wolf pecker into anything that moves.    But, excluding that study that I'm sure BL has on file and is waiting to post, they have sex to continue the species.   So, if you believe we evolved from animals, homosexuality is an unnatural act.

Going back to taint's question, yes, it's certainly possible that sex evolved with humans simply because most of us are smarter than the average bear.  
6/11/2013 7:57 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/10/2013 9:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/10/2013 9:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/10/2013 9:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/10/2013 8:46:00 PM (view original):
There are lots of reasons why people may personally decide that homosexuality is wrong.  The reason I provided is just one of them.

And I'd really like to see you expound on your claim that people who wait until their 30's to have kids is somehow a problem.
Waiting until you are past 30 to have kids increases the rate of birth defects. If everyone waited until they were over 30 to have kids, the evolution of the human race would suffer.

Like being gay, waiting to have kids is still ok because everyone isn't going to do it and it won't impact the human race as a whole.
What is the rate of birth defects for children born to parents over the age of 30 in comparison to the rate of birth defects of those born to under-30 parents?

If you're going to make claims such as this, and try to imply that it is dangerous to the human race, you'd better back it up with some evidence.

Otherwise, you're nothing more than Bistiza Jr.
Canadian study. They focused on mothers over 35. I will gladly retract my original statement about parents over 30 and replace it with mothers over 35. Either way, older mom = wrong as gays in evolutionary terms (maybe worse since gays aren't actually saddling society with a generation of impaired children).
Slightly higher percentage of birth defects.  It hardly sounds like "gloom and doom" for the human race, Chicken Little.
6/11/2013 8:40 AM
What about people that believe homosexuality is immoral because that's what the bible says.  Would they fall under category 1?

People should develop their opinions based upon more than just what someone tells them. That's the point.
You've taken a hard left turn into Bistizaville.  Now, population: 2.

Uh, no. While I make logical points, BL just rants about how he's right because he says so and others agree with him.
No one would argue that those choices aren't ok. And homosexuality isn't a choice.

So you try to make a point about choices but then want to say that the point you just made isn't even valid because it's not about choices? Make up your mind.
Otherwise, you're nothing more than Bistiza Jr.

For that to be true, he would have to provide logical points you have no defense for, and as we've seen many times, that's not BL's forte. It's not yours either, but that's rather beside this particular point.
There are a ton of animals that have engaged in homosexual behavior while being studied.

Yes, and there are a lot of people who act like animals in many ways. In fact, it seems all some people know is how to act like an animal: They know how to eat, sleep, go to the bathroom, violently defend themselves, and procreate.

I don't think that's an okay way to live just because animals do it.
What says "I'm in charge" more than mounting another of the same sex?
This explains a lot about the way you think.
6/11/2013 9:41 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2013 7:57:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/10/2013 9:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/10/2013 9:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/10/2013 9:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/10/2013 8:46:00 PM (view original):
There are lots of reasons why people may personally decide that homosexuality is wrong.  The reason I provided is just one of them.

And I'd really like to see you expound on your claim that people who wait until their 30's to have kids is somehow a problem.
Waiting until you are past 30 to have kids increases the rate of birth defects. If everyone waited until they were over 30 to have kids, the evolution of the human race would suffer.

Like being gay, waiting to have kids is still ok because everyone isn't going to do it and it won't impact the human race as a whole.
What is the rate of birth defects for children born to parents over the age of 30 in comparison to the rate of birth defects of those born to under-30 parents?

If you're going to make claims such as this, and try to imply that it is dangerous to the human race, you'd better back it up with some evidence.

Otherwise, you're nothing more than Bistiza Jr.
Canadian study. They focused on mothers over 35. I will gladly retract my original statement about parents over 30 and replace it with mothers over 35. Either way, older mom = wrong as gays in evolutionary terms (maybe worse since gays aren't actually saddling society with a generation of impaired children).
Slightly higher percentage of birth defects.  It hardly sounds like "gloom and doom" for the human race, Chicken Little.
Says the guy claiming that gays are hurting evolution by choosing not to have kids.

Equally ridiculous, which was my point.
6/11/2013 10:27 AM
Like being gay, waiting to have kids is still ok because everyone isn't going to do it and it won't impact the human race as a whole.

So everything that "won't impact the human race as a whole" is okay?

By that line of reasoning, nearly everything - including acts of terror and mass murder - are okay because they don't impact the human race as a whole.

Once again I point out the flaw in your reasoning. Care to try to justify this one? You've never been able to justify your reasoning flaws in the past, but I'm actually cheering for you to succeed one of these times. It'd be nice to know that you actually think about what you say before you say it, being that this is a message board so you have plenty of time for consideration before you post.
6/11/2013 11:00 AM
Posted by bistiza on 6/11/2013 10:27:00 AM (view original):
Like being gay, waiting to have kids is still ok because everyone isn't going to do it and it won't impact the human race as a whole.

So everything that "won't impact the human race as a whole" is okay?

By that line of reasoning, nearly everything - including acts of terror and mass murder - are okay because they don't impact the human race as a whole.

Once again I point out the flaw in your reasoning. Care to try to justify this one? You've never been able to justify your reasoning flaws in the past, but I'm actually cheering for you to succeed one of these times. It'd be nice to know that you actually think about what you say before you say it, being that this is a message board so you have plenty of time for consideration before you post.
Murder infringes on the rights of another. Being gay doesn't.
6/11/2013 11:15 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2013 9:41:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2013 7:57:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/10/2013 9:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/10/2013 9:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/10/2013 9:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/10/2013 8:46:00 PM (view original):
There are lots of reasons why people may personally decide that homosexuality is wrong.  The reason I provided is just one of them.

And I'd really like to see you expound on your claim that people who wait until their 30's to have kids is somehow a problem.
Waiting until you are past 30 to have kids increases the rate of birth defects. If everyone waited until they were over 30 to have kids, the evolution of the human race would suffer.

Like being gay, waiting to have kids is still ok because everyone isn't going to do it and it won't impact the human race as a whole.
What is the rate of birth defects for children born to parents over the age of 30 in comparison to the rate of birth defects of those born to under-30 parents?

If you're going to make claims such as this, and try to imply that it is dangerous to the human race, you'd better back it up with some evidence.

Otherwise, you're nothing more than Bistiza Jr.
Canadian study. They focused on mothers over 35. I will gladly retract my original statement about parents over 30 and replace it with mothers over 35. Either way, older mom = wrong as gays in evolutionary terms (maybe worse since gays aren't actually saddling society with a generation of impaired children).
Slightly higher percentage of birth defects.  It hardly sounds like "gloom and doom" for the human race, Chicken Little.
Says the guy claiming that gays are hurting evolution by choosing not to have kids.

Equally ridiculous, which was my point.
I didn't say that "gays are hurting evolution".  I said that with respect to evolution, homosexuality is not a desireable trait in terms of advancement.

There certainly isn't enough of a critical mass of exclusive gays to doom the human population.
6/11/2013 11:18 AM
You said anything that "won't impact the human race as a whole".

Clearly, individual murders and even mass murder or acts of terror do not impact the human race as a whole. So either they are okay by your reasoning, or you need to amend that reasoning. Which is it?
6/11/2013 11:19 AM
With respect to evolution, waiting until you are older to have kids is also not a desirable trait in terms of advancement.

But who cares?
6/11/2013 11:25 AM (edited)
So older parents should not have children?  is that your point?
6/11/2013 11:21 AM
Posted by bistiza on 6/11/2013 11:18:00 AM (view original):
You said anything that "won't impact the human race as a whole".

Clearly, individual murders and even mass murder or acts of terror do not impact the human race as a whole. So either they are okay by your reasoning, or you need to amend that reasoning. Which is it?
I was responding to a specific point brought up by tec, not addressing every single possible argument.
6/11/2013 11:22 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/11/2013 11:20:00 AM (view original):
So older parent should not have children?  is that your point?
Not at all. My point is that something can still be ok and not ideal in terms of evolution.
6/11/2013 11:37 AM
I was responding to a specific point brought up by tec, not addressing every single possible argument.
Your reasoning doesn't stand up to logic. I've pointed that out. So you either need to amend that reasoning or simply admit it isn't logical.

It's not just me who says your reasoning doesn't work. This does too.
6/11/2013 11:46 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/11/2013 11:19:00 AM (view original):
With respect to evolution, waiting until you are older to have kids is also not a desirable trait in terms of advancement.

But who cares?
Older parents can further the human race by reproducing.

Homosexuals cannot.

Are you missing something?
6/11/2013 12:00 PM
Posted by bistiza on 6/11/2013 11:38:00 AM (view original):
I was responding to a specific point brought up by tec, not addressing every single possible argument.
Your reasoning doesn't stand up to logic. I've pointed that out. So you either need to amend that reasoning or simply admit it isn't logical.

It's not just me who says your reasoning doesn't work. This does too.
What exactly is my reasoning?
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.