There are no straight Englishmen

[infoterror]

Ian 'Lemmy' Kilmister is a Rock n Roll icon. "People have difficulties overcoming guilt", Lemmy said, "One thing that makes us feel guilty is our sexuality. I know many good people who are gay or bisexual, and I'm proud to say that I can Rock and booze with the best of them. Why? Well, because I am one."

"My sexual urge for females was always a driving force to the music. Songs like 'Limb From Limb' and 'Make My Day' were written as odes to the female body. But sometimes we, as men, can not always find females to be the more... err... nourishing gender sometimes. Y'know what I mean? Sometimes this... feeling takes you over and you wanna experiment and try out new stuff. I am proud of being a bisexual, and this still doesn't mean I don't want a little bit of p**** on the side (laughs)."

http://www.bravewords.com/news.html?id=29703

(Nietzsche was right about the English/Americans, who are ethnically the same entity, as they have no single clear heritage and thus are composed of lowest common denominator elements from all.)

 

[Thanatopsis123]

Nietzsche was right about the English/Americans, who are ethnically the same entity, as they have no single clear heritage and thus are composed of lowest common denominator elements from all.

You know, I just can't tell if this kind of shit is a joke or not anymore on these forums.

 

[speed]

What about Benny Hill? Now there is a fine upstanding straight englishman. Sadly I bet most dont know who Benny Hill was.

I dont get the Nietszche comment either. And wasnt Nietszche bisexual as well? I know that friend of his Paul something or other was supposedly also his gay lover, and didn't he contract syphilis from most likely a brothel?

Ive read psychologists believe we choose our sexuality at an early age. I dont know if its true or not. Anyone else know?

 

[kmik]

Homosexuality is at least part genetic because it was observed in animals

 

[Demiurge]

Nietzsche didn't have syphilis. information

 

[speed]

Yeah, well it was a rumor I know. I did some research on my own after I typed that statement.

He is a most misunderstood individual. I think I will start a thread on my favorite German philosopher.

 

[Meandor]

(Nietzsche was right about the English/Americans, who are ethnically the same entity, as they have no single clear heritage and thus are composed of lowest common denominator elements from all.)

don't forget that Hitler is on his way from Antartica to beam up all the blue-eyed people.

other Nietzsche quotes that contradict your so called "quote":

"There are no facts, only interpretations."
"...the concept of 'pure blood' is the opposite of a harmless concept."

 

[Cythraul]

they have no single clear heritage and thus are composed of lowest common denominator elements from all.)

If I got a nickel for every time I saw somebody post the same exact ignorant shit...

 

[NeverIsForever]

Homosexuality is at least part genetic because it was observed in animals

Homosexuality may be partially genetic, but I don't believe that its observation in animals is any proof of this...

 

[Kenneth R.]

agree with last 2 posts.

 

[RookParliament]

Hey looks like Lemmy isn't bi. I guess that ruins the original point

 

[kmik]

There can be two reasons for homosexuality: either it's genetic (you are gay in your veins) or it is social (influence of liberalism and such, don't know). Assuming these are the only possible causes - personally I can't think of others - and taking into consideration that the second cause does not apply when we examine the case of animals, we can conclude homosexuality in humans is at least part genetic.

 

[infoterror]

don't forget that Hitler is on his way from Antartica to beam up all the blue-eyed people.

other Nietzsche quotes that contradict your so called "quote":

"There are no facts, only interpretations."
"...the concept of 'pure blood' is the opposite of a harmless concept."

"Pure Blood" can be misinterpreted quite easily, but breeding evolutionarily was clearly in Nietzsche's plan, and he made his intentions there quite clear.

 

[NeverIsForever]

There can be two reasons for homosexuality: either it's genetic (you are gay in your veins) or it is social (influence of liberalism and such, don't know). Assuming these are the only possible causes - personally I can't think of others - and taking into consideration that the second cause does not apply when we examine the case of animals, we can conclude homosexuality in humans is at least part genetic.

Not necessarily, and you can't possibly be serious in saying that social influences in no way impact the sexual orientation of animals other than humans. The social hierarchy in animal populations is often an integral factor in fostering homosexual behavior. Often it is a question of dominance.

If homosexuality is, as you say, genetic, then how is it inherited? Why can two straight parents, with no family history of homosexuality, give birth to a child who grows up to be gay?

 

[kmik]

Not necessarily, and you can't possibly be serious in saying that social influences in no way impact the sexual orientation of animals other than humans. The social hierarchy in animal populations is often an integral factor in fostering homosexual behavior. Often it is a question of dominance.

Explain how.

If homosexuality is, as you say, genetic, then how is it inherited? Why can two straight parents, with no family history of homosexuality, give birth to a child who grows up to be gay?

Never heared of Mendel, eh? There are recessive and dominant genes. Parents with blue eyes can give birth to a child with brown eyes, too, for instance. So what?

Besides there are no people who are 100% straight or gay. Everyone is gay to some degree.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Explain how.

Never heared of Mendel, eh? There are recessive and dominant genes. Parents with blue eyes can give birth to a child with brown eyes, too, for instance. So what?

Besides there are no people who are 100% straight or gay. Everyone is gay to some degree.

i am so happy

kmik the point made above included "no history" in description. so unless its an *extremely* recessive gene...

 

[kmik]

Firstly, by your logic, obesity is not genetic, because fat parents can have normal children and vice versa. Secondly, I'm telling you that there is such a thing as in between. It's not that you're either gay or you're not. People are gay to a certain degree. There is no single 'homosexuality gene'

 

[NeverIsForever]

Never heared of Mendel, eh? There are recessive and dominant genes. Parents with blue eyes can give birth to a child with brown eyes, too, for instance. So what?

Besides there are no people who are 100% straight or gay. Everyone is gay to some degree.

Thank you for assuming I have no knowledge of Gregor Mendel's work. For one thing, it's a basic concept taught in any high school biology class, and for another I kept, and selectively bred for specific traits, a population of about 150 guinea pigs for four years as a 4-H project. I kept pedigrees on all of them for reference purposes, and it made the genetic history of each animal easy to identify. For example, "satin" type hair was always a recessive trait, just as smooth coat patterns were dominant (as opposed to "rosette" coat patterns.) Certain traits were "lethal recessive" and individuals displaying them were sickly, stillborn, or physically deformed. So believe it or not, I do understand the concept of dominant and recessive genes. If two carriers of a recessive gene produce offspring there is a one-in-four chance of that offspring receiving two copies of the recessive gene. If that is the case, the offspring will exhibit the recessive gene rather than the dominant one. I believe the experiment he used to determine this involved flowering pea plants. Happy now?

Firstly, by your logic, obesity is not genetic, because fat parents can have normal children and vice versa. Secondly, I'm telling you that there is such a thing as in between. It's not that you're either gay or you're not. People are gay to a certain degree. There is no single 'homosexuality gene'

Hmm. Well, I actually think obesity is more the result of too much fast food and not enough exercise, but even if it is genetic fat parents could have thin children because of the whole dominant vs. recessive-gene concept of which you assumed I have no knowledge. However, if the fat parents had a history of fat relatives, ie their parents and grandparents, etc. were fat, then no, they probably wouldn't have thin children.

I don't understand how you can say everyone is gay to a certain degree. Either you're sexually attracted to the same sex or you aren't. I don't see how there is any "in between," unless one identifies him- or herself as bisexual. I don't walk around going, "Damn, that guy is hot, but that girl over there is also hot, though I'd rather make out with him than her because he's a member of the opposite sex and I'm 63% straight..."

This thread is what's "gay to a certain degree"

 

[speed]

Jesus, doesnt this thread prove this quote by Cioran:

"If truth were not boring, science would have done away with God long ago. But God as well as the saints is a means to escape the dull banality of truth."
Boring, useless, and seemingly scientifically unsound arguing about gay people. Even if one is a gay hater, dont they deserve better than this? At least give them the title they are God's mistaken creations.

 

[kmik]

Thank you for assuming I have no knowledge of Gregor Mendel's work. For one thing, it's a basic concept taught in any high school biology class, and for another I kept, and selectively bred for specific traits, a population of about 150 guinea pigs for four years as a 4-H project. I kept pedigrees on all of them for reference purposes, and it made the genetic history of each animal easy to identify. For example, "satin" type hair was always a recessive trait, just as smooth coat patterns were dominant (as opposed to "rosette" coat patterns.) Certain traits were "lethal recessive" and individuals displaying them were sickly, stillborn, or physically deformed. So believe it or not, I do understand the concept of dominant and recessive genes. If two carriers of a recessive gene produce offspring there is a one-in-four chance of that offspring receiving two copies of the recessive gene. If that is the case, the offspring will exhibit the recessive gene rather than the dominant one. I believe the experiment he used to determine this involved flowering pea plants. Happy now?

Hey, no need to get angry. I thought that only someone with no basic knowledge in genetics would ask how can two straight parents give birth to a gay child because it's obvious when you take the issue of dominant and recessive genes into consideration. You should also remember that in the past gay people probably pretended to be straight because society was not as liberal as it is today. So there were many people who were gay but nobody knew it, and I'm guess there are many gays in the closet who marry to women these days and hide the fact they are gay.

Hmm. Well, I actually think obesity is more the result of too much fast food and not enough exercise, but even if it is genetic fat parents could have thin children because of the whole dominant vs. recessive-gene concept of which you assumed I have no knowledge. However, if the fat parents had a history of fat relatives, ie their parents and grandparents, etc. were fat, then no, they probably wouldn't have thin children.

Yes, obesity is partly the result of fast food and the American lifestyle, it was not as a widespread disease in the past as it is now. However it must be genetic (again to a certain degree). If you let two different people eat the same food every day it is entirely possible that one would gain weight and one would lose weight (assuming they are of the same sex, height etc.). It has to do with your metabolism and stuff like that. I know someone who eats junk all the time but his stomach looks like a fucking chess board.

I don't understand how you can say everyone is gay to a certain degree. Either you're sexually attracted to the same sex or you aren't. I don't see how there is any "in between," unless one identifies him- or herself as bisexual. I don't walk around going, "Damn, that guy is hot, but that girl over there is also hot, though I'd rather make out with him than her because he's a member of the opposite sex and I'm 63% straight..."

Yeah, it seems odd, but that's the way it is. Don't you think Tom Cruise is more attractive than an old, fat, ugly woman? Not that you'd make any of them out, yeah, but still... Everyone is attracted to both males and females, the question is how much.

This thread is what's "gay to a certain degree"