Gay Fascism On HGTV
|
Gay Fascism on HGTV
Without articles we're all just a rambling bunch of fools.
[+]
Fumiku said: » Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » Based on the article Chaos posted, homosexuality is not a birth defect, but a naturally occurring epigenetic correspondence of protections for the mother and the father. So who's really ignoring reality, when it makes more scientific sense than the "it's genetic" argument? So yes, your comment about it being labeled a medical defect, when there is no kind of evidence to suggest it, is pretty damn HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE. As in it doesn't add to, or progress the topic/argument at hand, and serves to intentionally spread misinformation. Why are we born? Fumiku said: » should probably be fixed when technology is available.
[+]
Valefor.Sehachan said: » Fumiku said: » should probably be fixed when technology is available. You can not like it if you choose. Doesn't change the fact that it doesn't fit into the parameter of reproduction and should be fixed. We already don't need direct sexual intercourse for reproduction anymore. Nothing needs to be fixed even if all world goes gay.
Detecting a fetus's sexual preference before we can control or influence it, to correct it? Even when you've already stated incorrectly that it's a medical defect, as opposed to an epigenetic marker, or genetic coding process, which would make it a Genetic inconsistency.
Genetic Inconsistencies don't necessarily make something a defect, because genetic mutations happen as a part of evolution using the inconsistencies in genetic coding. Something becomes passive or latent, while another becomes dominant or active. Our Hormones are wired to attract a specific kind of mating partner, while our mind can be wired to act on those hormones when it benefits us. Do you even know the definition of "Medical Defect"? It's a defect that comes from the application of medicine or medical procedures. Just as a birth defect comes from birth, or genetic defect comes from genetics. The Gay Fascism continues...
[+]
Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » Detecting a fetus's sexual preference before we can control or influence it, to correct it? Even when you've already stated incorrectly that it's a medical defect, as opposed to an epigenetic marker, or genetic coding process, which would make it a Genetic inconsistency. Genetic Inconsistencies don't necessarily make something a defect, because genetic mutations happen as a part of evolution using the inconsistencies in genetic coding. Something becomes passive or latent, while another becomes dominant or active. Our Hormones are wired to attract a specific kind of mating partner, while our mind can be wired to act on those hormones when it benefits us. Do you even know the definition of "Medical Defect"? It's a defect that comes from the application of medicine or medical procedures. Just as a birth defect comes from birth, or genetic defect comes from genetics. How big was that hair before you decided to split it? By saying that being gay is a medical defect, you're effectively blaming the medical community for causing it.
Valefor.Sehachan said: » We already don't need direct sexual intercourse for reproduction anymore. Nothing needs to be fixed even if all world goes gay. Totally conjecture on my end, but that could inadvertently skew our socialization as a species when you exclude bonding in-utero and tactile bonding. Again, synthetic reproduction makes me squeamish.
[+]
No I am not. You are trying to twist it to defame what I was saying. I was just using generic terms.
It is an inconstancy, but so is being born with webbed feet. An inconstancy is still a defect and defects are inconsistent when it comes to processes. It doesn't change anything.
[+]
Caitsith.Zahrah said: » Valefor.Sehachan said: » We already don't need direct sexual intercourse for reproduction anymore. Nothing needs to be fixed even if all world goes gay. Totally conjecture on my end, but that could inadvertently skew our socialization as a species when you exclude bonding in-utero and tactile bonding. Again, synthetic reproduction makes me squeamish.
[+]
Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » Caitsith.Zahrah said: » Valefor.Sehachan said: » We already don't need direct sexual intercourse for reproduction anymore. Nothing needs to be fixed even if all world goes gay. Totally conjecture on my end, but that could inadvertently skew our socialization as a species when you exclude bonding in-utero and tactile bonding. Again, synthetic reproduction makes me squeamish. Yes, I understand that, but I was thinking about an earlier thread. On the other hand, unless you have a Delorean with a Flux-Capacitor, you know as much as I do about the outcome of a society without traditional reproduction and the ramifications of it.
[+]
Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » Caitsith.Zahrah said: » Valefor.Sehachan said: » We already don't need direct sexual intercourse for reproduction anymore. Nothing needs to be fixed even if all world goes gay. Totally conjecture on my end, but that could inadvertently skew our socialization as a species when you exclude bonding in-utero and tactile bonding. Again, synthetic reproduction makes me squeamish. I'd actually like to see some of those reasons and the thought process behind them. The only disadvantage in homosexuality is social(and I optimistically think that'll be mostly over within a couple of decades too). Don't need to fix that works differently but isn't effectively broken.
If the sexes weren't divided socially and culturally enough...
What ever happened to unity? "United We Stand, Divided We Fall" Fumiku said: » Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » Caitsith.Zahrah said: » Valefor.Sehachan said: » We already don't need direct sexual intercourse for reproduction anymore. Nothing needs to be fixed even if all world goes gay. Totally conjecture on my end, but that could inadvertently skew our socialization as a species when you exclude bonding in-utero and tactile bonding. Again, synthetic reproduction makes me squeamish. I'd actually like to see some of those reasons and the thought process behind them. His or mine? Caitsith.Zahrah said: » Fumiku said: » Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » Caitsith.Zahrah said: » Valefor.Sehachan said: » We already don't need direct sexual intercourse for reproduction anymore. Nothing needs to be fixed even if all world goes gay. Totally conjecture on my end, but that could inadvertently skew our socialization as a species when you exclude bonding in-utero and tactile bonding. Again, synthetic reproduction makes me squeamish. I'd actually like to see some of those reasons and the thought process behind them. His or mine? His, cause I am sure there are a lot of reason not to have synthetic reproduction also. Would be interesting to weigh the outcomes and gains.
[+]
Some of the reasons people are squeamish about synthetic reproduction, that hasn't been heavily voiced, is the potential damage to the developmental stages of a fetus, and the unknown long-term effects of that lack of in-utero bonding.
What kind of long term physical defects can be caused, what about mental developmental defects? The humane, or inhumane practices required to make it affordable, or even viable on large scales. It can be hard to get into the actual thought processes behind these reasons, when there has been little study on it, being relatively new, and only available in certain places. /hides my Delorean Mark XII under some bushes.
[+]
We've already made 1984 come true, can we not make Brave New World come true as well?
[+]
Leviathan.Chaosx said: » It's not genetic though, that's the real misinformation. Huge difference between genetic and epigenetic. Dictionary time? Genetic: Quote: of, pertaining to, or produced by genes; genic. of, pertaining to, or influenced by geneses or origins. Epigenetic: Quote: noting or pertaining to epigenetics, specifically, the process by which the expression of genetic information is modified on a molecular level without a change to the DNA sequence: the epigenetic inheritance of longevity. Misinformation occurs by saying it's genetic, meaning it's in the DNA. It's not!
[+]
I'm not particularly for or against in-vetro fertilization as a form of synthetic reproduction.
There are as many good logical reasons for it, as there are for being skeptical and squeamish about it. There are couples, heterosexual and homosexual, who would love to have their genetics passed down, and for whatever their reasons for being unable to have a child, see it as a blessing and as a means to carry on that genetic material.
[+]
Fumiku said: » Valefor.Sehachan said: » Fumiku said: » should probably be fixed when technology is available. You can not like it if you choose. Doesn't change the fact that it doesn't fit into the parameter of reproduction and should be fixed.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » It's not genetic though, that's the real misinformation. Huge difference between genetic and epigenetic. Dictionary time? Genetic: Quote: of, pertaining to, or produced by genes; genic. of, pertaining to, or influenced by geneses or origins. Epigenetic: Quote: noting or pertaining to epigenetics, specifically, the process by which the expression of genetic information is modified on a molecular level without a change to the DNA sequence: the epigenetic inheritance of longevity. Misinformation occurs by saying it's genetic, meaning it's in the DNA. It's not! Quote: epi- or ep- pref. 1. On; upon: epineural. 2. Over; above: epibasal. 3. Around: epicystitis. 4. Close to; near: epimer. 5. Besides: epiphenomenon. 6. After: epigenetic. Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Without articles we're all just a rambling bunch of fools. Made me think of this: YouTube Video Placeholder Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » I'm not particularly for or against in-vetro fertilization as a form of synthetic reproduction. There are as many good logical reasons for it, as there are for being skeptical and squeamish about it. There are couples, heterosexual and homosexual, who would love to have their genetics passed down, and for whatever their reasons for being unable to have a child, see it as a blessing and as a means to carry on that genetic material. NP, earlier you said... Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » If it's a medical defect, then at some point in time, we're all screwed when it becomes a dominant gene. ...that kind of catapulted me into another tangent. We're talking about a possibility that might not include in-vetro, right? Levels of oxytocin through each trimester effects bonding. oxytocin injections, anyone? Caitsith.Zahrah said: » Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » I'm not particularly for or against in-vetro fertilization as a form of synthetic reproduction. There are as many good logical reasons for it, as there are for being skeptical and squeamish about it. There are couples, heterosexual and homosexual, who would love to have their genetics passed down, and for whatever their reasons for being unable to have a child, see it as a blessing and as a means to carry on that genetic material. NP, earlier you said... Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » If it's a medical defect, then at some point in time, we're all screwed when it becomes a dominant gene. ...that kind of catapulted me into another tangent. We're talking about a possibility that might not include in-vetro. Levels of Oxycontin through each trimester effects bonding. Oxycontin injections, anyone? But medicines can cause certain genes to mutate prematurely, or to mutate unregulated, causing inconsistencies, or using those inconsistencies to create defects that can lead to physical or mental deformities and anomalies. Sometimes the inconsistencies can also create boons and advantages, so they aren't necessarily defects, while Fumiku argued that all inconsistencies are defects. Edit: The route a genetic inconsistency takes between defect and advantage is most often a result of a passive or dominant trait. Children will sometimes, through genetic inconsistency will have different eye color from both parents who have the same eye color. It's not a defect, but a latent genetic trait becoming dominant, while the previously dominant genetic material then becomes passive through genetic mutation. The same thing can be applied to hair color, and so on. Caitsith.Zahrah said: » Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » I'm not particularly for or against in-vetro fertilization as a form of synthetic reproduction. There are as many good logical reasons for it, as there are for being skeptical and squeamish about it. There are couples, heterosexual and homosexual, who would love to have their genetics passed down, and for whatever their reasons for being unable to have a child, see it as a blessing and as a means to carry on that genetic material. NP, earlier you said... Bismarck.Bloodrose said: » If it's a medical defect, then at some point in time, we're all screwed when it becomes a dominant gene. ...that kind of catapulted me into another tangent. We're talking about a possibility that might not include in-vetro, right? Levels of Oxycontin through each trimester effects bonding. Oxycontin injections, anyone?
[+]
|
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.