Are *** men better singers?

[wuffnuff]

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.

People have all sort of experiences, good and bad. Experiences are going to happen regardless of sexuality. Kids are always going to tease one another over something. Mine happened to be my sexuality. My point was I wouldn’t have changed it, it made me a better stronger person and helped shape who I am. I like who I am and feel I was born the way I was meant to be. My parents feel the same way.

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).

Ok, you are right you never said freaks, but trust me you might as well. Follow up with “defective” while you are at it, that is how it comes across. I think it comes from saying damaged all the time. That is where our opinions differ the most. I say different, you say damaged. Caucasian people have less melatonin in their skin than say Asians or Africans, does that make them damaged? No, it makes them different. As you say the difference in the brain does not affect intelligence, speech or motor function , so what exactly is defective about it other than it causes behavior that does not fit in your “normal” parameters?

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).

Does this mean you also protest circumcision or exposing children to chicken pox? Circumcision while pretty standard is maiming a child’s genitals and chicken pox infects them with an incurable strain of herpes. I would like to see what your scope of unacceptable damage covers.

I still believe homosexuality would hinder procreation. Heterosexuals have an extreme edge over homosexuals when it comes to reproduction: heterosexuals 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...

Really, you want to go with this argument? Rape isn’t about procreation, it mostly is about power and control. Hiring a prostitute isn’t about having children, it is about sexual gratification and needing companionship. Lowering standards, what woman could resist that one and want to squirt out a few? As for the man and the ten attractive women, would he want to have sex with all ten of them, probably. Would he want to impregnate them and raise children, highly doubtful.

If you are saying that statistically heterosexual couplings have a higher chance of resulting in accidently offspring, then yes, you are right. I am saying that offspring of homosexual couples are almost always planned and wanted. Hard to have an accidently pregnancy with the same sex I would say.

Even if you downplay the STI occurrences 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.

More or less, all groups face problems. Some group always hates another and that is a reality. So are you saying if there was a way to lower melatonin levels in the skin in embryo we should eliminate racism by making everyone a nice happy Caucasian race?

 

[Tanooki]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

Funny you should mention both circumcision and chicken pox. I am VERY against the normalization of circumcision as well as the recent chicken pox vaccines.

As I said earlier, no one is coming near my childrens' genitals with a knife as long as I'm alive.

 

[Dirty_Zulu]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

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...

I'll have to add that *** men lust for sex as much as hetero if not more. I would say *** men are more promiscuous than heterosexual men. I am sure a *** man would like to have sex with 10 hot men.

In term of procreation, I don't think the *** gene (if there is one) is meant for it. Hetero men are attracted to female body parts purely based on procreation needs. Large boobies, nice round asses, etc... What does a *** men sees in another *** men? :coffee:

 

[Stoutwood]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

Funny you should mention both circumcision and chicken pox. I am VERY against the normalization of circumcision as well as the recent chicken pox vaccines.

As I said earlier, no one is coming near my childrens' genitals with a knife as long as I'm alive.

One would hate to rob them of the feel of smegma against their glans.

 

[Tanooki]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

One would hate to rob them of the feel of smegma against their glans.

You've never heard of a shower? Maybe we should consider surgery on the buttocks to widen the gap so it's easier to wipe. 100 years from now people advocating the butt surgery can use a similar quote, but with "dingleberries" instead of smegma.

Isn't it funny that male circumcision is considered "normal" at this point, but female circumcision is seen as a human rights violation?

I'm also not piercing my daughter's ears until she's old enough to 1. request it herself and 2. clean the piercing on her own.

I also believe that anyone who plans to circumcise their child should have to watch a video of the procedure first. It's grotesque.

 

[Ash Housewares]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

I'm also not piercing my daughter's ears until she's old enough to 1. request it herself and 2. clean the piercing on her own.

ignoring everything else you say, yes, I hate it when they pierce the ears of some shrieking child too young to care

 

[Tanooki]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

But you have to admit I'm consistent. I give them their bodies unharmed so they're free to do as they wish. I'm not going to make choices for them that they can't undo.

 

[Stoutwood]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

I also believe that anyone who plans to circumcise their child should have to watch a video of the procedure first. It's grotesque.

Anyone who plans on having any surgery ever invented done should watch the procedure first. It's grotesque.

Circumcision is pretty tame compared to pretty much everything. Look up Central Venous Catheter if you want to see a rather brutal and somewhat common technique. Hell, having wisdom teeth removed is worse.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

Circumcision is purely aesthetic and should be left up to the person to do when they are grown up and can decide for themselves.

It's done because of tradition. Not for any practical purpose.

 

[Stoutwood]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

True, but that doesn't make it any less fun to get anti-circumcision people spun up about it.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

Well crap. You caught me there.

It's going to take me another year to get Tanooki back on the anti-*** track now. he's become all sheltered and un-opinionated now.

 

[Tanooki]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

Anyone who plans on having any surgery ever invented done should watch the procedure first. It's grotesque.

Circumcision is pretty tame compared to pretty much everything. Look up Central Venous Catheter if you want to see a rather brutal and somewhat common technique. Hell, having wisdom teeth removed is worse.

Before my mom had her knee replaced, I found a virtual game that shows how the surgery is done. She found it very informative.

But we also don't replace knees on infants for fun, nor do we remove wisdom teeth on people who are unaware of what's going on.

But hey, circumcision is one more thing the doctor/hospital can bill you for, so why wouldn't they push for it?

 

[Dondrei]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

Since you believe there's no cosmic judgement, you're acknowledging that I won't actually have a *** son.

If there's no God then statistics don't apply to you?

You asked who said it was an ailment, and I responded the Pentagon classifies it that way.

That's just plain funny.

I'll have to add that *** men lust for sex as much as hetero if not more. I would say *** men are more promiscuous than heterosexual men.

That's not because they have more lust, it's because men are sluts so *** guys can get some whenever they want.

One would hate to rob them of the feel of smegma against their glans.

That's like saying you should pull out all your nails so you don't get grit under them.

Isn't it funny that male circumcision is considered "normal" at this point, but female circumcision is seen as a human rights violation?

(A) It's not considered normal in the UK, Australia or I think much of Europe.
(B) Female circumcision is just a teeny bit different from male circumcision, genius. Actually it's a misnomer, the correct term is "female genital mutilation". It involves the removal of the clitoris, biologically this is the equivalent of chopping off the entire penis.

I'm also not piercing my daughter's ears until she's old enough to 1. request it herself and 2. clean the piercing on her own.

You should really let a professional do that.

Before my mom had her knee replaced, I found a virtual game that shows how the surgery is done. She found it very informative.

Well, someone just needs to make a nice reassuring circumcision game for you I guess.

But hey, circumcision is one more thing the doctor/hospital can bill you for, so why wouldn't they push for it?

Doctors haven't recommended circumcision since the 50s. Well, I dunno, maybe you have a lot of lousy doctors over there.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

(B) Female circumcision is just a teeny bit different from male circumcision, genius. Actually it's a misnomer, the correct term is "female genital mutilation". It involves the removal of the clitoris, biologically this is the equivalent of chopping off the entire penis.

chopping off the entire penis (or any equivalent thereoff) is not just a teeny bit different from circumcision, i'm sure...

 

[stillman]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

Dirty_Zulu, my argument wasn't that homosexual men have less sex drive. There is no question about that. But does their sex drive lead to offspring? No, it doesn't. They don't desire women; therefore, they are disadvantaged when it comes to producing offspring. My view is: why not prevent this disadvantage in the first place? Why would you want a child to be born disadvantaged?

Tanooki, to be honest, I would have taken you to be a circumcision advocate given it is part of some people's religions (my mistake). At last I can agree with Tanooki about something. Circumcision is removing a body part from a defenseless newborn. The prepuce has functions; it is not just useless tissue. Imo, removing this is like removing an eyeball (or eyelid I should say). I don't want to go down this road right now. Maybe someone should start a circumcision debate thread. I nominate Johnny.

wuffnuff, about the damage...It happens that the stress steroids can cause damage by breaking down tissues. As I mentioned, the role of these hormones (which we secrete when under modern day stress) is to provide an immediate change in our bodies so we can escape dangers. They do this by first passing into cells and causing the cells to break down structures. The catabolized strctures provide the body with glucose for an immediate energy burst. If this happens in the neonate's brain, there ends up being many fewer cells (50% fewer) in some regions. It would be difficult to show this as something other than damage.

In adults for instance, long term stress can cause skin rashes. This is from cells breaking down caused by the presence of the same steroidal hormones. When cells die, it has to be called damage. Skin color does not result from direct damage to the unborn individual, so race cannot really be relatable to altered sexuality.

As for the quality of children from one group of men vs the other, there may be a quality difference as you indicated, but nature doesn't care. Nature mainly cares about the number of genes each individual passes on. With your example, a homosexual male may carefully plan for his offspring to be born at a stable time such that the offspring is very well taken care of. Alternatively, the heterosexuals have sex with as many women as they can get, and some of their offspring are accidents; the offspring are not taken care of in some cases because they were not planned. This is where we likely agree.

However, accident or not, growing up poor due to an unwanted birth for example, this does not change the fact that the heterosexuals have many more offspring. Let's say the heterosexual has 5 kids, 2 were unplanned, and the broken family is traumatized, impovershed etc. The homosexual had 2 children, carefully planned. Nature favors the heterosexual's genes because there are simply more of them out there. Well, this is getting a little too far ahead of what ideas I wished to present, but think of it this way: bacteria are lower quality (less complex) life forms than humans, yet bateria are doing far better than humans ever have fared. Bacteria outweigh us in bio mass, they have survived longer and will always survive longer than humans. Nature favors bacteria over us. As a result, there are more bacteria genes out there than human genes.

I realize some people don't care or agree with this notion of 'success' in life. However, those people wouldn't be here arguing against it if their view of success in life were what mattered. What matters in reality is how many of your genes you get into the environment. You may disagree, but it's hard to do anything when you don't exist! These people basically disagree with their own existance, or what has allowed thier existance--the success of their ancestors' genes.

 

[Tanooki]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

Dondrei - I'm pretty sure there's no statistic that says people who disapprove of homosexuality are more likely to have a *** son, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

stillman - as far as religions go, it was a requirement for the Jews, but the Christian Bible specifically says it's no longer required. I believe it was supposed to be a negative - what's the point of a sign of faith if it's something you'll be doing anyway? Look at Moses - he didn't even want to circumcise his child until the Lord was going to smite him dead because of it.

 

[Ash Housewares]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

chopping off the entire penis (or any equivalent thereoff) is not just a teeny bit different from circumcision, i'm sure...

THANKS FOR SPELLING THAT OUT

theres a reason your posts are irritating me

 

[Dondrei]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

Dondrei - I'm pretty sure there's no statistic that says people who disapprove of homosexuality are more likely to have a *** son, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

There also isn't one that says that in a godless universe the chance of anyone having a *** son is zero.

 

[Tanooki]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

I happen to believe in God, but not one who's petty the way Johnny hopes.

 

[Dondrei]

Re: Are *** men better singers?

Just one who's petty the way the Bible describes?