Play Nice Society, Religion & Politics Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

You stated yourself that the purpose of declaring the dividend was to avoid paying tax, did you not?

If the purpose of the arrangement is to avoid paying tax it will get caught by Pt IVA every day of the week, & twice on Sunday.

The test isn't whether I'm motivated by tax saving the test is whether an objective third party would conclude on the balance of evidence that the dominant purpose was tax benefit. I've been doing this for 38 years I know where the line is. This isn't even remotely controversial in those terms and is why it's so powerful. Hey but you stick with what you 'know'. Much better for us both I think
 
Yeah, and you know a lot less about biopsych than you do about tax law. I actually know what I’m talking about here which is why I’d really love to see some sources.

IT challenged isn’t an excuse, you can literally give authors, dates and publication. Easy.



Mate, what about your Brain Institute citation requires analysis? It’s been well established that both play a role, you’re brandishing this article as if it’s something new or meaningful. If that’s the extent of your research into this then Jesus Christ. There’s nothing to analyse there.

The issue is that you’re suggesting that all things are the same ratio of nature vs nurture, including orientation. That is not supported, and is a horrible misreading of the science. If you think that, then there’s no telling what else you may have misread.

One of the major issues you actually get with twin studies and assessing level of genetic influence is that sexuality is a spectrum - self-reported sexuality is often a gigantic over-simplification. A lot of people like both, but to such varying degrees that they just settle one one and don’t explore that other side. A lot of people also assume they’re straight when they’re not (e.g. a good family friend came out as gay when he was about 50 and had been married and divorced - had a study been done before he came out he would have been considered straight).

To give an example of how this can mess up these studies, women, generally, are under far less social pressure to be exclusively straight, and the rate of women who are not exclusively straight is much, much higher than for men. Men TEND to be more black and white in the orientation, but is that just because there’s so much pressure not to express non-straight orientations? I don’t know the answer to that, just trying to highlight a fundamental limitation to studying orientation like this.

Incidentally, that’s exactly why we want you to cite your sources. People citing statistics they don’t realise they don’t understand is a huge problem - there’s a whole field dedicated to preventing things like this called science communication.

Not that any of this is actually relevant unless you think homosexuality is something to be prevented, which apparently you do. Can you see why people call you a bigot?

I'm not here to spoon feed people. I referenced QLD brain institute study of 2012 as evidence that all our characteristics including behaviour occur 49% by genetics and 51% by environment. Look up nature v nurture debate finally resolved qld brain institute study and it will get you there
 
The reason div7a is inapplicable is because you declare a dividend and nothing more. Ie it's an ordinary commercial dealing with little to no contrivance. Can it be said that a choice to declare that dividend attracts Part iva? No you can't because it's a simple choice always available to taxpayers. Like wages or interest on loan or FBT cash out etc etc. You aren't forced by part iva to take the path producing highest tax outcome. If that were the case every single transaction would be part iva because most if not all have a tax impact. the concept of ordinary commercial dealings is invented to prevent such an anomalous outcome. A dividend declaration has no contrivance and is well within that definition accordingly

After some criticism of the study it further studies were done for the journal of biosocial science in nov 2010. Under the heading "children of homosexuals more apt to be homosexuals : a reply to morrison and cameron based on examination of multie sources of data" this study of 262 children affirmed the test results that the incidence of same sex attraction will be between 16% and 57% being a factor of 5 and or a factor of twenty in population incidence


Shall I go on?

What an absurd ridiculous hilarious disengenuous suggestion I'm peddling. Yes? No?

The existence of these results isn't in question. The real question is given that this occurs is it something we should be concerned about? Parents always influence their children. Why shouldn't they influence them with sexual orientation and in direction they do? It implies there is something inherently wrong with that outcome which is then a concern. Then again genetically, same sex attraction is an aberration. Has to be as 3% and never procreating.

I can't help but feel that a distortion is occurring for these children. Do I have a right to feel that way? I don't know..........
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Paul cameron Cambridge university press survey in 2005 "children of homosexuals and transexuals more apt to be homosexual . And I quote:

Not that difficult, was it? Interesting it’s Paul Cameron though. He’s been widely dismissed for making really shoddy claims. He is not given credibility among the broader scientific community - in fact, he was expelled from the APA for using shoddy methods to pursue an anti-gay agenda. Oh, and this was in 1983, at just about the height of anti-gay sentiment in recent memory. He is the Andrew Wakefield of homophobia.

"Do the sexual inclinations of parents influence those of their children? Of 77 adult children of homosexual partners who volunteered for three different investigations, at least 23 (30%) were currently homosexual.: twelve 55% of 22 daughters and 3(21%) of fourteen sons of lesbians; five (29%) of seventeen daughter and three (17%) of eighteen sons of gays; none of six sons with both a gay and lesbian parent. At least 25 (32%) were currently heterosexual. Of ten with transexual parents, one of nine daughters was currently lesbian, one was currently heterosexual and one was transexual. The sons sexual preference was not reported. These findings suggest that parents sexual inclinations influence their childrens"

Those are terribly small sample sizes, embarrassingly small.

If you know anything about statistical sampling and hypothesis testing you will know that the critical factor in conclusively determining an hypothesis is standard deviation from mean. If the population mean of prevalence of same sex attraction is approx 3% then the sample ought reflect same. If it doesn't and instead produces results ten times or more population mean incidence, then the hypothesis is proved. That children of same sex relationships produce disproportionately greater same sex attraction offspring....and that is so despite what in statistical terms is a low sample size simply because of the extent of deviation.

Holy crap you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

In a small sample size, you can expect MORE variation, greater deviation from the mean, not less. You don’t get such massive proportions in that study DESPITE the small sample, you get it BECAUSE of the small sample. If you knew anything about statistical sampling you would know that.

Those numbers you quote give no indication of the genetic relationship between the parents and children (which will obviously increase the rate of homosexuality in the children), not the thresholds for what constitutes “homosexual” - is it exclusive homosexual attraction? Is it dating people of the same sex (thereby including bi/pans people)? Is it just admitting to same sex attraction? That last definition would include a huge number of women, 55% would be conservative on that definition.

I'm not here to spoon feed people. I referenced QLD brain institute study of 2012 as evidence that all our characteristics including behaviour occur 49% by genetics and 51% by environment. Look up nature v nurture debate finally resolved qld brain institute study and it will get you there

You are wrong. That is a meta-analysis that indicates that based on a particular taxonomy of traits thus far studied through twin studies, the aggregate ratio is 49:51. Not that every single trait adheres to that ratio. Some have higher nature, others have higher nurture, and these are studies quite often limited (especially in behavioural measures rather than physical) by self-reports, unclear/arbitrary definitions/thresholds for what constitutes demonstrating a trait, etc.

You have an extremely superficial understanding of this subject matter. This is my background. You are out of your depth here. You are not elevating this discussion with science, you are distracting from it with stats which you don’t understand and which are not relevant.
 
After some criticism of the study it further studies were done for the journal of biosocial science in nov 2010. Under the heading "children of homosexuals more apt to be homosexuals : a reply to morrison and cameron based on examination of multie sources of data" this study of 262 children affirmed the test results that the incidence of same sex attraction will be between 16% and 57% being a factor of 5 and or a factor of twenty in population incidence

Shall I go on?

Read that. Note that it’s “non-heterosexual identities”. This gets back to my post above. That is an extremely broad category that would include people who are “mostly straight” but would bang someone from the same sex, or even just feel attraction. That is common, and it is far more likely that children raised by a same sex couple would feel comfortable acknowledging it as a non-heterosexual identity than someone from a straight family.

When you factor in genetic relationships as well, the numbers aren’t the least bit surprising, and do not suggest gay parents make their children experience same sex attraction that they otherwise wouldn’t.

All that said, you STILL haven’t explained why it’s a bad thing in any case.
 
The test isn't whether I'm motivated by tax saving the test is whether an objective third party would conclude on the balance of evidence that the dominant purpose was tax benefit. I've been doing this for 38 years I know where the line is. This isn't even remotely controversial in those terms and is why it's so powerful. Hey but you stick with what you 'know'. Much better for us both I think

I don't "know" anything, you're the expert, I was just trying to clarify.
The reason I asked you to clarify is because your SSM argument has a tendency to draw conclusions that aren't supported by the evidence.
Thanks for the clarification, I think I understand now.
 
Take it up with Uni of NSW which is where I was taught statistical analysis and hypothesis testing. I know nothing of Paul cameron. I look at his survey results. I know nothing of subsequent survey individual but focus on the results which affirms cameron. So you believe that a collective sample size of 339 with a deviation up to five times population prevalence is meaningless. Or that he fabricated his survey.? proof?

All I can say is wow.

Nothing will sway you because you have preconceived bias

I understand completely that prevalence of specific attributes may vary between the 49% and 51% dynamic. That though is our best research currently available. You want to therefore discredit it. I'd rather work with it
 
I understand completely that prevalence of specific attributes may vary between the 49% and 51% dynamic. That though is our best research currently available.
No, they vary wildly outside it. Your own source gave 70-30 or greater in some cases.
You know what I'm done here. I'm no longer interested in dealing with people who push agendas and intent on belittling people for no other reason than they disagree. Pretty sick attitude
You've been obsessively calling people gay or part of the gay agenda and pushing a line about a genetic plan. You had your sources directly responded to and now you're throwing a tantrum again.
 
Take it up with Uni of NSW which is where I was taught statistical analysis and hypothesis testing. I know nothing of Paul cameron. I look at his survey results. I know nothing of subsequent survey individual but focus on the results which affirms cameron. So you believe that a collective sample size of 339 with a deviation up to five times population prevalence is meaningless. Or that he fabricated his survey.? proof?

All I can say is wow.

Nothing will sway you because you have preconceived bias

I don’t even disagree with you that there’s a nurture element to homosexuality, that’s the funny thing.

I have explained exactly why that study, or at least your citation if it, is at best extremely unclear and at worst actually terribly flawed. Poor articulation of how non-heterosexuality is defined, zero information on how genetic inheritance was controlled for, and no information on how they controlled for increased willingness to acknowledge themselves as non-straight (as opposed to simply identifying as straight but with curiosities).

This isn’t an attack, it’s a critique which is expected in science. If you can’t handle your evidence being interrogated then you shouldn’t try to wade into scientific discussions.

I understand completely that prevalence of specific attributes may vary between the 49% and 51% dynamic. That though is our best research currently available. You want to therefore discredit it. I'd rather work with it

Not at all. I’m just saying that it doesn’t say what you think it says. Things are a lot more complex, involved and uncertain than you think they are.

You know enough to be confident, but not enough to know what you don’t know.
 
Last edited:
No, they vary wildly outside it. Your own source gave 70-30 or greater in some cases.

You've been obsessively calling people gay or part of the gay agenda and pushing a line about a genetic plan. You had your sources directly responded to and now you're throwing a tantrum again.

There are only two sources which impact behaviour and that's genetics and environment. There hasn't been studies done to my knowledge that shows a gay gene that would enable more definitive analysis of what proportions the mix affects same sex attraction. In any event it doesn't matter because it occurs by whatever mix it does each having impact. I've always felt as my opinion there is greater genetic influence than environment and I have anecdotal personal examples in support 3 yo children. Same sex people often always cite they 'knew' from an early age which likewise supports this.

I personally think that you both have been obsessive about calling me discriminatory. So I show no concern to respect in response by saying you are both gay. In your case you've already used the pronoun 'we' in associating yourself with same sex so my conclusion is pretty reliable. In Barney Rubbles case I resolve it by virtue of profiling his behaviour. Only people with intense emotional investment would behave as he has meaning I've concluded amongst other things he is also likely a liar peddling the view he is as heterosexual in order to attempt to legitimise his position more. I have no intention of deviating from these comments as you both seemingly have no intention of refraining from calling me discriminatory.

Not throwing a tantrum at all. Because nothing has changed. Well apart from the fact I've cited survey results 333 aggregate people that show that same sex partners produce same sex offspring. Of course those studies not surprisingly have been attacked as being some heterosexual conspiracy theory. At this point I take with a grain of salt whatever comes from Barney Rubbles mouth.....because it will be agenda based nonsense

Ps: new scientist magazine in an article of 17/12/2017 cites that two genes have been located giving predisposition to same sex orientation. So confirmation as I understood it. Both influence
 
Last edited:
There are only two sources which impact behaviour and that's genetics and environment. There hasn't been studies done to my knowledge that shows a gay gene that would enable more definitive analysis of what proportions the mix affects same sex attraction. In any event it doesn't matter because it occurs by whatever mix it does each having impact. I've always felt as my opinion there is greater genetic influence than environment and I have anecdotal personal examples in support 3 yo children. Same sex people often always cite they 'knew' from an early age which likewise supports this.

I personally think that you both have been obsessive about calling me discriminatory. So I show no concern to respect in response by saying you are both gay. In your case you've already used the pronoun 'we' in associating yourself with same sex so my conclusion is pretty reliable. In Barney Rubbles case I resolve it by virtue of profiling his behaviour. Only people with intense emotional investment would behave as he has meaning I've concluded amongst other things he is also likely a liar peddling the view he is as heterosexual in order to attempt to legitimise his position more. I have no intention of deviating from these comments as you both seemingly have no intention of refraining from calling me discriminatory.

Not throwing a tantrum at all. Because nothing has changed. Well apart from the fact I've cited survey results 333 aggregate people that show that same sex partners produce same sex offspring. Of course those studies not surprisingly have been attacked as being some heterosexual conspiracy theory. At this point I take with a grain of salt whatever comes from Barney Rubbles mouth.....because it will be agenda based nonsense

Ps: new scientist magazine in an article of 17/12/2017 cites that two genes have been located giving predisposition to same sex orientation. So confirmation as I understood it. Both influence

An interesting study I believe would entail analysis of the % of people same sex orientation arising from sperm donation by same sex males. That should enable comparison with the existing data to enable some tentative conclusions as whether sane sex orientation is mostly genetic or mostly environment induced.
 
There are only two sources which impact behaviour and that's genetics and environment. There hasn't been studies done to my knowledge that shows a gay gene that would enable more definitive analysis of what proportions the mix affects same sex attraction. In any event it doesn't matter because it occurs by whatever mix it does each having impact. I've always felt as my opinion there is greater genetic influence than environment and I have anecdotal personal examples in support 3 yo children. Same sex people often always cite they 'knew' from an early age which likewise supports this.

We actually broadly agree on this, though I think it’s entirely irrelevant.

I personally think that you both have been obsessive about calling me discriminatory.

You literally think homosexuality is something to be prevented. What else would you call that?

In Barney Rubbles case I resolve it by virtue of profiling his behaviour. Only people with intense emotional investment would behave as he has meaning I've concluded amongst other things he is also likely a liar peddling the view he is as heterosexual in order to attempt t o legitimise his position more.

Search my post history if you like, I’m sure I’ve made reference to girlfriends/straightness in the past. Would you like any other evidence, easier to access?

It astounds me you can’t conceive that maybe I’m passionate about this on behalf of other people. Guess what, I’m also passionately anti-racism, anti-sexism, and anti-transphobia, but I’m white, male and cisgender.

I have no intention of deviating from these comments as you both seemingly have no intention of refraining from calling me discriminatory.

Again, you literally believe homosexuality is something that should be avoided. What qualifies as discriminatory to you? What does that word mean to you?

Not throwing a tantrum at all. Because nothing has changed. Well apart from the fact I've cited survey results 333 aggregate people that show that same sex partners produce same sex offspring. Of course those studies not surprisingly have been attacked as being some heterosexual conspiracy theory. At this point I take with a grain of salt whatever comes from Barney Rubbles mouth.....because it will be agenda based nonsense

Ps: new scientist magazine in an article of 17/12/2017 cites that two genes have been located giving predisposition to same sex orientation. So confirmation as I understood it. Both influence

I haven’t disputed the findings of those studies. I’ve disputed your extremely superficial analysis of it. And guess what, I don’t even care because I don’t think increased homosexuality is a bad thing! I just hate seeing such a poor level of analysis being paraded about as an example of enlightened debate.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

We actually broadly agree on this, though I think it’s entirely irrelevant.



You literally think homosexuality is something to be prevented. What else would you call that?



Search my post history if you like, I’m sure I’ve made reference to girlfriends/straightness in the past. Would you like any other evidence, easier to access?

It astounds me you can’t conceive that maybe I’m passionate about this on behalf of other people. Guess what, I’m also passionately anti-racism, anti-sexism, and anti-transphobia, but I’m white, male and cisgender.



Again, you literally believe homosexuality is something that should be avoided. What qualifies as discriminatory to you? What does that word mean to you?



I haven’t disputed the findings of those studies. I’ve disputed your extremely superficial analysis of it. And guess what, I don’t even care because I don’t think increased homosexuality is a bad thing! I just hate seeing such a poor level of analysis being paraded about as an example of enlightened debate.


Are you same sex oriented Y N and results tabulated. Exactly how can I give a superficial analysis of a yes no survey result? There is no interpretation required apart from math which I assume they did correctly.

I see no distinction whatsoever between individuals who are same sex oriented or not. I will decide all my interactions with all people on basis of character and likability that alone. I don't fashion any decision around whether or not they sleep same sex. Irrelevant to my decision matrix. My GFs son is a wonderful human being and I love his company and believe him to be wonderful character. Micro level non discrimination uniformly

When you are dealing with issues of the nature here same sex marriage etc where a decision is required the academic analysis without empathy influences my conclusions. That always happens in macro not micro level. Same sex attracted people are an aberration to genetic purpose. That is an objective truth of high value. They will not procreate naturally. Therefore their compatibility as a collective to a tradition of marriage is questionable at best. Doesn't make any of them horrible or unworthy of my friendship-clearly not or better or worse than me. Likewise if combination of environment and genetics in rearing children skews same sex orientation then there is genetic wastage to an abberant genetic purpose once again in that rearing process. I didn't create this it just is. I do however have the courage to call it what it is and make decisions on the back of it.

You say these decisions are discrimination and I say they are a natural corollary to misdirected genetic purpose. Most look at the decision at micro level and say I 'feel' their need. I look at the bigger picture in which for specific issues they simply don't fit and am prepared to say so despite being prepared to treat each person as a person without discrimination of any nature in my treatment accorded

So in response I honestly don't think any same sex oriented person is someone to avoid. That is a crazy untenable position. Doesn't detract from fact same sex orientation is genetically abberant and always will be.
 
Are you same sex oriented Y N and results tabulated. Exactly how can I give a superficial analysis of a yes no survey result? There is no interpretation required apart from math which I assume they did correctly.

Is that a serious question? You think orientation is a yes/no question? There are people who identify as straight but experience same-sex attraction as well as opposite-sex attraction. People can be bi, pans, asexual. My girlfriend is also into girls, but she’s in a straight relationship atm. Is she straight or gay? If she’d grown up in a heavily conservative household, would she only have really explored her straight side and only identify as straight, never really acknowledging her same sex attraction?

This stuff is complicated, and is exactly the sort of stuff you clearly haven’t considered when looking at these stats. If you’d read my previous posts you’d have realised that.

I see no distinction whatsoever between individuals who are same sex oriented or not.

You clearly do, or else you wouldn’t have said you’d prefer there to be fewer homosexuals.

I will decide all my interactions with all people on basis of character and likability that alone. I don't fashion any decision around whether or not they sleep same sex. Irrelevant to my decision matrix. My GFs son is a wonderful human being and I love his company and believe him to be wonderful character. Micro level non discrimination uniformly

Cool, you only discriminate against them on the macro level. That still counts lol.

When you are dealing with issues of the nature here same sex marriage etc where a decision is required the academic analysis without empathy influences my conclusions. That always happens in macro not micro level. Same sex attracted people are an aberration to genetic purpose. That is an objective truth of high value. They will not procreate naturally. Therefore their compatibility as a collective to a tradition of marriage is questionable at best.

See this is where your logic only makes sense if you think that marriage is designed to encourage procreation. But that’s clearly not the case, because a) humans procreate just fine without it, and b) people who can’t procreate can still get married.

The purpose of marriage is, rather, to formalise family units. This is heavily, but not exclusively, tied to natural procreation - it also applies to adoption, political/social bonds, etc.

If you want to define it solely in terms of natural procreation, then fine, but you have to then exclude the genetically infertile and the elderly. Otherwise, your logic falls to pieces.

Doesn't make any of them horrible or unworthy of my friendship-clearly not or better or worse than me. Likewise if combination of environment and genetics in rearing children skews same sex orientation then there is genetic wastage to an abberant genetic purpose once again in that rearing process. I didn't create this it just is. I do however have the courage to call it what it is and make decisions on the back of it.

Never said you thought it made them horriblenor unworthy. You seem to be struggling with the idea that you can like people and still discriminate against them.

You keep calling them genetic aberrations, as if this is a bad thing. It’s not. It’s neutral. Natural procreation is not better than non-natural procreation. On contrary, we have a surplus of children who need adopting.

Besides, even if you do think that at a macro level, more homosexuality is a genetically bad thing - are you going to stop people with heart disease from procreating? What about predispositions to cancer? What about low socioeconomic status? Or low IQ?

Even if it was agreed that homosexuality is a negative thing, like a genetic disease or something, that’s no reason to discriminate against them. They have a right to equality. Otherwise you’re flirting dangerously close to eugenics.

You say these decisions are discrimination and I say they are a natural corollary to misdirected genetic purpose. Most look at the decision at micro level and say I 'feel' their need. I look at the bigger picture in which for specific issues they simply don't fit and am prepared to say so despite being prepared to treat each person as a person without discrimination of any nature in my treatment accorded

Holy shit, you went from flirting with eugenics to a full-on endorsement. Listen to yourself. This is literally the logic used to justify wide-scale sterilisation of “undesirables”.

So in response I honestly don't think any same sex oriented person is someone to avoid. That is a crazy untenable position. Doesn't detract from fact same sex orientation is genetically abberant and always will be.

Never said you want to avoid homosexual people. I said you want to avoid it occurring in the first place. You think homosexuality is lesser than heterosexuality, you think it’s an aberration, we both agree on that. I just think that’s a messed up position to take, and I hope anybody who might have been convinced by your arguments sees this.

FWIW, in an earlier post I said that I thought you were probably a solid guy with a bit of a blind spot on the issue of homosexuality. I take that back. You literally think that because they can’t naturally procreate, they shouldn’t exist.

Well I love my queer friends, I love my queer girlfriend, and the world will be a better place when views like yours die out.

This is why the Mardis Gras float is important. Homosexuality is not a genetic disease.
 
Last edited:
My girlfriend is also into girls, but she’s in a straight relationship atm. Is she straight or gay? If she’d grown up in a heavily conservative household, would she only have really explored her straight side and only identify as straight, never really acknowledging her same sex attraction?

So.........um.........have you asked?

(Asking for every other straight bloke reading this but too afraid to ask).
 
And......er.......did you get a reply?

Haha, yes I did, and it is a yes, but it hasn’t happened yet. It’s complicated, her queer identity is something she cares about (fairly involved in the politics, as am I if you couldn’t already tell), and in that community, it’s really gross when hetero couples use membership of or allyship with that community to start hitting on queer women to be a “third”. It’s called unicorn hunting and it’s something neither of us want to do, but it does perhaps lead to an over-abundance of caution.

So no it hasn’t happened, yes it probably will at some point. I won’t keep you posted though, sorry ;)
 
Is that a serious question? You think orientation is a yes/no question? There are people who identify as straight but experience same-sex attraction as well as opposite-sex attraction. People can be bi, pans, asexual. My girlfriend is also into girls, but she’s in a straight relationship atm. Is she straight or gay? If she’d grown up in a heavily conservative household, would she only have really explored her straight side and only identify as straight, never really acknowledging her same sex attraction?

This stuff is complicated, and is exactly the sort of stuff you clearly haven’t considered when looking at these stats. If you’d read my previous posts you’d have realised that.



You clearly do, or else you wouldn’t have said you’d prefer there to be fewer homosexuals.



Cool, you only discriminate against them on the macro level. That still counts lol.



See this is where your logic only makes sense if you think that marriage is designed to encourage procreation. But that’s clearly not the case, because a) humans procreate just fine without it, and b) people who can’t procreate can still get married.

The purpose of marriage is, rather, to formalise family units. This is heavily, but not exclusively, tied to natural procreation - it also applies to adoption, political/social bonds, etc.

If you want to define it solely in terms of natural procreation, then fine, but you have to then exclude the genetically infertile and the elderly. Otherwise, your logic falls to pieces.



Never said you thought it made them horriblenor unworthy. You seem to be struggling with the idea that you can like people and still discriminate against them.

You keep calling them genetic aberrations, as if this is a bad thing. It’s not. It’s neutral. Natural procreation is not better than non-natural procreation. On contrary, we have a surplus of children who need adopting.

Besides, even if you do think that at a macro level, more homosexuality is a genetically bad thing - are you going to stop people with heart disease from procreating? What about predispositions to cancer? What about low socioeconomic status? Or low IQ?

Even if it was agreed that homosexuality is a negative thing, like a genetic disease or something, that’s no reason to discriminate against them. They have a right to equality. Otherwise you’re flirting dangerously close to eugenics.



Holy shit, you went from flirting with eugenics to a full-on endorsement. Listen to yourself. This is literally the logic used to justify wide-scale sterilisation of “undesirables”.



Never said you want to avoid homosexual people. I said you want to avoid it occurring in the first place. You think homosexuality is lesser than heterosexuality, you think it’s an aberration, we both agree on that. I just think that’s a messed up position to take, and I hope anybody who might have been convinced by your arguments sees this.

FWIW, in an earlier post I said that I thought you were probably a solid guy with a bit of a blind spot on the issue of homosexuality. I take that back. You literally think that because they can’t naturally procreate, they shouldn’t exist.

Well I love my queer friends, I love my queer girlfriend, and the world will be a better place when views like yours die out.

This is why the Mardis Gras float is important. Homosexuality is not a genetic disease.

You simply don't read. Same sex people exist and I don't have any issue with that whatsoever. They are a fluke of genetics whether you are prepared to admit that or not. They are also people like you and me in all other ways. The fact they same sex oriented in no way undermines their lives in any way nor should it. It doesn't undermine my relationships with them in any way nor should it. Of course I believe they should exist and prosper. Didnt say any of what you state as supposedly my words which is a consistent theme.

My only issue is around what they do or do not qualify for because of the genetic mischief. I don't believe they qualify for the tradition of marraige nor now do I believe they qualify to rear children both of which create conflict with my view of the genetic misdirection and the genetic purpose. That may be hurtful to you and or same sex people. That is a shame but unfortunate.

I value the relationships I hold and did hold with many same sex oriented people. I certainly love the son of my GF and would defend him in whatever way I needed. One if my closest friends was the liquidation manager of the 2nd tier firm where I worked. To this day we still do business and catch up 15 years later and I still stir him about the morning after Mardi Gras party when at 9 am I inadvertently came across him wandering the streets half dazed in his pretty pink shorts clothes in disarray .....and each time he laughingly chides me for having seen him not quite at his best.

Give up what you are trying to peddle........it is a reflection on you not me

The question was the survey question not to you. lol omg
 
Last edited:
You simply don't read. Same sex people exist and I don't have any issue with that whatsoever.

If that was true, you wouldn’t have argued against same sex parenting on the basis that it increases the chance of homosexuality.

“Likewise if combination of environment and genetics in rearing children skews same sex orientation then there is genetic wastage to an abberant genetic purpose once again in that rearing process”

They are a fluke of genetics whether you are prepared to admit that or not. They are also people like you and me in all other ways. The fact they same sex oriented in no way undermines their lives in any way nor should it. It doesn't undermine my relationships with them in any way nor should it. Of course I believe they should exist and prosper. Didnt say any of what you state as supposedly my words which is a consistent theme.

You did. You said increasing rates of homosexuality due to same sex parenting is a bad thing. You literally said that. You can’t just deny that now.

My only issue is around what they do or do not qualify for because of the genetic mischief. I don't believe they qualify for the tradition of marraige nor now do I believe they qualify to rear children both of which create conflict with my view of the genetic misdirection and the genetic purpose. That may be hurtful to you and or same sex people. That is a shame but unfortunate.

Do you hold the same view about people with histories of genetic disease? I have an extensive history of cancer on both sides of my family. Should I not breed?

I value the relationships I hold and did hold with many same sex oriented people. I certainly love the son of my GF and would defend him in whatever way I needed. One if my closest friends was the liquidation manager of the 2nd tier firm where I worked. To this day we still do business and catch up 15 years later and I still stir him about the morning after Mardi Gras party when at 9 am I inadvertently came across him wandering the streets half dazed in his pretty pink shorts clothes in disarray .....and each time he laughingly chides me for having seen him not quite at his best.

I don’t give two shits about your personal relationships with queer people. I believe you. It’s not relevant to the fact you still think, at a “macro” level, they are genetic waste that should be prevented as much as possible.

Give up what you are trying to peddle........it is a reflection on you not me

Oh boy, if you think this conversation reflects badly on me rather than you you are extremely deluded.
 
You've written some absolute garbage in this thread but that is just uneducated nonsense.


This from the person who only yesterday thought it hilarious how ridiculous my assertion was that same sex orientated parents raise children with greater propensity to same sex orientation. Today of course I just PROVED that assertion with references to surveys. So please forgive me if I fail to give too much credence to any evaluation you may have. I'm distracted having to wipe the shit away as it dribbles from the corner of your mouth. Mtooler was doing it a while .....seems I've taken over lol
 
If that was true, you wouldn’t have argued against same sex parenting on the basis that it increases the chance of homosexuality.

“Likewise if combination of environment and genetics in rearing children skews same sex orientation then there is genetic wastage to an abberant genetic purpose once again in that rearing process”



You did. You said increasing rates of homosexuality due to same sex parenting is a bad thing. You literally said that. You can’t just deny that now.



Do you hold the same view about people with histories of genetic disease? I have an extensive history of cancer on both sides of my family. Should I not breed?



I don’t give two shits about your personal relationships with queer people. I believe you. It’s not relevant to the fact you still think, at a “macro” level, they are genetic waste that should be prevented as much as possible.



Oh boy, if you think this conversation reflects badly on me rather than you you are extremely deluded.

At least we finally got to the truth. Your emotional investment is your sister not you directly. That was next step. Cool. Progress, now I understand source of bias and scotomas.

Ok you don't care if I actually treat same sex people well only that i have the miscreant driven belief that they exhibit genetic abberation in genetic purpose. Buddy.......newsflash a guy ejaculating inside another mans rectum doesnt produce babies. lol
Tongues are cool instruments but they don't reach all the way inside the birth canal and release sperm nor does a plastic strap on lol and if those things aren't the reason our bodies were designed then I'm on safe territory citing it as aberrant.
Shall I attach a dictionary definition given you seem to struggle with comprehension?

Come to think of it the truth doesn't seem to matter either. lol
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Play Nice Society, Religion & Politics Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top