For all the MAGAt Trumpeteers and Lie-brul commies to post their wearisome screeds.
The board admins are not responsible for any items posted from Biker's FaceBook feed.
Anyone posting Ben Garrison comics gets a three-day vacation.
Charliesheen wrote: ↑Sun Aug 14, 2022 7:30 pm
Cliff notes please. I trust you.
TL;DR
Genetics play a role in homosexuality but so does environment. Dynamics of the family unit play a significant role in expression of genes related to homosexuality - being homo is conditionally beneficial at the familial level in terms of competition for resources. There's a number of ways the gene itself can still pass on (gays still love babies) but the gene itself is still going to be shared and passed on by family. Only in recent history is homosexuality even an issue, made so because of religious conjecture.
so, if environment plays a role, does that mean adjustments to the environment can affect the outcome?
Pre-natal conditions, genetic predisposition, place in hierarchy of siblings. Variables can always be tinkers with. If you're asking if you can eugenics away the gays, that would be a fruitless endeavor.
so, if you map a person's genetics and do a survey of the family, you can mathematically predict the odds of gay?
Charliesheen wrote: ↑Sun Aug 14, 2022 7:30 pm
Cliff notes please. I trust you.
TL;DR
Genetics play a role in homosexuality but so does environment. Dynamics of the family unit play a significant role in expression of genes related to homosexuality - being homo is conditionally beneficial at the familial level in terms of competition for resources. There's a number of ways the gene itself can still pass on (gays still love babies) but the gene itself is still going to be shared and passed on by family. Only in recent history is homosexuality even an issue, made so because of religious conjecture.
BS. Maybe we can all agree since the dawn of humanity around 2-3% of the population has suffered from a malfunction gene in their DNA sequence. You mention 5,000 years. I say go back 10,000, 100,000+ years. Not only were they shunned and ostracized but probably killed on site. Why? Because when the human species is doing nothing but trying to survive, they offer nothing to their family, tribe, town or civilization. I think I read that 250,000 years ago, there were probably only 20,000-50,000 humans on the whole planet tucked into a corner of Africa. So why are they tolerated now? Because in the last 2 handful generations, a few lucky nations have become energy/economic/food production rich enough that they can indulge the tiny minority from prosecution. Is that good enough? Hell no. Now they want extra rights and privileges including teaching our children that this lifestyle is totally normal. BS.
Charliesheen wrote: ↑Sun Aug 14, 2022 7:30 pm
Cliff notes please. I trust you.
TL;DR
Genetics play a role in homosexuality but so does environment. Dynamics of the family unit play a significant role in expression of genes related to homosexuality - being homo is conditionally beneficial at the familial level in terms of competition for resources. There's a number of ways the gene itself can still pass on (gays still love babies) but the gene itself is still going to be shared and passed on by family. Only in recent history is homosexuality even an issue, made so because of religious conjecture.
BS. Maybe we can all agree since the dawn of humanity around 2-3% of the population has suffered from a malfunction gene in their DNA sequence. You mention 5,000 years. I say go back 10,000, 100,000+ years. Not only were they shunned and ostracized but probably killed on site. Why? Because when the human species is doing nothing but trying to survive, they offer nothing to their family, tribe, town or civilization. I think I read that 250,000 years ago, there were probably only 20,000-50,000 humans on the whole planet tucked into a corner of Africa. So why are they tolerated now? Because in the last 2 handful generations, a few lucky nations have become energy/economic/food production rich enough that they can indulge the tiny minority from prosecution. Is that good enough? Hell no. Now they want extra rights and privileges including teaching our children that this lifestyle is totally normal. BS.
Literally nothing you think is correct. Please jump in a wood chipper, you're fucking useless.
Charliesheen wrote: ↑Sun Aug 14, 2022 7:30 pm
Cliff notes please. I trust you.
TL;DR
Genetics play a role in homosexuality but so does environment. Dynamics of the family unit play a significant role in expression of genes related to homosexuality - being homo is conditionally beneficial at the familial level in terms of competition for resources. There's a number of ways the gene itself can still pass on (gays still love babies) but the gene itself is still going to be shared and passed on by family. Only in recent history is homosexuality even an issue, made so because of religious conjecture.
so, if environment plays a role, does that mean adjustments to the environment can affect the outcome?
Pre-natal conditions, genetic predisposition, place in hierarchy of siblings. Variables can always be tinkers with. If you're asking if you can eugenics away the gays, that would be a fruitless endeavor.
"Fruitless". I see what you did there.
"Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids. Wealthy kids, black kids, Asian kids... no I really mean it, but think how we think about it.” -- lifelong segregationist Joe Biden
This whole homosexual debate is just another reason for the Right to hate.
I have best friends that are gay. I have probably 20+ gay friends and acquaintances. When I was a kid, two gay guys babysat us (3 boys) all the time. We knew they were a couple. I had gay teachers.
Not once has a gay person ever tried to influence me about being gay. They were just gay. No issue. Normal people.
Charliesheen wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 5:45 pm
That’s one loopy fuckin comparison.
From what I've gathered from the commentary here, the abhorrent (and ignored) behavior of the Catholic Church was due to a rampant amount of genetic defective clergy. Do I have that right?
The problem is not that there is evil in the world, the problem is that there is good. Because otherwise, who would care?
But there’s a more important potential pitfall than decorum. Despite repeated bipartisan warnings about the national security risks of TikTok, the administration continues to make use of the Chinese-owned social networking app. While the White House and President Biden do not have official TikTok accounts, they actively court those with large followings on the platform.
Biden admin partnering with the communists to save its bacon. Anything to stay in power. How “democratic.”
Charliesheen wrote: ↑Fri Aug 26, 2022 5:45 pm
That’s one loopy fuckin comparison.
From what I've gathered from the commentary here, the abhorrent (and ignored) behavior of the Catholic Church was due to a rampant amount of genetic defective clergy. Do I have that right?
