We need a gay player
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 jimmyc  19 Jan 14 3.56pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote FinchleyEagle at 19 Jan 2014 3.36pm
Quote Seth at 19 Jan 2014 1.09am
Quote FinchleyEagle at 18 Jan 2014 1.55pm
Quote Seth at 18 Jan 2014 12.29pm
Quote FinchleyEagle at 18 Jan 2014 12.21pm
Isnt being gay like being born disabled - in that there is a gene defect ? Lets face it, our species has very clearly evolved and grown because the male version mates with the female version - just like in every other species. Its what we're designed to do. But just like a leg that doesn't grow properly, if your sexuality means you like people of the same sex - and that's fair enough, fill your boots as far as im concerned - then its a defect in the design surely ? Because if everyone was gay that would be the end of our species. And I suggest deep down that is why people struggle to accept it, because specially its just 'not right'. Its an uncomfortable truth I think.
Homosexuality isn't caused by a gene "defect". No-one really knows exactly what it's caused by but it sure as hell isn't a "defect". Many other species exhibit homosexual behaviour: [Link] And what makes you think gay people can't have children? [Link] It may seem "just not right" to you, but not to lots of other people. Maybe the "uncomfortable truth" is that your views are increasingly out of step with the majority in this country and many others round the world. If no-one knows what causes it, how can you be so sure what doesn't cause it ? And what difference does it make if other species exhibit it, that does not detract from my point. And so we are advanced enough to find a way around the child problem makes little difference either - it still isn't how we have evolved to procreate. And as for being 'out of step' well even if you are right, rather than just trying to be politically correct I couldn't give a flying fvck what the majority think because I'm not a sheep and am capable of independent thought. Hundreds of years ago the majority thought the earth was flat. In the last general election the majority had no idea what they wanted and ended up with a bloke who looks like a face drawn on a balloon with a spineless sidekick, and the British equivalent of George W Bush waiting in the wings. The majority are mostly cliquey 'desperate to be liked' numpties. Which is basically how religion happens while we're at it. So anyway, Wilbs or Gayle up front today ?
You said "...the male version mates with the female version - just like in every other species" but that isn't true, as I've shown. So it does detract from your point because that was one of your main points. If this is how we "evolved to procreate", why do so many other species display homosexual behaviour then? I think equating tolerance of homosexuality with believing the earth is flat is a little desperate. Nobody said you were a sheep, nor was any point made about the last general election. The point is people are rightly becoming more and more accepting of gay people. You appear to be out of step with that progressive view, whether you think the majority are numpties or not. Wilbs did a grand job when he came on today and I was happy to see him instead of Gayle. Heheheh he did indeed. A couple of things Seth - you sure about the defective thing ? Having brown or blue eyes is surely more equitable to liking blondes or brunettes rather than being gay or not. I call it a 'defect' because it means you are predisposed not to continue the species - and all life is 'designed' to do this. Also what do you mean the male version doesn't mate with the female version in any other species and where have you proved this isn't true ? To mate means to create offspring, and I cant see that's possible in any way, anywhere without male and female sexual organs getting together. I was then pointing out that being with the majority is a weak argument and is not necessarily desirous as they are often wrong, and cited a couple of examples of this, of course they had nothing to do with the gay question, just example of the whims of human nature. You state I am out of step with being accepting of gays, but where have I shown that ? If you read my original post I clearly endorsed it - everyone is welcome to fvck whoever they like as long as they are over 18 and keen on the idea, and good luck to them. Still no-one has come up with a definite reason why it isn't a gene defect. Happy to have my opinion changed with proof, but I feel there is too much PC-ness here for that at present. Pretty much all current and peer reviewed research has stated there is no 'gay gene' or genetic defect that causes homosexuality. While not definitive I would guess that their knowledge might be a little more in depth than yours. And the 'gay gene' argument is not really anti-PC it's just an old theory that's been largely discredited.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| FinchleyEagle 19 Jan 14 4.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jimmyc at 19 Jan 2014 3.56pm
Quote FinchleyEagle at 19 Jan 2014 3.36pm
Quote Seth at 19 Jan 2014 1.09am
Quote FinchleyEagle at 18 Jan 2014 1.55pm
Quote Seth at 18 Jan 2014 12.29pm
Quote FinchleyEagle at 18 Jan 2014 12.21pm
Isnt being gay like being born disabled - in that there is a gene defect ? Lets face it, our species has very clearly evolved and grown because the male version mates with the female version - just like in every other species. Its what we're designed to do. But just like a leg that doesn't grow properly, if your sexuality means you like people of the same sex - and that's fair enough, fill your boots as far as im concerned - then its a defect in the design surely ? Because if everyone was gay that would be the end of our species. And I suggest deep down that is why people struggle to accept it, because specially its just 'not right'. Its an uncomfortable truth I think.
Homosexuality isn't caused by a gene "defect". No-one really knows exactly what it's caused by but it sure as hell isn't a "defect". Many other species exhibit homosexual behaviour: [Link] And what makes you think gay people can't have children? [Link] It may seem "just not right" to you, but not to lots of other people. Maybe the "uncomfortable truth" is that your views are increasingly out of step with the majority in this country and many others round the world. If no-one knows what causes it, how can you be so sure what doesn't cause it ? And what difference does it make if other species exhibit it, that does not detract from my point. And so we are advanced enough to find a way around the child problem makes little difference either - it still isn't how we have evolved to procreate. And as for being 'out of step' well even if you are right, rather than just trying to be politically correct I couldn't give a flying fvck what the majority think because I'm not a sheep and am capable of independent thought. Hundreds of years ago the majority thought the earth was flat. In the last general election the majority had no idea what they wanted and ended up with a bloke who looks like a face drawn on a balloon with a spineless sidekick, and the British equivalent of George W Bush waiting in the wings. The majority are mostly cliquey 'desperate to be liked' numpties. Which is basically how religion happens while we're at it. So anyway, Wilbs or Gayle up front today ?
You said "...the male version mates with the female version - just like in every other species" but that isn't true, as I've shown. So it does detract from your point because that was one of your main points. If this is how we "evolved to procreate", why do so many other species display homosexual behaviour then? I think equating tolerance of homosexuality with believing the earth is flat is a little desperate. Nobody said you were a sheep, nor was any point made about the last general election. The point is people are rightly becoming more and more accepting of gay people. You appear to be out of step with that progressive view, whether you think the majority are numpties or not. Wilbs did a grand job when he came on today and I was happy to see him instead of Gayle. Heheheh he did indeed. A couple of things Seth - you sure about the defective thing ? Having brown or blue eyes is surely more equitable to liking blondes or brunettes rather than being gay or not. I call it a 'defect' because it means you are predisposed not to continue the species - and all life is 'designed' to do this. Also what do you mean the male version doesn't mate with the female version in any other species and where have you proved this isn't true ? To mate means to create offspring, and I cant see that's possible in any way, anywhere without male and female sexual organs getting together. I was then pointing out that being with the majority is a weak argument and is not necessarily desirous as they are often wrong, and cited a couple of examples of this, of course they had nothing to do with the gay question, just example of the whims of human nature. You state I am out of step with being accepting of gays, but where have I shown that ? If you read my original post I clearly endorsed it - everyone is welcome to fvck whoever they like as long as they are over 18 and keen on the idea, and good luck to them. Still no-one has come up with a definite reason why it isn't a gene defect. Happy to have my opinion changed with proof, but I feel there is too much PC-ness here for that at present. Pretty much all current and peer reviewed research has stated there is no 'gay gene' or genetic defect that causes homosexuality. While not definitive I would guess that their knowledge might be a little more in depth than yours. And the 'gay gene' argument is not really anti-PC it's just an old theory that's been largely discredited. Undoubtedly ! I did a little research and this is quite interesting: This line appears to contradict the title to me, after stating that its not in the genes, but is in 'epi-marks' it states that "Genes are basically the instruction book, while epi-marks direct how those instructions get carried out"
You'll be forever in my family's memories and it was an honor and privilege to play and lead in the red and blue |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| KJ KJ KJ 19 Jan 14 6.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote FinchleyEagle at 18 Jan 2014 12.21pm
Isnt being gay like being born disabled - in that there is a gene defect ? Lets face it, our species has very clearly evolved and grown because the male version mates with the female version - just like in every other species. Its what we're designed to do. But just like a leg that doesn't grow properly, if your sexuality means you like people of the same sex - and that's fair enough, fill your boots as far as im concerned - then its a defect in the design surely ? Because if everyone was gay that would be the end of our species. And I suggest deep down that is why people struggle to accept it, because specially its just 'not right'. Its an uncomfortable truth I think. You don't understand how evolution works. Having gay individuals is a species survival trait.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| sydtheeagle England 19 Jan 14 7.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote FinchleyEagle at 18 Jan 2014 12.21pm
Isnt being gay like being born disabled - in that there is a gene defect ? Lets face it, our species has very clearly evolved and grown because the male version mates with the female version - just like in every other species. Its what we're designed to do. But just like a leg that doesn't grow properly, if your sexuality means you like people of the same sex - and that's fair enough, fill your boots as far as im concerned - then its a defect in the design surely ? Because if everyone was gay that would be the end of our species. And I suggest deep down that is why people struggle to accept it, because specially its just 'not right'. Its an uncomfortable truth I think. Come on Glenn, I know you've been out of work for a while but surely after you've lost one job, you can't think repeating the same rubbish under the pen-name "Finchley Eagle" is going to fool anyone?
Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 19 Jan 14 7.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Yeh yeh, heard all this stuff before. Pregnant women drinking cows milk from plastic bottles creates gay people or some sh*t like that. Or alternatively having gay people is a survival trait for the species. But the point is there are gay people, always have been, sometimes cultures celebrate them and sometimes they vilify them. A grown up culture can enjoy the differences between people. So let's do the grown up thing and be welcoming to people, whatever they are like as long as they do no harm to others. Implying that gay people are some kind of 'faulty' humans is just a complete red herring. As well as being absolute bollox.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| FinchleyEagle 19 Jan 14 7.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Mapletree at 19 Jan 2014 7.19pm
Yeh yeh, heard all this stuff before. Pregnant women drinking cows milk from plastic bottles creates gay people or some sh*t like that. Or alternatively having gay people is a survival trait for the species. But the point is there are gay people, always have been, sometimes cultures celebrate them and sometimes they vilify them. A grown up culture can enjoy the differences between people. So let's do the grown up thing and be welcoming to people, whatever they are like as long as they do no harm to others. Implying that gay people are some kind of 'faulty' humans is just a complete red herring. As well as being absolute bollox. The problem here is pejorative language I think. Is someone who is gay 'faulty', well looked as specially you can make that case, in the same way the someone with only 1 leg would be 'faulty'. Its not a nice thing to say about another human being but that doesn't make it any less true. Should they be treated any differently to anyone else ? Hell no. Are they different ? Well yes they are. Too much 'ooh we cant possibly say anything bad about a minority or anyone that has been persecuted by bigots' with this issue I think. I particularly like the 'I think that's bollux' rebuttal above. Excellent, what a great argument. No-one yet has disproved the gene argument, in fact Ive come the closest myself by actually doing some research and still I think its the genes, and yes its a bloody defect if the gene makes a living thing unwilling to contribute to the survival of the species. How could it possibly not be ?
You'll be forever in my family's memories and it was an honor and privilege to play and lead in the red and blue |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| sydtheeagle England 19 Jan 14 8.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote FinchleyEagle at 19 Jan 2014 7.31pm
Quote Mapletree at 19 Jan 2014 7.19pm
Yeh yeh, heard all this stuff before. Pregnant women drinking cows milk from plastic bottles creates gay people or some sh*t like that. Or alternatively having gay people is a survival trait for the species. But the point is there are gay people, always have been, sometimes cultures celebrate them and sometimes they vilify them. A grown up culture can enjoy the differences between people. So let's do the grown up thing and be welcoming to people, whatever they are like as long as they do no harm to others. Implying that gay people are some kind of 'faulty' humans is just a complete red herring. As well as being absolute bollox. The problem here is pejorative language I think. Is someone who is gay 'faulty', well looked as specially you can make that case, in the same way the someone with only 1 leg would be 'faulty'. Its not a nice thing to say about another human being but that doesn't make it any less true. Should they be treated any differently to anyone else ? Hell no. Are they different ? Well yes they are. Too much 'ooh we cant possibly say anything bad about a minority or anyone that has been persecuted by bigots' with this issue I think. I particularly like the 'I think that's bollux' rebuttal above. Excellent, what a great argument. No-one yet has disproved the gene argument, in fact Ive come the closest myself by actually doing some research and still I think its the genes, and yes its a bloody defect if the gene makes a living thing unwilling to contribute to the survival of the species. How could it possibly not be ?
Faulty means working badly or even broken. Different means distinct. Prejudice is born of the lazy bigotry of people like you, I'm afraid. I know many gays, Most are distinct. None, to the best of my knowledge, are not working properly.
Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| FinchleyEagle 19 Jan 14 8.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote sydtheeagle at 19 Jan 2014 8.09pm
Quote FinchleyEagle at 19 Jan 2014 7.31pm
Quote Mapletree at 19 Jan 2014 7.19pm
Yeh yeh, heard all this stuff before. Pregnant women drinking cows milk from plastic bottles creates gay people or some sh*t like that. Or alternatively having gay people is a survival trait for the species. But the point is there are gay people, always have been, sometimes cultures celebrate them and sometimes they vilify them. A grown up culture can enjoy the differences between people. So let's do the grown up thing and be welcoming to people, whatever they are like as long as they do no harm to others. Implying that gay people are some kind of 'faulty' humans is just a complete red herring. As well as being absolute bollox. The problem here is pejorative language I think. Is someone who is gay 'faulty', well looked as specially you can make that case, in the same way the someone with only 1 leg would be 'faulty'. Its not a nice thing to say about another human being but that doesn't make it any less true. Should they be treated any differently to anyone else ? Hell no. Are they different ? Well yes they are. Too much 'ooh we cant possibly say anything bad about a minority or anyone that has been persecuted by bigots' with this issue I think. I particularly like the 'I think that's bollux' rebuttal above. Excellent, what a great argument. No-one yet has disproved the gene argument, in fact Ive come the closest myself by actually doing some research and still I think its the genes, and yes its a bloody defect if the gene makes a living thing unwilling to contribute to the survival of the species. How could it possibly not be ?
Faulty means working badly or even broken. Different means distinct. Prejudice is born of the lazy bigotry of people like you, I'm afraid. I know many gays, Most are distinct. None, to the best of my knowledge, are not working properly. Wow Syd, you'd make a great tabloid journalist - got a great line in at the end and made no attempt to understand what I was saying, and 'defined' for your purposes what it was I meant. Got a little insult in there as well, top work. I am neither lazy or bigoted. And certainly not both together, I can be quite patronising though, so don't worry, I understand why it helps you to pigeonhole me. Different means not the same, which clearly every human being is in a hundred tiny ways. In the specific area of not being inclined to mate because of sexual orientation, then one can reasonably be described as 'different' to those who do. Equally, as any species is evolved in order to continue its existence, I think you could make a reasonable claim that any person who is not inclined to do so is faulty because its not a choice they have made, as sexual orientation isn't for anyone. They do not fit the template that is required in order to perpetuate the species so in this requirement alone, they are faulty. Just like someone with dud swimmers could be considered to be.
You'll be forever in my family's memories and it was an honor and privilege to play and lead in the red and blue |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 19 Jan 14 9.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Maybe being gay is part of natures way of survival. Reduce the population to fit the amount of food available. Which could be construed as genetic. Back on point. Anyone who will score 2 goals a game for us will do. Whatever sexuality. I couldn't care less who they are or what they do off the pitch.
Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.