Are *** men better singers?
- Thread starter Dirty_Zulu
- Start date
wuffnuff
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Are *** men better singers?
I just finished reading this thread. Wow. I can't even pick a point to begin. I probably won't bother with the whole AIDS thing, it has been kicked to death and several threads and frankly there is no way to verbally beat the stupid out of Tanooki. We can only hope that he stays firm to his belief and never finds a woman dumb enough to marry him and pass on his DNA. I think I just heard the gene pool cry for joy at that.
I haven't had much chance to read up on what Stillman was saying about stress during pregnancy being related. I seem to recall that had popped up on the forums before but my attendance has been a little spotty so not sure when. While an interesting theory, right or wrong doesn't matter as much as some of the underlying opinions you express. Defective? Different brained maybe, certainly not defective. Being homosexual certainly does not equate to being effeminate or effeminate oriented either. While yes there definitely are a number of effeminate men, there is just as many extremely mescaline *** men out there.
Oh yeah and what exactly is wrong with having a child that will be homosexual? Would you have an issue if a child had say violet or green eyes when you expected brown?
To answer the question of the original post. I think it is based on talent not sexual orientation. I have seen a number of both groups that can't sing or dance worth crap. Who you boink isn't going to give you an awesome set of pipes or a sense of rhythm.
I just finished reading this thread. Wow. I can't even pick a point to begin. I probably won't bother with the whole AIDS thing, it has been kicked to death and several threads and frankly there is no way to verbally beat the stupid out of Tanooki. We can only hope that he stays firm to his belief and never finds a woman dumb enough to marry him and pass on his DNA. I think I just heard the gene pool cry for joy at that.
I haven't had much chance to read up on what Stillman was saying about stress during pregnancy being related. I seem to recall that had popped up on the forums before but my attendance has been a little spotty so not sure when. While an interesting theory, right or wrong doesn't matter as much as some of the underlying opinions you express. Defective? Different brained maybe, certainly not defective. Being homosexual certainly does not equate to being effeminate or effeminate oriented either. While yes there definitely are a number of effeminate men, there is just as many extremely mescaline *** men out there.
Oh yeah and what exactly is wrong with having a child that will be homosexual? Would you have an issue if a child had say violet or green eyes when you expected brown?
To answer the question of the original post. I think it is based on talent not sexual orientation. I have seen a number of both groups that can't sing or dance worth crap. Who you boink isn't going to give you an awesome set of pipes or a sense of rhythm.
Johnny
Banned
Rabbitz
Diabloii.Net Member
Johnny
Banned
Re: Are *** men better singers?
You will end up with a *** son. Forcing you to come face to face with all your narrow minded prejudice til you either accept him for who he is and grow a little as a person or disown him.
Tanooki
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Are *** men better singers?
You avoided my question. Either you believe in "cosmic justice" (and if so, please share your views) or you don't believe in "cosmic justice" and come off sounding whiney.
And who said anything about disowning anyone? What if I have a kleptomaniac for a child? I'm not going to disown anyone based on their predisposition.
However, I'd like to think I'll be raising my children to rise above whatever ails them.
You avoided my question. Either you believe in "cosmic justice" (and if so, please share your views) or you don't believe in "cosmic justice" and come off sounding whiney.
And who said anything about disowning anyone? What if I have a kleptomaniac for a child? I'm not going to disown anyone based on their predisposition.
However, I'd like to think I'll be raising my children to rise above whatever ails them.
Johnny
Banned
Re: Are *** men better singers?
If you like chocolate icecream and your child likes strawberry are you going to try and raise them to like chocolate instead?
Who says homosexuality is an ailment?
If you like chocolate icecream and your child likes strawberry are you going to try and raise them to like chocolate instead?
Garbad_the_Weak
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Are *** men better singers?
Based on how left handed people have been treated, I think so.
Johnny
Banned
Re: Are *** men better singers?
Of course there's no such thing. "If there's any justice" is a saying and "cosmic justice" has nothing to do with it. now adress this part.
Tanooki
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Are *** men better singers?
Since you believe there's no cosmic judgement, you're acknowledging that I won't actually have a *** son. Because it would require some sort of judgement, which you believe doesn't exist.
So my question is, why bother to say it? I don't go around saying "If the spaghetti monster is real, which is isn't, then you'll likely get some sort of karmic punishment from him, but you can't since he doesn't exist."
And who says it's a mental defect? The US Pentagon, for one.
Since you believe there's no cosmic judgement, you're acknowledging that I won't actually have a *** son. Because it would require some sort of judgement, which you believe doesn't exist.
So my question is, why bother to say it? I don't go around saying "If the spaghetti monster is real, which is isn't, then you'll likely get some sort of karmic punishment from him, but you can't since he doesn't exist."
And who says it's a mental defect? The US Pentagon, for one.
Johnny
Banned
Re: Are *** men better singers?
Okay I quoted every part of your post that adressed my question. Karma doesn't have dick to do with this argument. let it go. I made the argument that homosexuality was a preference when you said it was an ailment. Can you focus on that?
Tanooki
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Are *** men better singers?
You asked who said it was an ailment, and I responded the Pentagon classifies it that way. That answered your question.
Now my question is why bother to say "If there's any justice, you'll have a *** son.", if you don't believe there's "any justice" to be had?
It comes across sounding like a blessing, which I'm sure is not your intent. (Translated: "Since there's no justice, you'll have a heterosexual son.")
You asked who said it was an ailment, and I responded the Pentagon classifies it that way. That answered your question.
Now my question is why bother to say "If there's any justice, you'll have a *** son.", if you don't believe there's "any justice" to be had?
It comes across sounding like a blessing, which I'm sure is not your intent. (Translated: "Since there's no justice, you'll have a heterosexual son.")
Johnny
Banned
Re: Are *** men better singers?
Although I suppose you could probably quote some Islamic authority's too on the subject. They're views are about as developed as yours.
Not as per june 2006. Got anything better?
Although I suppose you could probably quote some Islamic authority's too on the subject. They're views are about as developed as yours.
wuffnuff
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Are *** men better singers?
On a side note, I don't think I have heard of any pregnancy being stress free, shouldn't there be more fairy folk running around?
I was re-reading this because something about it was bothering me from yesterday. What about homosexual women? Does this theory explain lesbians? So if it does work the same for women, does that mean straight women are a product of overly stressed expecting mothers? What about bisexuals, were there mothers only stressed half the time?
On a side note, I don't think I have heard of any pregnancy being stress free, shouldn't there be more fairy folk running around?
Re: Are *** men better singers?
^ First off, thanks for not calling me an idiot right off the bat. I'll try to address all questions from both your posts.
-The idea you read on other threads of stress hormones affecting the neonate which causes altered sexuality was probably coming from me (my posts). I'm going to post a scientific journal article soon, I promise. That said, there is still much unknown....
-for instance, female homosexuality. I have no idea how that works according to what I've learned. I can only guess it also has something to do with the mother experiencing stress which causes her to secrete cortisol which passes into her baby's nerve tissues. The studies I've looked at only concern male homosexuality and it's possible biological cause.
-I actually defend homosexuals, by saying it is not their 'choice' to behave the ways they do. Their mothers caused the abnormality prenatally. Of course, too many women don't know about the impact of stress hormones. Thus, we can't just blame women like Krishtan was pointing out. It's easy to wrap our heads around fetal alcohol syndrome because we all know alcohol is a poison. But stress hormones do many things to us we are sometimes unaware of.
-I'm afraid (someday) we DO have to address homosexuality for what it is: an ailment if you want to call it that. A male's brain has been damaged (in sexually dimorphic nuclei only). The male homosexuals' brains have been shown to have sexually dimorphic nuclei (cell bodies in the brain) that are 50% smaller than in heterosexual brains. Women have the same size sexually dimorphic nuclei areas as homosexuals. In this way, homosexual males brains are similar to female brains. This was shown in autopsy studying these areas.
-As noted, other brain areas are unaffected.
-My issue I have which relates to the OP's thread: The problem is that we have shows (possibly American idol, but others are far more noteworthy) that are glorifying homosexuality. Now, not that there is anything wrong with homosexuals...I'm just saying glorifying homosexuality is like glorifying Down syndrome. It is wrong, imo, to uphold and glorify ANY form of brain damage. We should all strive to prevent brain damage in every infant. These are defenseless infants. This is imo. Some TV shows are practically saying it's OK to damage your infant's brain. Just because there are more victims (normalization) doesn't make it right.
-Here is what is wrong with making a normal male into a homosexual male while he is in the womb: he is having his future affected negatively. He is having 'abilities' (normal sexuality) taken from him. Destroyed is his normal desire to reproduce and carry on his family line. Even if the homosexual male chooses to have a family--kids of his own--by whatever means, his ability to do so is lessened when you look at large populations of homosexuals. Sure, his sperm works just as well as anyone elses, but he does not have the normal drive to reproduce with women. The chances of him having children are lessened for that reason alone. This issue is getting into the very core of what it means to live and survive to some (opinion). Survival includes passing on offspring into the next generation. Homosexuality interferes with ones ability to do this. People should not have this ability taken away from them, ESPECIALLY before they are born.
-No, nothing is wrong with a child born with brown eyes and you wanted blue, but you wouldn't want to take away or damage his eyesight...that would just be wrong. Homosexuality is not a cosmetic thing like widows peak or no widows peak. Homosexuality affects the survival of the family line.
-Other problems: as mentioned, 'coming out of the closet', not having the simplicity of normal male-female relationships (in regards to future family roles with children), etc. These are problems that homosexual males must encounter which they would not have to had their parents prevented the altered sexuality in the first place. Sure, we all have problems we encounter in life, but it's safe to say homosexual males are exposed to worse problems: higher suicide rates, more STI's, 'bashing', etc. All this is preventable.
-'I don't think I have heard of any pregnancy being stress free, shouldn't there be more fairy folk running around?'...When I say stressful pregnancy, I'm talking about long term stress that harms the neonate. Morning sickness and labor are natural pains that don't secrete the sort of 'fight or flight' hormones that pass through all lipid membranes. Well, they may be secreted in small amounts, but perinatal hormone secretion isn't going to have time to damage the brain during labor.
To simplify: a pregnant woman expects to have morning sickness. She does not expect all the sudden surprises at her job which jolt her and secrete stress hormones to help her deal with dangers. When your boss gives you a workload, you respond to it using the same mechanisms we would use to get away from a lion. We use a primitive stress response system which is more suited to dealing with life threatening dangers. Pregancy pains are handled with endogenous opiods and endorphins which don't pass through all tissues and harm the infant.
-About bisexuals, transvestitism, etc. Sexuality is on a spectrum, and it is believed that stressful pregnancies have caused these cases as well. Again, I can only really talk with confidence about male homosexuals because those were the subjects of studies.
^ First off, thanks for not calling me an idiot right off the bat. I'll try to address all questions from both your posts.
-The idea you read on other threads of stress hormones affecting the neonate which causes altered sexuality was probably coming from me (my posts). I'm going to post a scientific journal article soon, I promise. That said, there is still much unknown....
-for instance, female homosexuality. I have no idea how that works according to what I've learned. I can only guess it also has something to do with the mother experiencing stress which causes her to secrete cortisol which passes into her baby's nerve tissues. The studies I've looked at only concern male homosexuality and it's possible biological cause.
-I actually defend homosexuals, by saying it is not their 'choice' to behave the ways they do. Their mothers caused the abnormality prenatally. Of course, too many women don't know about the impact of stress hormones. Thus, we can't just blame women like Krishtan was pointing out. It's easy to wrap our heads around fetal alcohol syndrome because we all know alcohol is a poison. But stress hormones do many things to us we are sometimes unaware of.
-I'm afraid (someday) we DO have to address homosexuality for what it is: an ailment if you want to call it that. A male's brain has been damaged (in sexually dimorphic nuclei only). The male homosexuals' brains have been shown to have sexually dimorphic nuclei (cell bodies in the brain) that are 50% smaller than in heterosexual brains. Women have the same size sexually dimorphic nuclei areas as homosexuals. In this way, homosexual males brains are similar to female brains. This was shown in autopsy studying these areas.
-As noted, other brain areas are unaffected.
-My issue I have which relates to the OP's thread: The problem is that we have shows (possibly American idol, but others are far more noteworthy) that are glorifying homosexuality. Now, not that there is anything wrong with homosexuals...I'm just saying glorifying homosexuality is like glorifying Down syndrome. It is wrong, imo, to uphold and glorify ANY form of brain damage. We should all strive to prevent brain damage in every infant. These are defenseless infants. This is imo. Some TV shows are practically saying it's OK to damage your infant's brain. Just because there are more victims (normalization) doesn't make it right.
-Here is what is wrong with making a normal male into a homosexual male while he is in the womb: he is having his future affected negatively. He is having 'abilities' (normal sexuality) taken from him. Destroyed is his normal desire to reproduce and carry on his family line. Even if the homosexual male chooses to have a family--kids of his own--by whatever means, his ability to do so is lessened when you look at large populations of homosexuals. Sure, his sperm works just as well as anyone elses, but he does not have the normal drive to reproduce with women. The chances of him having children are lessened for that reason alone. This issue is getting into the very core of what it means to live and survive to some (opinion). Survival includes passing on offspring into the next generation. Homosexuality interferes with ones ability to do this. People should not have this ability taken away from them, ESPECIALLY before they are born.
-No, nothing is wrong with a child born with brown eyes and you wanted blue, but you wouldn't want to take away or damage his eyesight...that would just be wrong. Homosexuality is not a cosmetic thing like widows peak or no widows peak. Homosexuality affects the survival of the family line.
-Other problems: as mentioned, 'coming out of the closet', not having the simplicity of normal male-female relationships (in regards to future family roles with children), etc. These are problems that homosexual males must encounter which they would not have to had their parents prevented the altered sexuality in the first place. Sure, we all have problems we encounter in life, but it's safe to say homosexual males are exposed to worse problems: higher suicide rates, more STI's, 'bashing', etc. All this is preventable.
-'I don't think I have heard of any pregnancy being stress free, shouldn't there be more fairy folk running around?'...When I say stressful pregnancy, I'm talking about long term stress that harms the neonate. Morning sickness and labor are natural pains that don't secrete the sort of 'fight or flight' hormones that pass through all lipid membranes. Well, they may be secreted in small amounts, but perinatal hormone secretion isn't going to have time to damage the brain during labor.
To simplify: a pregnant woman expects to have morning sickness. She does not expect all the sudden surprises at her job which jolt her and secrete stress hormones to help her deal with dangers. When your boss gives you a workload, you respond to it using the same mechanisms we would use to get away from a lion. We use a primitive stress response system which is more suited to dealing with life threatening dangers. Pregancy pains are handled with endogenous opiods and endorphins which don't pass through all tissues and harm the infant.
-About bisexuals, transvestitism, etc. Sexuality is on a spectrum, and it is believed that stressful pregnancies have caused these cases as well. Again, I can only really talk with confidence about male homosexuals because those were the subjects of studies.
wuffnuff
Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Are *** men better singers?
I would say growing up homosexual has made me a stronger person better able to deal with life’s hardships and stresses. I would say that I am probably more successful with my life because I had the experiences I did being homosexual. Being homosexual isn’t a defect, it isn’t something to “fixâ€. It is a natural state of being, it just happens to be more rare then heterosexuals.
No, I don’t want to call it an ailment. Different does not mean damaged, nor does not automatically mean a bad thing. As you said, females have a different sized nuclei than their male counterparts, that certainly does not make them damaged.
I would like to point out that comparing homosexuality to mental illness or the mentally impaired can be rather insulting.
I have to disagree, sexuality has very little to do with the desire to pass on ones genes and continue the family line. It only has to do with the method that you do that. In this day in age of artificial insemination or surrogate parentage that is not really an issue. I know more homosexual couples with children than hetro ones. Honestly though, it isn’t like the human race is dying out, there are plenty of children to go around. An over abundance actually if you consider how many orphan children need loving families. So to sum it up, homosexuality does not prevent people from wanting to procreate or have and raise children.
My point was that expecting brown eyes and having a child with violet eyes wouldn’t be considered a defect. I genetic quirk maybe, but not a defect. As I pointed out above, homosexuality does not affect the survival of the family line anymore than a straight person deciding they don’t want to procreate.
Let us see, suicide rates would be lower if there was less people running around saying homosexuals are defective freaks, same with bashings. STDs prevention comes with better education about transmittable diseased, just like heterosexuals.
I would say growing up homosexual has made me a stronger person better able to deal with life’s hardships and stresses. I would say that I am probably more successful with my life because I had the experiences I did being homosexual. Being homosexual isn’t a defect, it isn’t something to “fixâ€. It is a natural state of being, it just happens to be more rare then heterosexuals.
Re: Are *** men better singers?
With your last point, I feel that's kind of like saying beating a kid helps him deal with life better, toughens him up, etc. If you cut an arm off a child, he will of course become stronger with his other arm. It's still wrong to inflict this damage.
Well, I don't think anyone here called them 'freaks'. But damage is damage. There's no way around it. It has be called something, and imo, damage is pretty much always bad, especially if it's prenatal. The unborn child has no say; imo, this is unfair to the child.
It's tricky, but the female brain is not damaged. A male homosexual brain is damaged, but only in minor areas even though it somewhat resembles a female brain in these areas. The cold truth is there are fewer cells in some areas compared to a normal male brian. The good news is it doesn't affect intelegence, language, or any other ability. Like you said, there can be benefits to it such as keeping population from getting out of hand, and reducing competitiveness (this is just an idea, not nailed down).
The comparison to Down syndrome is extreme, but it is just to point out my view that all damage to an infant is bad. I was talking about glorification of brain damage, which is wrong imo. (I wasn't saying altered sexual orientation is similar to retardation. The regions affect by stress hormones are very specific, leaving no retardation in thier wake).
I still believe homosexuality would hinder procreation. Heterosexuals have an extreme edge over homosexuals when it comes to reproduction: hetersexuals are crazed by desire for healthy verile women. They can't help themselves in some cases. They will pay for sex with women, lower their standards, do or say anything to seduce women, and go to other great legnths, shelling out loads of money. A homosexual, on the other hand, can clearly resist these urges to be with women. I can't see any way around this huge edge...if you take a man for example and ask him if he would reproduce with ten beautiful girls, he would likely say yes, very much so. Would a homosexual man do the same? idk, but I'm guessing the straight man will want all ten girls...
Even if you downplay the STI occurances and suicide rates, the education solutions you mentioned just aren't in place at the moment, or they aren't working, or w/e the reason is, the problems are still there and homosexuals must face more of these problems than the rest of us. Those are just the harsh realities.
With your last point, I feel that's kind of like saying beating a kid helps him deal with life better, toughens him up, etc. If you cut an arm off a child, he will of course become stronger with his other arm. It's still wrong to inflict this damage.
Well, I don't think anyone here called them 'freaks'. But damage is damage. There's no way around it. It has be called something, and imo, damage is pretty much always bad, especially if it's prenatal. The unborn child has no say; imo, this is unfair to the child.
It's tricky, but the female brain is not damaged. A male homosexual brain is damaged, but only in minor areas even though it somewhat resembles a female brain in these areas. The cold truth is there are fewer cells in some areas compared to a normal male brian. The good news is it doesn't affect intelegence, language, or any other ability. Like you said, there can be benefits to it such as keeping population from getting out of hand, and reducing competitiveness (this is just an idea, not nailed down).
The comparison to Down syndrome is extreme, but it is just to point out my view that all damage to an infant is bad. I was talking about glorification of brain damage, which is wrong imo. (I wasn't saying altered sexual orientation is similar to retardation. The regions affect by stress hormones are very specific, leaving no retardation in thier wake).
I still believe homosexuality would hinder procreation. Heterosexuals have an extreme edge over homosexuals when it comes to reproduction: hetersexuals are crazed by desire for healthy verile women. They can't help themselves in some cases. They will pay for sex with women, lower their standards, do or say anything to seduce women, and go to other great legnths, shelling out loads of money. A homosexual, on the other hand, can clearly resist these urges to be with women. I can't see any way around this huge edge...if you take a man for example and ask him if he would reproduce with ten beautiful girls, he would likely say yes, very much so. Would a homosexual man do the same? idk, but I'm guessing the straight man will want all ten girls...
Even if you downplay the STI occurances and suicide rates, the education solutions you mentioned just aren't in place at the moment, or they aren't working, or w/e the reason is, the problems are still there and homosexuals must face more of these problems than the rest of us. Those are just the harsh realities.