White is the New Black

[renocat]

what i find more interesting is how transracial/transgender/transwhatever reinforces stereotypes.  how do males show they are female?  by wearing dresses, heels, and make up.  how do you show you're black now?  weaves and frizzy afros. 

i don't know where i'm going with that, but it's interesting to me

Transthings can just use duct tape to pull 'er back oUT of the way

[star seed 7]

talk about putting a kink in your weasel 

[slobber]

So it sounds like we should objectively look at incest? I mean, if the the two people love each other, who are they hurting?


Gonna win 'em all!

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Guys, I wasn't sold on this thread title at first, but I really like it now. It just fits.

[star seed 7]

So it sounds like we should objectively look at incest? I mean, if the the two people love each other, who are they hurting?


Gonna win 'em all!

i do have some very hot cousins....

[renocat]

I vote for trans-hillbillies.

[Dugout DickStone]

Guys, I wasn't sold on this thread title at first, but I really like it now. It just fits.

Validated!

 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I am jumping in late and don't really have much to offer but had trouble with the notion that classifying human behavior as a disease because it doesn't promote procreation or advance the species is really dumb science first of all, but also seems to fundamentally misunderstand the human condition.  How is this not immediately obvious?

From a biological and evolutionary standpoint, procreation is absolutely paramount. If you are born sterile, or otherwise unable or disinclined to procreate either mentally or physically, you are not passing your genes on or propagating the species. That's not even debatable. Unless you don't believe in evolution?

[renocat]

So did the first critter to crawl out of the muck of evolution sewage have male and female equipment to reproduce?  That must of been a hell of a knot.  This gal.has discombobulated the psyche and moral footing of America.  Screwed up brains everywhere except in the pit.

[star seed 7]

God bless the pit

[Kat Kid]

I am jumping in late and don't really have much to offer but had trouble with the notion that classifying human behavior as a disease because it doesn't promote procreation or advance the species is really dumb science first of all, but also seems to fundamentally misunderstand the human condition.  How is this not immediately obvious?

From a biological and evolutionary standpoint, procreation is absolutely paramount. If you are born sterile, or otherwise unable or disinclined to procreate either mentally or physically, you are not passing your genes on or propagating the species. That's not even debatable. Unless you don't believe in evolution?

Right, but there is lots of animal behavior that is unrelated to procreation.  To say nothing of human behavior.  Is all of that behavior counterproductive or dangerous to the species?

[Dugout DickStone]

I am jumping in late and don't really have much to offer but had trouble with the notion that classifying human behavior as a disease because it doesn't promote procreation or advance the species is really dumb science first of all, but also seems to fundamentally misunderstand the human condition.  How is this not immediately obvious?

From a biological and evolutionary standpoint, procreation is absolutely paramount. If you are born sterile, or otherwise unable or disinclined to procreate either mentally or physically, you are not passing your genes on or propagating the species. That's not even debatable. Unless you don't believe in evolution?

Right, but there is lots of animal behavior that is unrelated to procreation.  To say nothing of human behavior.  Is all of that behavior counterproductive or dangerous to the species?

Don't engage.  I'm sure it goes back to imaginary bible.  There is no science involved as desperately they want it to be

[Dugout DickStone]

I am jumping in late and don't really have much to offer but had trouble with the notion that classifying human behavior as a disease because it doesn't promote procreation or advance the species is really dumb science first of all, but also seems to fundamentally misunderstand the human condition.  How is this not immediately obvious?

From a biological and evolutionary standpoint, procreation is absolutely paramount. If you are born sterile, or otherwise unable or disinclined to procreate either mentally or physically, you are not passing your genes on or propagating the species. That's not even debatable. Unless you don't believe in evolution?

Right, but there is lots of animal behavior that is unrelated to procreation.  To say nothing of human behavior.  Is all of that behavior counterproductive or dangerous to the species?

Don't engage.  I'm sure it goes back to imaginary bible.  There is no science involved as desperately they want it to be

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I am jumping in late and don't really have much to offer but had trouble with the notion that classifying human behavior as a disease because it doesn't promote procreation or advance the species is really dumb science first of all, but also seems to fundamentally misunderstand the human condition.  How is this not immediately obvious?

From a biological and evolutionary standpoint, procreation is absolutely paramount. If you are born sterile, or otherwise unable or disinclined to procreate either mentally or physically, you are not passing your genes on or propagating the species. That's not even debatable. Unless you don't believe in evolution?

Right, but there is lots of animal behavior that is unrelated to procreation.  To say nothing of human behavior.  Is all of that behavior counterproductive or dangerous to the species?

Please elaborate. If I'm understanding you correctly, and I'm not at all sure that I am, I never said that procreation was our sole biological purposes - I said it was the most important biological purpose. The entire premise of Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is that the strong propagate the species by successfully reproducing, thereby passing along their their genes.

[Kat Kid]

I think I was pretty clear if you go back and re read the original post and the context of the other two.  I think the use of procreation/propogation of the species as a standard through which to evaluate human behavior is bizarre.

[Mrs. Gooch]

The problem is not that this lady is transracial, but that she is a liar. When she got found out she didn't simply say, "Yes I am biologically white but I identify as black because of my life experiences." No, she dances around questions and she says, "There is no proof that I am really the daughter of the parents whose names are on my birth certificate." She made up hate crimes to either seem more black or just be a victim.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I think I was pretty clear if you go back and re read the original post and the context of the other two.  I think the use of procreation/propogation of the species as a standard through which to evaluate human behavior is bizarre.

So you're saying that homosexuality shouldn't be considered a disorder from a biological standpoint even though it discourages procreation? Interesting.

[Dugout DickStone]

I think I was pretty clear if you go back and re read the original post and the context of the other two.  I think the use of procreation/propogation of the species as a standard through which to evaluate human behavior is bizarre.

So you're saying that homosexuality shouldn't be considered a disorder from a biological standpoint even though it discourages procreation? Interesting.

It's just the way God made them, it cannot be a disorder.

[Mrs. Gooch]

I think I was pretty clear if you go back and re read the original post and the context of the other two.  I think the use of procreation/propogation of the species as a standard through which to evaluate human behavior is bizarre.

So you're saying that homosexuality shouldn't be considered a disorder from a biological standpoint even though it discourages procreation? Interesting.

So you're saying that every person that does not procreate for some reason or another has a disorder? Interesting.

[renocat]

Sorry to burst your bubble but God does not sit up in heaven and cook up new babies.  He created the world and man to be perfect.  He did not create a man with right handed threads and a woman with left handed threads on their baby makers - he created perfection that could replicate.  After man sinned the world has spiraled down a hole of debauchery, including homosexuality.  But this does not give license though attack, harm or discriminate against someone.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I think I was pretty clear if you go back and re read the original post and the context of the other two.  I think the use of procreation/propogation of the species as a standard through which to evaluate human behavior is bizarre.

So you're saying that homosexuality shouldn't be considered a disorder from a biological standpoint even though it discourages procreation? Interesting.

So you're saying that every person that does not procreate for some reason or another has a disorder? Interesting.

No, I'm not saying that at all. Many people decide not to have children for many reasons, and we have no idea whether that is due to genetics or societal influences. That's the age-old "nature versus nurture" debate, which is not yet fully understood. However, I tend to believe that homosexuality is genetic - not a "choice." And I would consider a genetic condition that makes you unlikely to reproduce as a disorder from a biological standpoint. I guess we can quible over the definition of "disorder" - I'm simply using that term to refer to a "weak" characteristic (and of course I'm not referring to physical strength) that should not be passed along according to Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection.

[Dugout DickStone]

I think I was pretty clear if you go back and re read the original post and the context of the other two.  I think the use of procreation/propogation of the species as a standard through which to evaluate human behavior is bizarre.

So you're saying that homosexuality shouldn't be considered a disorder from a biological standpoint even though it discourages procreation? Interesting.

So you're saying that every person that does not procreate for some reason or another has a disorder? Interesting.

No, I'm not saying that at all. Many people decide not to have children for many reasons, and we have no idea whether that is due to genetics or societal influences. That's the age-old "nature versus nurture" debate, which is not yet fully understood. However, I tend to believe that homosexuality is genetic - not a "choice." And I would consider a genetic condition that makes you unlikely to reproduce as a disorder from a biological standpoint. I guess we can quible over the definition of "disorder" - I'm simply using that term to refer to a "weak" characteristic (and of course I'm not referring to physical strength) that should not be passed along according to Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection.

Darwin's theory says it doesn't got passed on because of the reality that those traits which prevent reproduction simply don't get passed.  Not that they shouldn't be.  Self fulfilling prophecy and what not.

[star seed 7]

Homosexuals can and do reproduce, at a much larger percentage than the Gooches

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I think I was pretty clear if you go back and re read the original post and the context of the other two.  I think the use of procreation/propogation of the species as a standard through which to evaluate human behavior is bizarre.

So you're saying that homosexuality shouldn't be considered a disorder from a biological standpoint even though it discourages procreation? Interesting.

So you're saying that every person that does not procreate for some reason or another has a disorder? Interesting.

No, I'm not saying that at all. Many people decide not to have children for many reasons, and we have no idea whether that is due to genetics or societal influences. That's the age-old "nature versus nurture" debate, which is not yet fully understood. However, I tend to believe that homosexuality is genetic - not a "choice." And I would consider a genetic condition that makes you unlikely to reproduce as a disorder from a biological standpoint. I guess we can quible over the definition of "disorder" - I'm simply using that term to refer to a "weak" characteristic (and of course I'm not referring to physical strength) that should not be passed along according to Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection.

Darwin's theory says it doesn't got passed on because of the reality that those traits which prevent reproduction simply don't get passed.  Not that they shouldn't be.  Self fulfilling prophecy and what not.

Right.

[Mrs. Gooch]

Homosexuals can and do reproduce, at a much larger percentage than the Gooches

True. And...I don't think gay people are born to only gay parents so this whole Darwin theory applying to the "gay gene" doesn't really make sense.