Stephen Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

[Cosmo]

Re: RE: Harper vows free vote

I was talking about cows before. Actually I was talking about a cow named Queenie.

Now most dairy cows are bred through artificial insemination. It's a good way to control the genetic traits of your herd and gives the average farmer access to genetic material that would otherwise not be available to them.

Most cows, as a result, are technically asexual. They never have sex. They are never given the opportunity to have sex.

Anyway, pigboy, if homosexuals who use artificial insemination are genetic dead-enders, wouldn't that make practically every dairy cow in Canada a genetic dead-ender as well? Or are cows just being hypocritical? Can cows be hypocritical? What should we do about all those hypocritical cows? Would the Hypocritical Cows be a good name for a cowpunk band?

So many questions....

Rev, you slay me. While I enjoy your politics, I absolutely love your twisted sense of humour. You're our own Canadian version of Dave Barry. Thanks for the morning laugh ... gotta go get the coffee out of the keyboard now.

 

[Hogwild]

Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

I believe I have successfully rebutted ALL counterpoints.

Please show me one I haven't, and I will correct that.

So the so-called moderator has thrown in the towel eh? It really wasn't much of a showing.

Are all the insincere lemmings going to follow? That tiny cesspool of liberal insanity beckons.

I hope not. Maybe someone sane sincerely wants to acknowledge the facts as truth.

Going once...twice....

 

[pastafarian]

Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

Gone. :roll:

 

[DasFX]

Re: RE: Harper vows free vote

Actually, your "a" and "b" are not mutually exclusive, Das. Though personally, I believe "a" and not "b".

I forgot a statement, it is fixed not. Basically the two choices were between passing down a homosexuality gene or it being a result of some mutation in the sex gametes or zygote.

 

[DasFX]

Re: RE: Harper vows free vote

They are never given the opportunity to have sex.

Anyway, pigboy, if homosexuals who use artificial insemination are genetic dead-enders, wouldn't that make practically every dairy cow in Canada a genetic dead-ender as well? Or are cows just being hypocritical?

What kind of response is that? You are confusing a natural desire of homosexuals to mate with the same gender with cows who are forced into being artificial insemination and are not given the opportunity to have sex.

If these guys were "free", they would mate based on their natural instincts and reproduce thus passing on their genetic material. If these cows were homosexual, they would mate, but no offspring would result and evenutally the population of cows and their genetic material would simeply die off.

Some of the comments in this thread are an insult to the field of biology, ecology and genetics.

 

[Summer]

RE: Harper vows free vote

Yep, Porky, that's about the response I expected. In order to maintain your "belief" that you have "successfully refuted" all counterpoints, you have to ignore all the ones you cannot actually refute. Which essentially means ignoring roughly 95% of what others have posted on this thread and COMPLETELY failing to address my questions and similar ones from other posters.

That ain't a debate, son, it's talking to oneself in the presence of others. I'm thinking Cosmo's right about the Haldol, personally.

If you really wanted a debate, you'd answer questions and actually offer concrete information to back upyour assertions. You've done neither, which only proves you are clueless when it comes to engaging in actual debate and discussion. Here's a tip: next time the urge strikes you to take a stab at playing with the big boys, lie down until the feeling passes.

As has been previously noted, all you've managed to accomplish in this thread is to serve as a catalyst to further strengthen the view that homosexuals are no different from anyone else.

 

[Jo Canadian]

Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

I have no desire to bicker with you about your personal choices.

:scratch: But your argument seem to be your own personal choice anyways. As Said Said, what about relevant links or studies?

At best that would only yield an insincere agreement to disagree. At worst it would result in agreeing to an untruth.

Heh, it seems to work both ways don't you think. You've assumed that with whatever argument you've presented with us that you are right from the get go. Any alternatives? No. You'll argue yourself till you're blue in the face if we don't play by your rules.

If you intend to argue, then do so. I have made a point that will stand as true until a relevant counterpoint cant be rebutted with accuracy and sincerity.

It has been rebutted many times, you're letting your own personal views cloud any actual analytical judgement that may prove the contrary.

I agree to accept the result as truth, do you?

No. I think this is the blue in the face part we're talking aboot.

This is the nature of argument.

No, THIS it's the nature of kicking a dead horse.

I'd love to tell you what I think of your situation. Lets get past this first point and I will.

The line has been drawn in the sand many times to get past the first point...Quit walking backwards man.

 

[Hogwild]

Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

Which counterpoint hasn't been successfully rebutted?

 

[DasFX]

RE: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

Why are people so consumed with making homosexuality seem biologically normal? The debate was about equal rights. Letting all people have the same rights is the issue. Giving homosexuals equals rights has nothing to do with the whether homosexuality if biologically beneficial to life (which it is not).

 

[Reverend Blair]

Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

What kind of response is that?

It's a ridiculous response to the ridiculous premise that pig-boy put forth, Das.

Plus cows are cool. Except the one named #3. That bitch used to kick the crap of whoever tried to put the milkers on her. She'd also lean on your head when you were putting the tit dip on her. It was brutal.

 

[Summer]

Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

Which counterpoint hasn't been successfully rebutted?

Offhand, I'd say NONE of them have been successfully refuted. When were you planning to start?

 

[DasFX]

Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

Which counterpoint hasn't been successfully rebutted?

I have read your posts and I'm not sure what your position is.

You are against homosexual marriage

But why? Be concise and to the point please.

 

[pastafarian]

Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

Barring slavish adherence to primitive religious writings, why should people who are indistiguishable from any others except in terms of their sexual preference be prohibited from choosing to be homosexual?
There is no reason. Evidence that shows that sexual preference falls on a continuum and is largely genetically determined is just icing on the cake.

 

[Summer]

Re: RE: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

Why are people so consumed with making homosexuality seem biologically normal? The debate was about equal rights. Letting all people have the same rights is the issue. Giving homosexuals equals rights has nothing to do with the whether homosexuality if biologically beneficial to life (which it is not).

Das, in the article I linked several pages back, there is actually some evidence that, while the homosexuality of males is not DIRECTLY in and of itself beneficial, it appears to be linked to a beneficial gene or set of genes that when expressed in the sisters of said males, does in fact increase their fecundity.

As far as I'm concerned, and there have been some studies to back this up, homosexuality is simply one position upon the spectrum that is human sexuality. The potential to go either way - or both - is inherent in most individuals, though the majority will tend to cluster around the heterosexual end of the spectrum. Human population being as high as it is these days, there is far less pressure to reproduce, and therefore the inherent tendency in more individuals to occupy places elsewhere along the spectrum are being more widely expressed.

You are absolutely correct, however, in saying that recognizing the rights of homosexuals has nothing to do with whether or not they are beneficial to the species. I've been telling Porky the same thing, but he doesn't seem to get it.

EDIT: Pasta, get out of my head... that tickles.

 

[pastafarian]

RE: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

DasFX, can you define "biologically normal"? There is no accepted definition of that phrase among biologists, so it's hard to know whether homosexuality fits your personal interpretation of the phrase. There are many possible definitions of it that would allow homsexuality to be described by those two words.

Edited to add: Sorry Summer, but it's not as creepy and claustrophobic as someother heads round these parts :wink: .

 

[Reverend Blair]

Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

Das, in the article I linked several pages back, there is actually some evidence that, while the homosexuality of males is not DIRECTLY in and of itself beneficial, it appears to be linked to a beneficial gene or set of genes that when expressed in the sisters of said males, does in fact increase their fecundity.

Now if dairy farmers could find and develop that genetic trait, it would lead to entirely new breeding programs. Within twenty years all of the bulls would exhibit homosexual tendencies. That wouldn't affect breeding programs since the semen for artificial insemination is collected using fake cows, that model could just be changed.

Imagine the benefits of such a gene in cows. No more calling the tech back. More twins. No more missed breeding opportunites.

If such a gene exists in holsteins, it would definitely be a trait that would be universally bred for.

 

[DasFX]

Re: RE: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

DasFX, can you define "biologically normal"? There is no accepted definition of that phrase among biologists, so it's hard to know whether homosexuality fits your personal interpretation of the phrase. There are many possible definitions of it that would allow homsexuality to be described by those two words.

Edited to add: Sorry Summer, but it's not as creepy and claustrophobic as someother heads round these parts :wink: .

You are correct that there is no real definition of normal in term of biology. But I do believe that a tendency to mate with the same gender which in the end produces no offspring and thus inhibits the sustainabilty life goes against the very purpose of life, biologically.

 

[Hogwild]

Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage

Which counterpoint hasn't been successfully rebutted?

I have read your posts and I'm not sure what your position is.

You are against homosexual marriage

But why? Be concise and to the point please.

Homosexuals are genetic dead-enders.

That's it.

 

[Summer]

RE: Harper vows free vote

But, Das, if the sisters of a homosexual male produce MORE children, then that pretty much makes up for those not produced by their brother (assuming he doesn't reproduce anyway).... and in some cases they have enough that it more than makes up the average number that would be produced by their generation if everyone in it were hetero.

 

[Summer]

RE: Harper vows free vote

Well, Porky, if your only point is that homosexuals are genetic dead-enders, that one was refuted way back on Page 1. In that case, I'm not sure why you're still here plaguing us.