No one is going to take that bait, man. It will just escalate until someone makes a John Edwards crack and the whole thread will slam shut.

I like turtles.

I don’t know..somebody had to say it.

austinnelly on July 28, 2007 at 1:32 AM

Chocolate Rain

I don’t know..somebody had to say it.

Seriously though, no one taking my anti-gay flamebait above?

Why won’t he talk about gay people?

I like turtles.

I don’t know..somebody had to say it.

Actually, gay rights has been the one moral advance of the past thirty years in the age of overall moral decline.

thuja on July 27, 2007 at 5:15 PM

?!?!??!?!?!?!!!!!??!!!
moral advance??!!??!?

It’s like…shut up and live your life, and until you are publicly flogged, I don’t want to hear about it.

–

cuz he’s busy talking about Global Warming like the Gubinator?

What does he have against talking about gay people?

No, no, you got it all wrong Allahpundit. It’s the RIGHTS that he won’t talk about — the gay RIGHTS.

Hmmm. Maybe is it’s because he’s MORE concerned about the RIGHTS of South Koreans who are trying to stay alive while providing medical services and humanitarian aid to Muslims in Afghanistan.

We must help encourage the “moral decay” of Islamic societies. Actually, gay rights has been the one moral advance of the past thirty years in the age of overall moral decline.

I find it ridiculous that anyone believes the connection between sex and reproduction is just a coincidence, as you would have to to accept that “homosexuality” is a real/natural thing (as opposed to a conscious choice). Sex, and the uniquely designed (or evolved if that’s your thing) body parts used in it are created (or evolved if that’s your thing) for reproduction. They serve that purpose, and for anyone to accept gays, is to not think critically because you’re treating the sex/reproduction connection as just a mere coincidence, by trying to say that male/male and female/female sex and attraction makes any natural sense (unless of course you have evidence of natural pregnancies occurring in these situations.

The U.N. should drop him off somewhere in Iran to get some perspective of homosexual’s rights before they hang him from a crane.

I think that guy is cranky since he’s having a bad body day.

The article states that not only is polygamy natural in human societies (and extant in some current societies) but that, genetically, polygyny (the more common form of polygamy) is bad for men because polygyny leaves many men without a chance to mate at all. This causes increased competition among males in such societies and some unmarried males resort to violence to gain access to mates.

If, however (and what follows is my own thought, not the article’s), strong, powerful, attractive males in polygynous societies that, then, have many mates produce some male offspring that accept other males or even prefer other males as mates, violence would be lessened and the mating children of such a male would have a better chance to survive (due to less local violence) than the offspring of males that produce heterosexual only children in a polygynous society.

So, in a polygynous society, homosexuality still is not a survival trait for the individual, but the ability to produce both heterosexual and homosexual children may be a survival trait, giving the heterosexual children a greater chance to reproduce a second generation due to a decrease in violent competition for multiple female mates.

I guess my point is that evolution may be able to rationally explain the existence of homosexuality.

As for the term “gay,” I refuse to use it. Semantics are the tool of self-deception, and of the normalization of that which is, otherwise, abnormal.

shooter on July 27, 2007 at 2:18 PM

No, “What is meatball?”

- The Cat

P.S. Looks around and walks away.

gay-nocide?

The alternate view is that homosexuality is determined genetically.

rw on July 27, 2007 at 3:01 PM

Right. Here’s how it started: a pair of early human males, both carrying the homsexual gene, mated. Their offspring…no, wait, that doesn’t work. OK, try it again: an early human male and female, both carrying the homsexual gene, mated. Their offspring…no, that won’t work either.

What was that psychological theory?

luving arrangements and SUNOGAF

2 Money quotes in the same post!

He’s apparently unfamiliar with the word, irony. I’ve never had a gay friend who was that irritating, and believe me, I’ve had some irritating friends.

I recommed we change all policies regarding gay people to SUNOGAF

F’in A.

Shut Up, No One Gives A ****.

Under SUNOGAF, anyone crying out about how “open” or “oit of the closet” they are in the military will be sent home. You’re in a war zone. Shut Up, No One Gives A ****.

So You slept with 3 prostitutes last night? Under SUNOGAF, anyone bragging about potentially exposing themslevs to STD’s will be sent home. You’re in a war zone. Shut Up, No One Gives A ****.

You’re on the Supreme Court and you’re about to make a decision when a bunch of Rainbow Hippies enters and starts protesting. Under SUNOGAF, such displays to annoy others needlessly are strictly banned and their participants warded off with tazers. You’re agenda-driven hacks. Shut Up, No One Gives a ****.

You’re on the school board in Massachusetts and someone is trying to force kids to read idiotic fables about homosexual love. Under SUNOGAF, any book that promotes material not suitable for children (eg depicts luving arrangements other than one mother and one father as equally valid) will be expressly banned and whoever brings up the idea will be removed from the post. You’re post demands you protect children, not expose them to vice. Shut Up, No One Gives A ****.

Some people have homosexual sex for psychological reasons. There are no gay people.

The alternate view is that homosexuality is determined genetically. I am by no means a geneticist, but if the gay agenda were to be fully implemented, then wouldn’t that tend to eliminate homosexuality from the gene pool over time as the McGreevey’s of the world feel no need to hide in the closet posing as breeders? Gay marriage, gay adoption and general acceptance of homosexuality, with the exception of the use of non traditional means of fertilization to transmit genetic material, would all lead to a reduction in the reproduction of homosexuals. So wouldn’t the left’s gay agenda actually be a call for genocide?

I have not heard one peep about gay people from Obama Osama Bin Ladin.
Gandhi and Mother Teresa were loath to talk about gay people.

Now the UN won’t talk about gay people.

Our hopes are dashed.