kaboomgirl Excuse me but Trek. Anyway, the only ones that would get me into a heated argument are Gay Rights and Star Wars vs. Trek.

Lucien_Lachance I am proud of what I stand for No matter who hates me for it!

brandonaz I agree with you on all of them except gay rights. Why shouldn't gays have rights? >_>

missracoon So animals can have rights but gay people can't? I'd rant like hell on that one XD

Lucien_Lachance Animals are natural beings. Gays on the other are unnatural abominations. If you ask me anyway

brandonaz ^ There are gay animals, you know. Homosexuality has been documented in thousands of animal species, making it pretty damn natural. Oh, but you know what's only been documented in one species? Homophobia. So when you talk about natural and unnatural, maybe the one that's prevalent in all species in all parts of the world is the one that's natural.

Lucien_Lachance ^ In nature the gay animals are normally left to die. Survival of the fittest and all

brandonaz No, actually no. I'd like to see what sources you are utilizing, because homosexual animals are not "left to die." In fact, they are just as successful as heterosexual animals. [i]In what the Toronto Star describes as an "apparent world first," a Danish zoo's King penguin chick has two "adoptive" fathers... Odense Zoo's penguins aren't the first "gay" couple to become parents... Two male Chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park "adopted" and then reared an egg, as depicted in the controversial children's book "And Tango Makes Three." Meanwhile, zoologists at Germany's Bremerhaven Zoo helped two "gay" Humbolt penguins hatch and nurture an egg in 2009.[/i] ([url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/denmark-gay-penguins-fathers_n_2104190.html]source[/url]) You cited "survival of the fittest," and isn't that measured by being able to raise young who are able to thrive on their own? The purpose of an animal's life, most basically stated, is to raise offspring that can carry on the species. No, homosexual animals can not mate to produce their own biological young, but they are able to raise offspring. Survival at its finest. And what about the world's most faithful birds? There is a species of albatross where each individual can live up to 70 years and they mate for life. Studies on colonies of these birds show that the homosexual pairs are as faithful and live as long as their heterosexual counterparts. The homosexual pairings are not "left to die," they live together well for decades. ([url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/magazine/04animals-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0]source[/url]) (PS: I hope I'm not the only one laughing at the fact that the article we're arguing over is an article about how to start fights. I'm such a sucker for a good debate, sorry.) x3

Lucien_Lachance In some places birds are being poisoned by man kinds rubbish which is making them turn gay (PS: I told you these are the best ways to start arguments)

brandonaz Are you seriously going to ignore almost all of what I just said? Honestly. >_> But concerning your point: maybe some poisons can effects on the chemicals of the brains of birds that interfere with their hormones, BUT most instances of animal homosexuality are not caused by trash or chemicals. The zoo animals mentioned in my previous comment were gay and they were not exposed to any kinds of chemicals or waste in the oceans because they had sheltered environments and were fed good food. That renders your point moot.

Lucien_Lachance Where as you have a decent point that homosexuality occurs in nature. It is caused by MUTATIONS in the hormones and is therefore UNNATURAL.

brandonaz Again, no. Mutations [i]are[/i] natural. The word may have a negative connotation, but they are the main reason for evolution, which I think you will agree is perfectly natural. Mutations are simply changes in genetic sequences of cell DNA, and with how frequently cells divide these mutations happen quite frequently. Of course, most are corrected, but some are not. The mutations that are not corrected may be beneficial or harmful. The beneficial kind is the kind that leads to evolution; the harmful kind is the kind that would probably cause the death of the organism. However, seeing as homosexuality has not been eliminated by natural selection, either it is not caused by mutations at all, or it is not harmful. So, mutations are very natural, and [i]if[/i] homosexuality is caused by mutation it is neither unnatural or negative. ^-^

Lucien_Lachance As an Englishman I am NOT deterred so easily. Perhaps Evolution has decided that the homosexual gene IS a negative. If you check STDS and things like that you should find that gays get them more than straight people. Which could be a way to effectively eliminate them. Apparently it's not effective enough. And also homophobia is a part of evolution. It is to make some humans (such as myself) deem others as "inferior". Being unable to NATURALLY reproduce with it's partner is one thing that makes them inferior.

brandonaz [i]"Perhaps Evolution has decided that the homosexual gene IS a negative."[/i] You're talking about evolution as if it were a person capable of deciding anything, but evolution itself is totally passive. The only way that evolution can separate positive from negative is natural selection, and as gays have not been eliminated that way, it is clear that homosexuality is not negative. On the STDs point, yes, it is true that gay men are more likely to get them than straights, but STDs have nothing to do with evolution. Evolution does not create diseases to eliminate animals; that's not how it works. Anyone is prone to STDs. Gay or straight. [b]Anyone.[/b] The main reasons STDs like HIV are more prevalent among gay male communities are that anal sex makes chances of contraction much more likely and gay men don't tend to use condoms because there is no pregnancy risk (obviously, lmao). So, it is not that STDs are around in order to eliminate gays. Plus, you might have noticed I've been saying "gay males" with regards to STDs, not just "gays." That is because STD rates are actually lower among women/women relations than average. Now, if STDs were around to eliminate gays, don't you think they would go after women as well as men? Especially if there was a specific "homosexual gene" like you mentioned. So, STDs are more common among gay males, but that has nothing to do with evolution. Now, on to homophobia. That too has nothing to do with evolution. A point I've alluded to is that evolution is genetic-based, but homophobia is [i]learned,[/i] not inherited. That's a very important point to make. Children are not born homophobic; they learn homophobia from their friends, families, and societies. A child raised in a non-homophobic environment will not be a homophobe. Homophobia is not genetic, therefore it has nothing to do with evolution. It's the same way thing as racism, sexism, ableism, etc. They are all learned patterns. There is one last point I would like to make, concerning your last sentence. [i]"Being unable to NATURALLY reproduce with it's partner is one thing that makes them inferior."[/i] Do you really think that's true? Because if being unable to naturally reproduce means someone is inferior then there are an awful lot of people you must look down on. What about infertile men and women, whether from nature or nurture? For example, what about women with breast cancer who underwent chemotherapy and were left infertile as a result? And what about women who have passed the menopause point and are no longer able to bear children? Are they all inferior too, just because they can not have children? I think it's awfully unfair to call someone inferior for traits they can't control. To summarize: Homosexuality is likely not a specific gene. Homosexuality has not been wiped out by evolution and STDs are not around in order to eliminate homosexuals. Homophobia also has nothing to do with evolution. Being able to reproduce is not a good way to measure inferiority. Good? Good.

Lucien_Lachance IT AINT OVER YET. My granddad was a homophobe but it wasn't brought up till recently. I was brought up in a NON homophobic environment. My mum had alot of gay male friends and tried to make me accept them. I NEVER HAVE. Intolerance is a part of human nature. As I have said so we feel superior to others. And as for the part about women who have gone through chemotherapy: Chemotherapy is not natural. So therefore if said person had not had chemotherapy they would still be able to reproduce NATURALLY if they didn't unfortunately die. Infertility in men and women is caused by again: GENE MUTATIONS. But evolution hasn't cut that out has it? The menopause state is NATURE telling you that you're too old to reproduce. If you ask a VERY Religious person they will say that God hates gays and that he sent AIDS and things to wipe them out. You're lucky I'M not one of those people. Now a quick question: how old do you think I am?

brandonaz I just noticed how off topic we're getting, erm. I'm going to ignore the homophobia bit, call it even there... I don't think your personal homophobia has much to do with gay rights, lol. Sorry if you disagree, but I'm mostly skipping it. You're right on the chemotherapy bit, that it is unnatural as it involves foreign substances being introduced to the body, so I'll give you that. But not the part about natural infertility. Although, your point doesn't make much sense. [i]Some[/i] infertility is caused by mutations, that is true, but my point had nothing to do with evolution; rather it was about inferiority. Your previous point was that the inability to reproduce makes someone inferior. So again I ask: Are naturally infertile people inferior just because they are infertile? Okay, we've been debating whether or not gay is natural, but the original article tidbit was about gay rights, correct? And I don't even think whether or not homosexuals have rights should have much to do with opinions. People can be homophobic or not, honestly it's not a huge deal to me, but gays do need the same legal rights as anyone else, and that is important. It was the same with African American rights in the United States - whether or not you believe blacks are inferior to whites, it is undeniable that they are human beings, and under United States Constitution all people should be given the same rights. Not "all men except those you interpret your religion as not accepting" or "all men except those you personally don't approve of." You said you're English, so if you are from the UK I suppose a lot of what I'm saying probably isn't too applicable to you, but I'm concerned with gay rights in the US so that's why I'm bringing it up. Lmao. (God, my train of thought is much less concise right now, all apologies.) Oh, and you're age? Well, your profile says 14 and that's about how old you're acting, so I'm going with that, lol. ^_^"

Lucien_Lachance As much as this will make me sound like an intolerant cuuurrr...... If someone was born with the faulty gene that caused them to be infertile then yes they would be genetically inferior IN THAT CATEGORY not as a whole being. I'm actually acting older than 14 because where I live EVERYONE is just really, really immature

brandonaz Ignoring the age thing because it's an irrelevant opinion. You ignored my whole bit on rights though, which was quite relevant. Why do you keep skipping such large chunks of my arguments? And, well I can understand why you might say "genetically inferior," but apply that to homosexuals too. I'm not going to argue with you on whether or not homosexuality could be considered genetically inferior, but as with people who are naturally infertile, they too are not inferior "as a whole being" just because of genetics. Infertile people still have rights, yeah? No one would argue that. Homosexuality isn't any different, from this perspective. Neither gays nor infertile people nor any others have control over their genes, and no one should not be denied rights because of what they are.

Lucien_Lachance The least the gays could do is get a sex change. It may be unnatural but it's a solution. Like chemotherapy And I know people can't control their genes Would you let an adult marry a child or an animal? Because what you're saying is that love is love no matter what.

brandonaz Omfg. Done. I am getting so done. I find your point about [i]"The least the gays could do is get a sex change"[/i] to be very ignorant, incredibly hypocritical, and slightly offensive. Being transsexual and being gay are two completely different things. Trans people feel like the opposite gender, gays are attracted to the opposite gender. Those are completely unrelated; one is sexual orientation and the other is gender identity. Trans people are physically different from cis people, especially if you look at brain studies. [url=http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan.html]Read up.[/url] So, being gay does not have anything to do with being trans. So, if you know people can't control their genes, that means they shouldn't be denied rights based on genes, right? With the animal/child point... Oh my God. Okay. Love is love, that is true, but marriage is about mature reciprocal love. Children and animals do not have the capacity to have that love; neither has the brain development that it calls for. You can not compare gay marriage to marriage with children and animals.

Lucien_Lachance BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE!!! I know there's a difference between gays and transsexuals but if you pay attention to gays you will notice that the males act very feminine and that quite a few tend to say "I'm just a woman trapped in a mans body" Also you say that you shouldn't deny people's rights because of their genes right? Well there's a gene that makes someone LITERALLY unable to feel love that way would you deny them rights? And what about the mentally challenged?/They cannot feel love would you deny them rights/?

brandonaz Erm... Okay. You just need to separate sexual identity and orientation. If the person is a biological male who is saying "I'm a woman in a man's body" then that person is actually a girl, not a guy. If that person is attracted to females, then that person is a homosexual female. If that person is attracted to males, then that person is a heterosexual male, even if they are in a male body. Do you see what I mean? It's tough to explain lol. However, being MTF trans and being feminine are not always connected. A biological male might be feminine because they are trans, or a male can be feminine without being trans. A lot of gay males do have feminine tendances because they have different brains, but are [i]not[/i] trans. So, transsexuals and homosexuals both have brain differences but the being feminine and being trans are not always connected, and neither are homosexuality and transsexuality. Read [url=http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1815538,00.html]this[/url] for information on the brains of homosexuals, and [url=http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan.html]this[/url] for the brains of transsexuals. So, the point is, as transsexuals and homosexuals are not the same and they are biologically different from each other, telling a gay man to simply become female is no solution. Forcing someone to be trans would cause intense psychological damage. Onto the genes bit. You're helping me prove my point; what you said is correct. I would not deny someone rights because they can not feel love, because they are still human. I would not deny a mentally challenged individual appropriate rights either, as they too are still human. Homosexuals are human, so they deserve rights.

Lucien_Lachance If you ask me gays are all ready messed up in the head so the damage wouldn't be too bad (if there was any) But you said that I cant compare gay marriage to the marriage of adult and child or human and animal because they can't feel that kind of love are you saying that children aren't people too?

brandonaz So I see you've run out of decent arguments and are resorting to unbacked opinions once more. I think that goes to show that your stance is a little iffy, considering how unsupported anything you say is. Go read [url=http://www.shb-info.org/reimer3.html]this[/url] article about a boy named David Reimer who was raised as a female without knowing he was born male. David never felt female despite being his parents raising him as they would raise a girl, and in the end he committed suicide because of the psychological trauma caused by the sexual reassignment. No, he is not gay, but this case does show that forcing someone to change genders is incredibly damaging. Telling someone to switch their sex is not a solution to homosexuality. Also, I want to point out that in my previous comment I said "neither has the brain development that [marriage] calls for." Children are obviously people, but their brains are not developed enough to be able to experience the kind of the mature love that marriage should be reserved for. A person's brain is not fully developed until the age of around 25. Read [url=http://www.academic.marist.edu/mwwatch/fall05/science1.htm]this.[/url] Adults homosexuals do have the capacity to love though, so they should be allowed to marry.

Lucien_Lachance I've heard of the kid who was raised female as part of an experiment after a circumcision went wrong. And even after hearing about it I still say that homosexuals should have sex changes because it's not going to come as a shock to them and more or less I think their lives would stay the same. I suppose you're also saying that brothers, sisters cousins, et cetera should also be allowed to marry since as you say their brains have developed enough. To understand marriage. I mean sure if they have a kid it would cause some gene mutation but you don't really care about those do you? Also since the subject has been brought up again... You say that nature hasn't tried to eliminate the homosexual gene because it is not viewed as negative then how do you explain things such as huntingtons disease or cystic fibrosis?