Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

[TroutBum]

For all the dumb people like Trout:



Again, Down sydrome is a birth defect. Not genetically passed on from their parents.

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.

 

[Beantown]

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.

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

All I said is their relations are not biologically equal.

 

[Sneakers]

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.

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.

 

[Deleted member 848]

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.

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.

 

[Beantown]

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.

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

 

[Deleted member 848]

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

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.

 

[Beantown]

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.

So evolution and natural selection is evil. Got it thanks.

 

[Harambe]

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

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.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

Sup.

 

[Sneakers]

So evolution and natural selection is evil. Got it thanks.

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.

 

[Deleted member 848]

So evolution and natural selection is evil. Got it thanks.

You're right, it could never be.

 

[TroutBum]

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.

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

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

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

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

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)