The "Gaystapo"

[Reactionary Vanguard]

My apologies. I didn't mean to use it as a reason to judge homos (I hate flamers, not all gays). I was just pointing out that they are scientifically inferior, as per our understanding of evolution

As per your understanding of evolution, perhaps.

I actually have an understanding of evolution. So I disagree.

Sorry nature doesn't agree with liberal ideals

[Grave_n_idle]

As per your understanding of evolution, perhaps.

I actually have an understanding of evolution. So I disagree.

Sorry nature doesn't agree with liberal ideals

At least you're consistent. If you're going to misuse 'evolution' and 'natural', you might as well misuse 'liberal', too.

[Anti-Obamaland]

It's been a couple of years since I last studied Nazi Germany but remind me: were they pro- or anti-gay?

Hitler was against gays and the Brownshirts were led by many gay Germans that were ultimately executed.

[Reactionary Vanguard]

i guess you don't mind minority frontmen repressing individuals within their group for collective advancement.

No, I'm mocking the idea of a monolithic gay movement advancing a "liberal/socialist" ideology. And given the poster in question's propensity to label everything he dislikes liberal or socialist, it is well deserved mockery.

the moniker was poor yes. though liberal and socialist groups typically do advocate the same measures that the same gay front men would advocate, and lash out against gays who weren't as adamant as they

[Reactionary Vanguard]

Sorry nature doesn't agree with liberal ideals

At least you're consistent. If you're going to misuse 'evolution' and 'natural', you might as well misuse 'liberal', too.

Liberal of course being used in the classic sense, as one who advocated individual rights based on what they saw as natural law. At the same time that nature carries very little about "rights" and only the strongest are championed.

But no, of course for you, a science that does not give people equal footing in their orientations must be wrong

[Reactionary Vanguard]

My apologies. I didn't mean to use it as a reason to judge homos (I hate flamers, not all gays). I was just pointing out that they are scientifically inferior, as per our understanding of evolution

No, they're not. Science only describes and interprets. It does not make value judgments.

Sexuality simply isn't binary. While some people might be exclusively heterosexual or homosexual, they're the outliers on the bell curve, The majority of people are biologically bisexual, to varying degrees.

It doesn't make the judgement that we should treat them differently. but it does identify heterosexuality as being stronger

[Tmutarakhan]

You write what you claim a marriage to be, you sign it, you carry it out. If you break it, the marriage is nulled and divided by whatever you agreed upon.

I see your problem: you don't understand that "contract" does not mean anything at all, without government. Who, exactly, going to "divide" things, decide what the agreement meant when the two parties have their differing interpretations of what it should mean, in circumstances that are doubtless unlike what the agreement originally contemplated, when the parties' self-interests have often been sharpened by angry emotions? Often, contracts can indeed be carried out without recourse to the courts-- but this happens because, in the background, it is known by all sides that the courts do exist, and have a monopoly on decision-making power backed up by the government's monopoly of force.

[Unchecked Expansion]

Reproduction isn't the be-all-and-end-all for evolution, you know. Kin selection (Mentioned in Darwin's works, strangely enough), is an important function in nuclear family-based species like ours, and non-reproducing individuals, like homosexuals or even non-reproducing heterosexuals, play an important role in the survival of social species.

i know about kin selection. But that's a secondary collective fallback to ensure a species as a whole. The lack of heterosexual motivation does diminish an individual's Darwinian merit.

That doesn't really matter. If the cost of a genes overall propagation is a lack of fitness in one individual, it's an evolutionary advantage.

[Grave_n_idle]

At least you're consistent. If you're going to misuse 'evolution' and 'natural', you might as well misuse 'liberal', too.

Liberal of course being used in the classic sense, as one who advocated individual rights based on what they saw as natural law. At the same time that nature carries very little about "rights" and only the strongest are championed.

But no, of course for you, a science that does not give people equal footing in their orientations must be wrong

Try re-phrasing this more clearly. It appears to make no sense and have no point, but I'm assuming that's just because it reads like a plate of beans negotiating it's way through a cow's digestive system.

[Reactionary Vanguard]

i know about kin selection. But that's a secondary collective fallback to ensure a species as a whole. The lack of heterosexual motivation does diminish an individual's Darwinian merit.

That doesn't really matter. If the cost of a genes overall propagation is a lack of fitness in one individual, it's an evolutionary advantage.

But then if this segment of code's best chance for propogation is to be phentoypically expressed as scarcely as possible, I'd have to say that's a pretty unfit piece of code. Especially when it relies on kin selection exclusively (one carrier recognizing another carrier) to exist

[Tmutarakhan]

They are naturally a vestigial segment of the population meant to expire and disappear. Or have you not read Darwin?

Meant to, by what or by whom? The workings of natural laws have led to our continuing existence, and if this is not what your naive reading of Darwin would have led you to expect, then you are wrong, not nature. Or are you trying to say that you intend to make us disappear?

[Trotskylvania]

No, they're not. Science only describes and interprets. It does not make value judgments.

Sexuality simply isn't binary. While some people might be exclusively heterosexual or homosexual, they're the outliers on the bell curve, The majority of people are biologically bisexual, to varying degrees.

It doesn't make the judgement that we should treat them differently. but it does identify heterosexuality as being stronger

Again, that's irrelevant. It is the survival of the species that is important in evolutionary terms, not the survival or reproduction of the individual. These are not always the same thing. Hence many animals, especially humans, are quite evolutionarily bound to make self-sacrificing behavior.

Which is why we're naturally bisexual. You're less likely to engage in rivalrous behavior over mates if you can just get that spunk out by shagging each other instead.

[Reactionary Vanguard]

Liberal of course being used in the classic sense, as one who advocated individual rights based on what they saw as natural law. At the same time that nature carries very little about "rights" and only the strongest are championed.

But no, of course for you, a science that does not give people equal footing in their orientations must be wrong

Try re-phrasing this more clearly. It appears to make no sense and have no point, but I'm assuming that's just because it reads like a plate of beans negotiating it's way through a cow's digestive system.

Much like the argument of gay equality

[Grave_n_idle]

Try re-phrasing this more clearly. It appears to make no sense and have no point, but I'm assuming that's just because it reads like a plate of beans negotiating it's way through a cow's digestive system.

Much like the argument of gay equality

In other words, your argument either can't stand up to rigourous discussion, and you HAVE TO prevaricate... or you simply can't make it in reasonable terms.

Either way, I think that's your 'argument' done for, unless someone is actually prepared to carry it.

[Zaras]

No, they're not. Science only describes and interprets. It does not make value judgments.

Sexuality simply isn't binary. While some people might be exclusively heterosexual or homosexual, they're the outliers on the bell curve, The majority of people are biologically bisexual, to varying degrees.

It doesn't make the judgement that we should treat them differently. but it does identify heterosexuality as being stronger

How?

[Grave_n_idle]

That doesn't really matter. If the cost of a genes overall propagation is a lack of fitness in one individual, it's an evolutionary advantage.

But then if this segment of code's best chance for propogation is to be phentoypically expressed as scarcely as possible, I'd have to say that's a pretty unfit piece of code.

What you'd 'say' is irrelevant.

If it perpetuates the code, it succeeded at what it does.

Any other value judgement you apply is false.

[Trotskylvania]

Try re-phrasing this more clearly. It appears to make no sense and have no point, but I'm assuming that's just because it reads like a plate of beans negotiating it's way through a cow's digestive system.

Much like the argument of gay equality

Alan Turing did a whole lot more for the advancement and survival of the human species than you ever will, and he was as gay as they come.

Your whole argument kind of breaks down when you realize that individual reproduction is insignificant on the species level.

And again, you're trying to use science to make value judgments. It doesn't work that way. Science can offer no value judgments, only descriptions and interpretations.

[Reactionary Vanguard]

They are naturally a vestigial segment of the population meant to expire and disappear. Or have you not read Darwin?

Meant to, by what or by whom? The workings of natural laws have led to our continuing existence, and if this is not what your naive reading of Darwin would have led you to expect, then you are wrong, not nature. Or are you trying to say that you intend to make us disappear?

the working of natural laws have also led to the continuing existence of downs syndromes, adhd, icthyosis http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f149/114604d1261702718-harlequin-babies-harlequin.jpg

[Reactionary Vanguard]

It doesn't make the judgement that we should treat them differently. but it does identify heterosexuality as being stronger

Again, that's irrelevant. It is the survival of the species that is important in evolutionary terms, not the survival or reproduction of the individual. These are not always the same thing. Hence many animals, especially humans, are quite evolutionarily bound to make self-sacrificing behavior.

Which is why we're naturally bisexual. You're less likely to engage in rivalrous behavior over mates if you can just get that spunk out by shagging each other instead.

The individual is still the elementary unit of the species. It's simple. if straight up homo were as or more fit than full hetero or hetero leaning bi's (which you say most of us are), then they would be equal or greater in representation. the fact that they occur as a minority in any ethnic group or random population sample speaks volumes

[Reactionary Vanguard]

Much like the argument of gay equality

Alan Turing did a whole lot more for the advancement and survival of the human species than you ever will, and he was as gay as they come.

Your whole argument kind of breaks down when you realize that individual reproduction is insignificant on the species level.

And again, you're trying to use science to make value judgments. It doesn't work that way. Science can offer no value judgments, only descriptions and interpretations.

But our value judgements are based entirely on interpretations. And since we live in a secular society that pretends to base its morals off of natural law (the prescriptions of nature), this seems like a fine way to judge the issue. And please see my above post on individual importance to the species

[Reactionary Vanguard]

It doesn't make the judgement that we should treat them differently. but it does identify heterosexuality as being stronger

How?

go back and read the discussion up to this point

[Tmutarakhan]

the working of natural laws have also led to the continuing existence of downs syndromes...

Whereas you would prefer to kill those kids? Someone is sounding like the Gestapo, but it isn't us.

[Reactionary Vanguard]

But then if this segment of code's best chance for propogation is to be phentoypically expressed as scarcely as possible, I'd have to say that's a pretty unfit piece of code.

What you'd 'say' is irrelevant.

If it perpetuates the code, it succeeded at what it does.

Any other value judgement you apply is false.

it does succeed. And heterosexuality (or as Trotskylvania says, hetero-leaning bisexuality) succeeds better, a la greater representation

[Grave_n_idle]

What you'd 'say' is irrelevant.

If it perpetuates the code, it succeeded at what it does.

Any other value judgement you apply is false.

it does succeed. And heterosexuality (or as Trotskylvania says, hetero-leaning bisexuality) succeeds better, a la greater representation

False assertion - that heterosexuality and homosexuality are perpetuating different code. (And that proportional representation represented fitness or relevance).

[Reactionary Vanguard]

the working of natural laws have also led to the continuing existence of downs syndromes...

Whereas you would prefer to kill those kids? Someone is sounding like the Gestapo, but it isn't us.

show me, just show me where I said kill. But if you are going to argue that they are as fit as a normal human, then I'm going to the bar to see if I can get as drunk as you