Stephen Harper vows free vote on gay marriage
- Thread starter I think not
- Start date
- Status
RE: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage
[quote="I didn't know that ivf or artificial insemination were "sex".
And no, by my definition of sex, which is an act between two people, I did not contradict my first point with my second.
Rebuttal 14
First - Thanks for following the structure.
Perhaps I misunderstood, please clarify how your definition of sex is a counterpoint to point 1 "homosexuals are genetic dead-enders".
I do want to address your counterpoint.[/quote]
No you don't. You are claiming homosexuals are genetic dead enders, then when people point out that there are many ways in which the genes of homosexuals can be carried on, by reproducing, you have a problem.
Maybe you are trying to suggest that, as a reproducing unit, a homosexual couple aren't going to pass on the genes of BOTH members of the couple. Could be that's what you're trying to say, but you haven't said that.
When you learn to write with consistency and rigour, and have some valid point, get back to us.
[quote="I didn't know that ivf or artificial insemination were "sex".
And no, by my definition of sex, which is an act between two people, I did not contradict my first point with my second.
Rebuttal 14
First - Thanks for following the structure.
Perhaps I misunderstood, please clarify how your definition of sex is a counterpoint to point 1 "homosexuals are genetic dead-enders".
I do want to address your counterpoint.[/quote]
No you don't. You are claiming homosexuals are genetic dead enders, then when people point out that there are many ways in which the genes of homosexuals can be carried on, by reproducing, you have a problem.
Maybe you are trying to suggest that, as a reproducing unit, a homosexual couple aren't going to pass on the genes of BOTH members of the couple. Could be that's what you're trying to say, but you haven't said that.
When you learn to write with consistency and rigour, and have some valid point, get back to us.
Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage
So are conservatives. They're afraid of new things, they'll eventually die out, it inevitable.
That's it.
Smell ya.
Hogwild said:
So are conservatives. They're afraid of new things, they'll eventually die out, it inevitable.
That's it.
Smell ya.
Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage
For times like this, we really need an emoticon like this:
For times like this, we really need an emoticon like this:
Re: RE: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage
Oops. You're right, only those of Hogwilds clan.
Jay said:
Oops. You're right, only those of Hogwilds clan.
RE: Harper vows free vote
Actually, here in the U.S., Conservatives appear to be breeding faster than the other sorts of people.
Scary, that.
Actually, here in the U.S., Conservatives appear to be breeding faster than the other sorts of people.
Scary, that.
Re: RE: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage
Oh, they probably breed, but I bet they don't branch. :lol:
Said1 said:Jay said:
Oops. You're right, only those of Hogwilds clan.
Oh, they probably breed, but I bet they don't branch. :lol:
Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage
That's likely due to their opposition to birth control.
That goes without saying. :lol:
That's likely due to their opposition to birth control.
That goes without saying. :lol:
Re: RE: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage
:laughing3:
Summer said:Said1 said:Jay said:
Oops. You're right, only those of Hogwilds clan.
Oh, they probably breed, but I bet they don't branch. :lol:
:laughing3:
Re: RE: Harper vows free vote
Summer said:Actually, here in the U.S., Conservatives appear to be breeding faster than the other sorts of people.
Scary, that.
RE: Harper vows free vote
Jo, I'm seriously hoping that intelligence and education will eventually win out against sheer numerical preponderance, but I'm also hedging my bets.
Jo, I'm seriously hoping that intelligence and education will eventually win out against sheer numerical preponderance, but I'm also hedging my bets.
Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage
It would appear so, but then, the same could be said for altruism. According to Richard Dawkins' "selfish gene" perspective, the only criterion for success --or in your terms, "purpose"-- of life is the perpetuation of particular genes.
The function of the individual is to aid in the perpetuation of these genes, by any means necessary, even dying.
In termite and ant colonies, for example, there is only a very small group within the total population that is directly responsible for sexual reporduction. The genes required to produce workers and soldiers are maintained by the sexual reproducers, even though the others don't reproduce themselves, because they carry out functions that the community requires in order that certain genes persist. This includes genes for sterility (pay attention and explain this, Hoggie).
This is how genes work in social animals.
It would appear so, but then, the same could be said for altruism. According to Richard Dawkins' "selfish gene" perspective, the only criterion for success --or in your terms, "purpose"-- of life is the perpetuation of particular genes.
The function of the individual is to aid in the perpetuation of these genes, by any means necessary, even dying.
In termite and ant colonies, for example, there is only a very small group within the total population that is directly responsible for sexual reporduction. The genes required to produce workers and soldiers are maintained by the sexual reproducers, even though the others don't reproduce themselves, because they carry out functions that the community requires in order that certain genes persist. This includes genes for sterility (pay attention and explain this, Hoggie).
This is how genes work in social animals.
Re: RE: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage
No you don't. You are claiming homosexuals are genetic dead enders, then when people point out that there are many ways in which the genes of homosexuals can be carried on, by reproducing, you have a problem.
Maybe you are trying to suggest that, as a reproducing unit, a homosexual couple aren't going to pass on the genes of BOTH members of the couple. Could be that's what you're trying to say, but you haven't said that.
When you learn to write with consistency and rigour, and have some valid point, get back to us.[/quote]
Rebuttal 14
For the record, I asked for clarification and only now received it.
I have responded that there is no homosexual way that the genes of homosexuals can be passed on, hence dead-enders.
I expect a counter argument to it - or it becomes our truth.
Here it is:
The definition of a homosexual refers only to "same sex" (no mention of two different sexes anywhere). Therefore introducing genetic material from a different sex as required in reproduction is not homosexual behavior. Humans are not asexual.
A virtuous homosexual (not a hypocrite) would not have sex or use the genetic material of a different sex in an intimately sexual or clinically sexual way.
You will recall this is an argument about homosexuality not heterosexuality or polygamy.
Main Entry: 1ho·mo·sex·u·al
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'sek-sh(&-)w&l, -'sek-sh&l
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex
TenPenny said:
No you don't. You are claiming homosexuals are genetic dead enders, then when people point out that there are many ways in which the genes of homosexuals can be carried on, by reproducing, you have a problem.
Maybe you are trying to suggest that, as a reproducing unit, a homosexual couple aren't going to pass on the genes of BOTH members of the couple. Could be that's what you're trying to say, but you haven't said that.
When you learn to write with consistency and rigour, and have some valid point, get back to us.[/quote]
Rebuttal 14
For the record, I asked for clarification and only now received it.
I have responded that there is no homosexual way that the genes of homosexuals can be passed on, hence dead-enders.
I expect a counter argument to it - or it becomes our truth.
Here it is:
The definition of a homosexual refers only to "same sex" (no mention of two different sexes anywhere). Therefore introducing genetic material from a different sex as required in reproduction is not homosexual behavior. Humans are not asexual.
A virtuous homosexual (not a hypocrite) would not have sex or use the genetic material of a different sex in an intimately sexual or clinically sexual way.
You will recall this is an argument about homosexuality not heterosexuality or polygamy.
Main Entry: 1ho·mo·sex·u·al
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'sek-sh(&-)w&l, -'sek-sh&l
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex
Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage
You should see me on the topic of altruism in slime molds!!! :kermit:
You should see me on the topic of altruism in slime molds!!! :kermit:
Re: Harper vows free vote on gay marriage
That has been shown to be untrue in several ways on this thread, pig-boy. Choosing to explain away or ignore others arguments does not negate those arguments, it just demonstrates the weakness of your position.
That has been shown to be untrue in several ways on this thread, pig-boy. Choosing to explain away or ignore others arguments does not negate those arguments, it just demonstrates the weakness of your position.
- Status