What's new
By:
Filters

Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

E.J. Wells said:
Downs is a genetic trait that is passed on, so do you consider that as evolutionarily weak? Please answer my question with an answer, and not some idiotic re-question. *holds breath*
Click to expand...



Its a birth defect, an abnormality. This isn't the same as being gay. Unless you are telling me that homosexuality is a syndrome and a birth defect.

So since you believe that being gay is a birth defect then I will answer your question. Down syndrome would not be a "weak" trait because they only have slightly lower fertility rates.
 
For all the dumb people like Trout:

Down syndrome is usually caused by an error in cell division called "nondisjunction."
Click to expand...

Again, Down syndrome is a birth defect. Its not a genetic trait like getting blue eyes from your Mom.
 
Beantown said:
Its a birth defect, an abnormality. This isn't the same as being gay. Unless you are telling me that homosexuality is a syndrome and a birth defect.

So since you believe that being gay is a birth defect then I will answer your question. Down syndrome would not be a "weak" trait because they only have slightly lower fertility rates.
Click to expand...

Wow.

So a baby is born with Downs, and because it is a trait that is evolutionarily weak, then that person should automatically receive less in the way of rights, freedoms, and choices.

So a baby is born a homosexual, and because it is a trait that is evolutionarily weak, then that person should automatically receive less in the way of rights, freedoms, and choices.

So a baby boy is born with testicular problems, and will never have the chance to reproduce. Because this is a trait that is evolutionarily weak, then that person should automatically receive less in the way of rights, freedoms, and choices.

So a baby is born that doesn't grow up to be what I think it should be; it doesn't live the way I do, think the way I do, believe in the same religion as I do. That person should automatically receive less in the way of rights, freedoms, and choices.
 
Sneakers said:
Mormons believe alcohol is immoral, that smoking is immoral, that gambling is immoral... that coffee is immoral. These things aren't illegal. Where is the lobby for these things to be illegal? Why can't you be cool with allowing consenting adults to do their thing under the law while still holding moral reservations about it, as you do with so many other vices out there? Why does your belief have to be intertwined with legality? I don't understand.
Click to expand...


I have thought about this lots myself-- and by far the most common response I seem to get, is a mixture of: declaring that the term 'marriage' should ONLY be associated with its Christian interpretation (a farce, IMO); a belief that the Christian influence of America should be upheld, instead of secularity; or a refusal to give in to the 'liberal media-dominated' world where people are apparently being forced into accepting things.
 
E.J. Wells said:
So a baby is born a homosexual, and because it is a trait that is evolutionarily weak, then that person should automatically receive less in the way of rights, freedoms, and choices.
Click to expand...

When did I say homosexuals should receive less rights, freedoms and choices?

All I said is their relations are not biologically equal.
 
E.J. Wells said:
Except sometimes it is. https://www.ndss.org/Down-Syndrome/Myths-Truths/

But what does that matter to you? Facts usually have a way of disrupting your "thought process" so I'm not surprised that you are wrong. Again. As usual.
Click to expand...

Trout, to be fair... down-syndrome is hereditary only 1% of the time (according to that site)... maybe you should just concede this small (and irrelevant to your overall thread of argument) point and use a different example.

To Bean:

"Biologically equal"... man, that is a phrase that you should really think twice (or three times, or eleven, or one thousand) about before throwing it around. Evokes some pretty, pretty sketchy beliefs and attitudes.
 
Beantown said:
Its a birth defect, an abnormality. This isn't the same as being gay. Unless you are telling me that homosexuality is a syndrome and a birth defect.

So since you believe that being gay is a birth defect then I will answer your question. Down syndrome would not be a "weak" trait because they only have slightly lower fertility rates.
Click to expand...

There is a wide array of a general population of women's propensity from suffering from chromosomal non-disjunction, in this case the 21st chromosome.

Many attribute the propensity of giving birth to a child suffering from Trisomy 21 as genetic. Of course, many of us know that as a woman ages, the likelihood of giving birth to a child with Downs increases, for fairly well-understood reasons-- but the ages at which these probabilities peak will differ, due to genetic background

Link

However, haplotype - was found to be much more commonly associated with chromosomes 21 that underwent nondisjunction in the Down syndrome families (frequency of 21/50; X2 for the two distributions is 9.550; P = 0.023; degrees of freedom, 3). The two populations (control and trisomic families) did not differ in the distribution of haplotypes for two DNA polymorphisms on chromosome 17. The data from this initial study suggest that the chromosome 21, which is marked in Greeks with haplotype - for the four above described polymorphic sites, is found more commonly in chromosomes that participate in nondisjunction than in controls. We propose an increased tendency for nondisjunction due to DNA sequences associated with a subset of chromosomes 21 bearing this haplotype.
Click to expand...
 
dalamon said:
There is a wide array of a general population of women's propensity from suffering from chromosomal non-disjunction, in this case the 21st chromosome.

Many attribute the propensity of giving birth to a child suffering from Trisomy 21 as genetic. Of course, many of us know that as a woman ages, the likelihood of giving birth to a child with Downs increases, for fairly well-understood reasons-- but the ages at which these probabilities peak will differ, due to genetic background

Link
Click to expand...




TL;DR Down's syndrome is definitely a mistake-- but it's a mistake that will happen to some women more than others, according to their genes; consequently, if you're a Eugenist you can 'weed out' populations of people who have these genetic predispositions to Down's, placing it in the same level of weeding out those that have genes for black skin, homosexuality (if we consider it genetic in origin), and so on.
 
Sneakers said:
Trout, to be fair... down-syndrome is hereditary only 1% of the time (according to that site)... maybe you should just concede this small (and irrelevant to your overall thread of argument) point and use a different example.

To Bean:

"Biologically equal"... man, that is a phrase that you should really think twice (or three times, or eleven, or one thousand) about before throwing it around. Evokes some pretty, pretty sketchy beliefs and attitudes.
Click to expand...

So evolution and natural selection is evil. Got it thanks.
 
dalamon said:
There is a wide array of a general population of women's propensity from suffering from chromosomal non-disjunction, in this case the 21st chromosome.

Many attribute the propensity of giving birth to a child suffering from Trisomy 21 as genetic. Of course, many of us know that as a woman ages, the likelihood of giving birth to a child with Downs increases, for fairly well-understood reasons-- but the ages at which these probabilities peak will differ, due to genetic background

Link
Click to expand...

Can we take this another direction? Like this whole thread.

Why does it matter to you, as individuals, that the traditional christian standard of "Marriage"(one man, one woman) be upheld?

That wasn't just meant for Dalamon, but for everyone.
 
Beantown said:
So evolution and natural selection is evil. Got it thanks.
Click to expand...

First of all, I didn't say that, or anything close, so I know this is a total bait...

... that said,

There's more to life than producing offspring - replicating genetic material - whatever. We're not ****ing raccoons, rabbits, salmon, whatever.
 
Beantown said:
So evolution and natural selection is evil. Got it thanks.
Click to expand...

You're right, it could never be.
nazi-eugenics-poster-copy.jpg
 
Sneakers said:
Trout, to be fair... down-syndrome is hereditary only 1% of the time (according to that site)... maybe you should just concede this small (and irrelevant to your overall thread of argument) point and use a different example.
Click to expand...

Sneakers, to be fair... even if it was 0.00001% of the time, it would still mean that Bean is wrong. Again. As usual.

dalamon said:
There is a wide array of a general population of women's propensity from suffering from chromosomal non-disjunction, in this case the 21st chromosome.

Many attribute the propensity of giving birth to a child suffering from Trisomy 21 as genetic. Of course, many of us know that as a woman ages, the likelihood of giving birth to a child with Downs increases, for fairly well-understood reasons-- but the ages at which these probabilities peak will differ, due to genetic background

Link
Click to expand...

Dalamong bringing teh Science. (which, coincidentally, > your opinion)

Beantown said:
Yes this happens to about 1% of Downs.. But they can still procreate so your argument is still dumb.
Click to expand...

Being able to procreate isn't really the issue, since gay people can still procreate if they choose. What the issue is, as you've stated, is that homosexuality is evolutionarily weak, and thus, is substandard to "regular" people. What I find interesting is that you point out that people with Downs can, and do, procreate, which ironically increases the chances of evolutionary decline. (even if it is minute, sneakers)
 
E.J. Wells said:
Being able to procreate isn't really the issue, since gay people can still procreate if they choose. What the issue is, as you've stated, is that homosexuality is evolutionarily weak, and thus, is substandard to "regular" people. What I find interesting is that you point out that people with Downs can, and do, procreate, which ironically increases the chances of evolutionary decline. (even if it is minute, sneakers)
Click to expand...

A gay person reproducing can only be done through heterosexual relations.
 
E.J. Wells said:
Sneakers, to be fair... even if it was 0.00001% of the time, it would still mean that Bean is wrong. Again. As usual.


Being able to procreate isn't really the issue, since gay people can still procreate if they choose. What the issue is, as you've stated, is that homosexuality is evolutionarily weak, and thus, is substandard to "regular" people. What I find interesting is that you point out that people with Downs can, and do, procreate, which ironically increases the chances of evolutionary decline. (even if it is minute, sneakers)
Click to expand...

Oh ya sure. This isn't something i'm gonna be a stickler about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top