Who will the GOP and DEm's trot out for 2016?

[FeelingMN 273]

Are you hitting on me, Big Daddy?

 

I am just a weak minded victim of fate who has always had strong heterosexual desires.

 

Sorry to get your hopes up.

[Voltaire 4,559]

Been a lot of SC appointments by pro-life Presidents. Roe is still here.

 

What else ya got?

I don't mean to give the wrong impression. If you think I give a rats's ass if Roe is upheld or overturned, you don't know me very well.

[KSB2424 3,083]

See folks this thread is whats wrong with our political system right now. All y'all are talking about is ghey marraige and abortion. Some middle of the road folks will vote for a Democrat based on things like that when these things should be like number 58 and 59 on the collective "to-do" list. The economy, deficit, healthcare, eduation, entitlement reform (fixing them) are whats important. A President can't come in and change Roe versus Wade. No President will come in and make some executive order mandating that marraige is between a man and a woman. That stuff will be decided by the states.

 

Its whats so mind numbing about the election process. You'll agree with a canidate on 80% of the issues except God forbid he isn't all gung ho on abortion. Or God forbid he is publically religious. We can't have that, now can we?

[FeelingMN 273]

See folks this thread is whats wrong with our political system right now. All y'all are talking about is ghey marraige and abortion. Some middle of the road folks will vote for a Democrat based on things like that when these things should be like number 58 and 59 on the collective "to-do" list. The economy, deficit, healthcare, eduation, entitlement reform (fixing them) are whats important. A President can't come in and change Roe versus Wade. No President will come in and make some executive order mandating that marraige is between a man and a woman. That stuff will be decided by the states.

 

Its whats so mind numbing about the election process. You'll agree with a canidate on 80% of the issues except God forbid he isn't all gung ho on abortion. Or God forbid he is publically religious. We can't have that, now can we?

 

This thread is like most other threads here at FFT in that it meanders all over the place. Just because people have opinions on certain issues doesn't mean they think those are the most important issues. In fact, before the most recent election, polls showed the economy as being the overwhelmingly most vital issue for candidates to discuss. I'm sure foreign policy was up there. So was debt reduction.

 

Our political system has far greater challenges than folks arguing about issues you don't think are that important.

 

I think it's pretty pointless to talk about the 2016 election....talk about a problem with our political system where more attention is paid to campaigning than governing......Michelle Bacmann was leading the polls for the Republicans a year ago. So much can change in a matter of months in politics, forget about 4 years.

 

[jerryskids 5,206]

Link

 

Actually, there is evidence for genetic predisposition for homosexuality in men. Published in the preeminent scientific journal, Science.

 

Link

 

Here's a more recent one.

 

Google is your friend. Use it to try to learn something instead of trusting the voice in your head that tells you that being gay is unnatural, therefore there can be no way it's genetic. Scientific research has been showing for years that homosexuality is common in other species. It's natural. Get over it.

That second article was fascinating. Not very scientifically solid, but fascinating. Specifically the idea of "balancing selection," which I had never heard. The theory is that evolutionary traits which are found to be beneficial may be balanced out by traits which limit propagation, hence keeping things even. I'm not sure why that would be the case, but if true it would imply that evolution is a much more complex mechanism than "survival of the fittest." One might almost begin to infer the existence of an... intelligent creation.

[kilroy69 994]

Those that say homosexuality is not natural because it is not used for breeding. actually homophobia is not natural and is only practiced by humans.

 

 

"According to University of Oslo zoologist Petter Böckman, about 1,500 animal species are known to practice same-sex coupling, including bears, gorillas, flamingos, owls, salmon and many others."

[Voltaire 4,559]

That second article was fascinating. Not very scientifically solid, but fascinating. Specifically the idea of "balancing selection," which I had never heard. The theory is that evolutionary traits which are found to be beneficial may be balanced out by traits which limit propagation, hence keeping things even. I'm not sure why that would be the case, but if true it would imply that evolution is a much more complex mechanism than "survival of the fittest." One might almost begin to infer the existence of an... intelligent creation.

Throwing out the "intelligent design" buzzword to imply God intended to make folks gays. Sneaky Jerry, very sneaky.

 

I hadn't intended to read that link, maybe I'll get around to it.

[Voltaire 4,559]

Those that say homosexuality is not natural because it is not used for breeding. actually homophobia is not natural and is only practiced by humans.

 

 

"According to University of Oslo zoologist Petter Böckman, about 1,500 animal species are known to practice same-sex coupling, including bears, gorillas, flamingos, owls, salmon and many others."

Flamingos don't surprise me.

[DankNuggs 305]

That second article was fascinating. Not very scientifically solid, but fascinating. Specifically the idea of "balancing selection," which I had never heard. The theory is that evolutionary traits which are found to be beneficial may be balanced out by traits which limit propagation, hence keeping things even. I'm not sure why that would be the case, but if true it would imply that evolution is a much more complex mechanism than "survival of the fittest." One might almost begin to infer the existence of an... intelligent creation.

Or just variation and Darwinism.

 

Although considering the prevalence of chaos theory in the inorganic universe it's interesting that life continues to grow more complex.

[DankNuggs 305]

Flamingos don't surprise me.

Salmon? The namesake of Nantucket red shorts and pants? Low in fat and high in omega 3 oil? Definitely leaning metro there...

[Lackman 0]

Those that say homosexuality is not natural because it is not used for breeding. actually homophobia is not natural and is only practiced by humans.

 

 

"According to University of Oslo zoologist Petter Böckman, about 1,500 animal species are known to practice same-sex coupling, including bears, gorillas, flamingos, owls, salmon and many others."

 

Animals also have sex with their parents, other species, and inanimate objects as anyone that has seen a dog hump a human leg will attest to.

 

Which all proves that animals are focking stupid.

[jerryskids 5,206]

Throwing out the "intelligent design" buzzword to imply God intended to make folks gays. Sneaky Jerry, very sneaky.

 

I hadn't intended to read that link, maybe I'll get around to it.

You'll have to google to learn more about "balancing selection."

[MDC 5,891]

For the life of me I don't know why anyone gives a sh1t what 2 consenting adults do to each other in the bedroom or why they care if a same sex couple is "married" and enjoys the same benefits as straights. All I can come up with is the people complaining are bigots and/or afraid they're kind of turned on by other dudes and overcompensating. The louder they complain the gayer they probably are.

[jerryskids 5,206]

Or just variation and Darwinism.

 

Although considering the prevalence of chaos theory in the inorganic universe it's interesting that life continues to grow more complex.

 

To me a more likely alternative is that whatever makes the women "super" women moves the men towards "more womanly" as well, which could just have the fortunate coincidence of creating the balancing effect.

 

Still a fascinating theory though.

[cribdog 0]

Animals also have sex with their parents, other species, and inanimate objects as anyone that has seen a dog hump a human leg will attest to.

 

Which all proves that animals are focking stupid.

Humans have sex with their hands, their parents, other species, and lots of inanimate objects...what does that say about us?

[Frank M 181]

That second article was fascinating. Not very scientifically solid, but fascinating. Specifically the idea of "balancing selection," which I had never heard. The theory is that evolutionary traits which are found to be beneficial may be balanced out by traits which limit propagation, hence keeping things even. I'm not sure why that would be the case, but if true it would imply that evolution is a much more complex mechanism than "survival of the fittest." One might almost begin to infer the existence of an... intelligent creation.

 

Or one might infer that we just don't completely understand it yet. But I understand that your pre-conceived notions will lead you exactly where you want to go every time, anyways, jerry, so I won't hold your attempt to seem smarter than you are against you.

 

[Voltaire 4,559]

Link

 

Actually, there is evidence for genetic predisposition for homosexuality in men. Published in the preeminent scientific journal, Science.

 

Link

 

Here's a more recent one.

 

Google is your friend. Use it to try to learn something instead of trusting the voice in your head that tells you that being gay is unnatural, therefore there can be no way it's genetic. Scientific research has been showing for years that homosexuality is common in other species. It's natural. Get over it.

It's possible but at this point it's just in the conjecture phase, man. There's nothing to see here yet. Still, gay research -for better or worse- has a large pool of dedicated funding available so this is a logical direction for it to go. If there really is something to this, we'll certainly hear more about it in the next few years.

[Frank M 181]

It's possible but at this point it's just in the conjecture phase, man. There's nothing to see here yet. Still, gay research -for better or worse- has a large pool of dedicated funding available so this is a logical direction for it to go. If there really is something to this, we'll certainly hear more about it in the next few years.

 

Hopefully we're beyond the "there's no gene for gay" therefore being gay is a choice argument. As with many behaviors, human sexuality is incredibly complex and likely a combination of genetic predisposition and environmental influence.

[Voltaire 4,559]

Hopefully we're beyond the "there's no gene for gay" therefore being gay is a choice argument. As with many behaviors, human sexuality is incredibly complex and likely a combination of genetic predisposition and environmental influence.

 

No we're not. To my knowledge, science is quiet on the causes of homosexuality and nothing, including this, has gone beyond the conjecture phase. Therefore, it may or may not be 100% genetic, it may or many not be 100% environmental and any combination from 0-100% or 100-0%. It could be 50-50% or 60-40% one way or the other. We're not beyond anything. Nothing can been ruled out at this point.

 

I think in the end, there will be more an environmental/cultural factor than a genetic cause, but that's not science, that's just a guess based on how common homosexuality is in some cultural settings: ancient Greece, modern Saudi Arabia, and the US prison system.

[wiffleball 4,640]

See folks this thread is whats wrong with our political system right now. All y'all are talking about is ghey marraige and abortion. Some middle of the road folks will vote for a Democrat based on things like that when these things should be like number 58 and 59 on the collective "to-do" list. The economy, deficit, healthcare, eduation, entitlement reform (fixing them) are whats important. A President can't come in and change Roe versus Wade. No President will come in and make some executive order mandating that marraige is between a man and a woman. That stuff will be decided by the states.

 

Its whats so mind numbing about the election process. You'll agree with a canidate on 80% of the issues except God forbid he isn't all gung ho on abortion. Or God forbid he is publically religious. We can't have that, now can we?

 

I haven't nor will I spend time reading this whole thread, but you're hitting it:

 

The GOP has been slapped pretty hard recently from within: STop with the marginal issues - and be a real party again - or keep losing. Most people dont give a shiit about abortion or ghey marriage. - And yet, this is why the party keep failing. Let it go. Leave Newt and Robertson behind and grow up.

 

Stick with Fiscal an Foreign policy and you'll once again be a juggernaut.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Those that say homosexuality is not natural because it is not used for breeding. actually homophobia is not natural and is only practiced by humans.

 

 

"According to University of Oslo zoologist Petter Böckman, about 1,500 animal species are known to practice same-sex coupling, including bears, gorillas, flamingos, owls, salmon and many others."

What about Pelicans?

[jerryskids 5,206]

Or one might infer that we just don't completely understand it yet. But I understand that your pre-conceived notions will lead you exactly where you want to go every time, anyways, jerry, so I won't hold your attempt to seem smarter than you are against you.

 

Wha? You misunderstand me, Frank. I'm no religious nut job, far from it. I'm somewhere between agnostic and atheist. I never use God as a defense of my positions, e.g. abortion. I will on occasion defend positions like the existence of God, because it is a metaphysically fascinating topic which IMO is deserving of intellectual thought. Relatedly, I find that I do not like the atheists who look down with disdain on "idiots" because they believe in some magician in the sky. I'm smart enough to know that I don't know the answer, apparently some people are not.

 

You have to kiss a lot of frogs to find a princess, and wading through the morass which is often this bored, occasionally I find a topic which makes me think and question my beliefs. One of those topics is evolution. I used to think it was just a random occurrence, survival of the fittest, etc. Clearly it is more involved than that based on some past discussions. Now this "balanced selection" theory, if true, adds yet more interesting complexity.

 

The icing on the cake is that my inference, if true, makes two opposing sides go hmm... liberal intellectuals using an intelligent design as a defense, and God believers using homosexuality as proof.

 

HTH

[Frank M 181]

Wha? You misunderstand me, Frank. I'm no religious nut job, far from it. I'm somewhere between agnostic and atheist. I never use God as a defense of my positions, e.g. abortion. I will on occasion defend positions like the existence of God, because it is a metaphysically fascinating topic which IMO is deserving of intellectual thought. Relatedly, I find that I do not like the atheists who look down with disdain on "idiots" because they believe in some magician in the sky. I'm smart enough to know that I don't know the answer, apparently some people are not.

 

You have to kiss a lot of frogs to find a princess, and wading through the morass which is often this bored, occasionally I find a topic which makes me think and question my beliefs. One of those topics is evolution. I used to think it was just a random occurrence, survival of the fittest, etc. Clearly it is more involved than that based on some past discussions. Now this "balanced selection" theory, if true, adds yet more interesting complexity.

 

The icing on the cake is that my inference, if true, makes two opposing sides go hmm... liberal intellectuals using an intelligent design as a defense, and God believers using homosexuality as proof.

 

HTH

 

Cool. I thought you were using a higher level of the same tired "This tree is so beautifully complex, how could anyone say God wasn't involved" argument.

 

You're still a doosh, though.

 

[Vikings4ever 496]

As with many behaviors, human sexuality is incredibly complex and likely a combination of genetic predisposition and environmental influence.

So you agree with my post, although I should have said there's no evidence that it's PURELY genetic.

[Frank M 181]

So you agree with my post, although I should have said there's no evidence that it's PURELY genetic.

 

Someone might say "The evidence is insufficient to make a definitive call but points to a genetic basis" instead of "there's no evidence so I don't believe it", which is what your post inferred, if not said directl.

 

So, no, I don't agree with your post. Call me a scientist. I don't discount anything until the research is complete.

 

 

 

 

 

[Vikings4ever 496]

As with many behaviors, human sexuality is incredibly complex and likely a combination of genetic predisposition and environmental influence.

Acreed.

 

I don't believe people are born ghey any more than S&M freaks are born that way, or people with a foot fetish are born to be attracted to feet, or pedophiles are born sickos.

 

I think gheyness is environmental, with the possibility of a genetic predisposition.

 

Nobody knows how people's sexual quirks develop, but I don't think it's in the genes.

Genetic = you have these genes, you're going to have these traits.

Genetic predisposition = you have these genes, you're more likely to have these traits, but other factors will decide if you do have the traits.

 

So we're in agreement that it's probably both genetic and environmental, we just disagree on the amount of each factor.

[FeelingMN 273]

So you agree with my post, although I should have said there's no evidence that it's PURELY genetic.

 

Proteins are PURELY genetic. How those proteins are assembled/arranged is PURELY epi/genetic. Behaviors aren't purely anything. They're a combination of genes and environment.....which is what you've mentioned. So I think you're on the right track.

 

It's like speech. Talking isn't purely genetic but the basis for producing and understanding speech is encoded within the genome. Sexuality operates along those same lines. The basis for our sexuality lies within our genes but there are several factors at play that produces various sexual behaviors.

[kilroy69 994]

how do you explain twins where one is gay and one is straight? same surroundings diff result.

[gocolts 300]

Those of you that try to equate being gay to being a pedophile quickly show where you come down on the issue. You confuse a deviant act(either on accident or on purpose to link the 2 issues and make it seem disgusting to the average person....I see you. I know what you do....and fock you.) with a sexual orientation. The two are NOT the same. The quicker you understand that the better you will be in the evolving world that we live in. Otherwise you are going to be left behind. The people you know and are related to are going to point and be horrified by the dinosaur that still makes gay jokes or still thinks "it's a choice".

Boys Beware:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5VNe9NTOxA

[kilroy69 994]

What about Pelicans?

Historically....republicans.

[BudBro 117]

how do you explain twins where one is gay and one is straight? same surroundings diff result.

i remember a book named "the minds of boys" i read when my son was born. there is some science that shows there are testosterone surges or floods that occur at various times throughout a pregnancy. it wasn't in-depth about it, just that it happens in some and less in others, causing more masculine traits in some boys than others. so, it could relate back to a healthy pregnancy on the mother's part vs a less healthy pregnancy, which could then come back to whether some are better at being pregnant or some got the right nutrition and some didn't. it's still a nature vs nurture question. what if it's as simple as the mom didn't get enough vitamin d (or whatever nutrient) on the day her body was scheduled to release the hormone surge? it wasn't the kid's fault, or even the mom's fault. there is clearly more to learn.

 

in twins, one may have gotten the bulk of the testosterone surge while the other didn't.

[kutulu 1,545]

I'm thinking someone way out side the box...maybe someone like trump?

[Greedo 13]

Also, my wife has two engineering degrees. She has 3 female coworkers, all college educated. All conservative.

 

That 25% has to come from somewhere - you found some!

[kilroy69 994]

For those that believe gay and pedophiles are the same. When a person is a pedophile, he (yes, overwhelmingly they are male) is sexually attracted to children. The gender of the child isn't the determinant of the pedophile's "sexuality"--it's the fact that he is attracted to a child that defines him. He is not considered "gay" if he is attracted to male children, nor is he considered "straight" if he is attracted to female children. He is attracted to CHILDREN. Also heterosexual males are the cause of 90 percent of cases involving pedophiles.

[gocolts 300]

For those that believe gay and pedophiles are the same. When a person is a pedophile, he (yes, overwhelmingly they are male) is sexually attracted to children. The gender of the child isn't the determinant of the pedophile's "sexuality"--it's the fact that he is attracted to a child that defines him. He is not considered "gay" if he is attracted to male children, nor is he considered "straight" if he is attracted to female children. He is attracted to CHILDREN.

 

Also heterosexual males are the cause of 90 percent of cases involving pedophiles.

 

You just focking said, in the same paragraph no less, that this is false. Guess since you are a heterophobe, it only applies to gays.

[rholio 339]

You just focking said, in the same paragraph no less, that this is false. Guess since you are a heterophobe, it only applies to gays.

 

Read it again. When not chasing children, 90% of pedophiles are heterosexual. See, simple.

[gocolts 300]

Read it again. When not chasing children, 90% of pedophiles are heterosexual. See, simple.

:thumbsup: Just like a guy wanting d1ck is suddenly not gay, as long as one d1ck is under the age of 18.

[rholio 339]

:thumbsup: Just like a guy wanting d1ck is suddenly not gay, as long as one d1ck is under the age of 18.

 

No, you'd still be gay in that scenario. More like the guy in the van with "Free Candy" written on the side doesn't care a whole lot if it's a boy or a girl that gets lured in.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

For those that believe gay and pedophiles are the same. When a person is a pedophile, he (yes, overwhelmingly they are male) is sexually attracted to children. The gender of the child isn't the determinant of the pedophile's "sexuality"--it's the fact that he is attracted to a child that defines him. He is not considered "gay" if he is attracted to male children, nor is he considered "straight" if he is attracted to female children. He is attracted to CHILDREN. Also heterosexual males are the cause of 90 percent of cases involving pedophiles.

 

Good post

[kilroy69 994]

Rand Paul? You think he has a shot? Saying he is decent is a reach. He looks like the kid you wanted to kick the ###### out of as a child because he was always the coaches son. Shitty at everything his dad did but still just......tries sooooo hard. Also by the time he runs any politician that has said anything anti-gay in the past will be a political liability. Which is going to wipe out large swaths of the republican parties chances of running.

 

Volty if they pushed the issue and put him on the ticket they would at the very least have the issue heard.

we have already seen a shift to cover their assses on the gay rights issue and will continue to see support erode for the ones that are anti gay or who were in the past. The political catchall word for it is "evolved" but their words are still out there and they are becoming a liability.