CrimsonWeltall Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Superiority in a secular world is simply that your genes will be passed on more likely than the other guy over a period of years, decades, centuries. Albert Einstein: 0 kids Kevin Federline: 4 kids and counting Einstein = smoked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ Jan 2, 2007 -> 07:00 PM) Albert Einstein: 0 kids Kevin Federline: 4 kids and counting Einstein = smoked ok. That doesn't prove anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 It partially illustrates the fact that a modern human can be basically anything and have reproductive success or failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxwon Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 What is the pct % of Homosexuals that get Aids? Im sure Aids has claimed , a lot of Gay lives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 4, 2007 Author Share Posted January 4, 2007 AIDS claims a lot of lives, gay and straight. Doesn't really pertain to the discussion though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ Jan 2, 2007 -> 06:00 PM) Albert Einstein: 0 kids Kevin Federline: 4 kids and counting Einstein = smoked I think Einstein's main scientific rival, Werner Heisenberg, had 7 kids. Federline might catch him though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 2, 2007 -> 12:35 PM) People try to fix genetic weaknesses all of the time. Growth hormones for short people, bald people, fat people, skinny people, sick people. really? because I see Christianity made fun of more often than homosexual people these days. sure if you live in a bumblecrotch, AL, you're probably going to be looked at differently. However, there are plenty of places where it is perfectly acceptable to be homosexual, but often those people suffer from depression and other mental issues despite social acceptance. says the guys quoting darwinism......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodAsGould Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 4, 2007 -> 12:28 AM) AIDS claims a lot of lives, gay and straight. Doesn't really pertain to the discussion though. When it first came to America though, it was much more rampant among the gay community than the straight. And there is no denying that..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Jan 4, 2007 -> 01:06 AM) When it first came to America though, it was much more rampant among the gay community than the straight. And there is no denying that..... If I am remembering my stats right, today it is much more of a minority disease than anything else... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 3, 2007 -> 11:33 PM) says the guys quoting darwinism......... yawn. I'm sorry, what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 4, 2007 Author Share Posted January 4, 2007 QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Jan 4, 2007 -> 02:06 AM) When it first came to America though, it was much more rampant among the gay community than the straight. And there is no denying that..... Your point is, what? I don't really see how this even applies to the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 4, 2007 -> 10:06 AM) Your point is, what? I don't really see how this even applies to the discussion. perhaps that the deviant lifestyle is susceptible to population diminishing diseases? IIRC, syphillus, gonorhea, etc are all animal derived diseases...as is AIDs. STDs are primarily spread through unprotected sex with many different partners with little or no commitment to relationship. Which is not completely unique to homosexual lifestyles traditionally, but the percentages of individuals in sustainable committed monogamous relationships has always been on the side of heterosexuals. Aside from that, I don't know how this pertains to the conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 (edited) perhaps that the deviant lifestyle is susceptible to population diminishing diseases? IIRC, syphillus, gonorhea, etc are all animal derived diseases...as is AIDs. STDs are primarily spread through unprotected sex with many different partners with little or no commitment to relationship. Which is not completely unique to homosexual lifestyles traditionally, but the percentages of individuals in sustainable committed monogamous relationships has always been on the side of heterosexuals. Aside from that, I don't know how this pertains to the conversation. This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you. Edited January 4, 2007 by southsider2k5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 4, 2007 -> 07:30 AM) If I am remembering my stats right, today it is much more of a minority disease than anything else... Good memory. From until.org United States: * An estimated one million people are currently living with HIV in the United States, with approximately 40,000 new infections occurring each year. * 70 percent of these new infections occur in men and 30 percent occur in women. * By race, 54 percent of the new infections in the United States occur among African Americans, and 64 percent of the new infections in women occur in African American women. * 75 percent of the new infections in women are heterosexually transmitted. * Half of all new infections in the United States occur in people 25 years of age or younger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Jan 3, 2007 -> 06:39 PM) I think Einstein's main scientific rival, Werner Heisenberg, had 7 kids. Federline might catch him though. No, but I think Shawn Kemp passed all of them...combined. Anyway, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a time in everyone's life, usually during puberty, when we all struggle with our sexuality? And during that time, sides are "chosen?" Well, then, we are all human and don't make the right choices in our life. So, for all of the homosexuals that "battled" it and became heteros, that could mean two things to me: 1. They couldn't take the societal pressure of being homosexual and decided it would be easier (although I can't imagine living a lifestyle you aren't completely comfortable with would be easier). 2. Something in their body changes and they honestly have changed their preferences. I'm not sure this is possible, but the human body is an amazing engine. And that being said, for every 10 homosexuals trying to live their lives as a heterosexual, you would have to speculate that a couple heterosexuals are trying to live their lives as homosexual. Which is kinda interesting to think about. And one more thing, off my topic, PA, whose church shouldn't they be married in? Yours? All of them? I think it's up to the members of that faith to allow or not allow same-sex marriages. Last time I checked, weddings and marriage is about love, not God. But, that is how I feel...not everyone feels that way, and that's OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 QUOTE(Soxy @ Jan 4, 2007 -> 09:39 AM) Good memory. From until.org United States: * An estimated one million people are currently living with HIV in the United States, with approximately 40,000 new infections occurring each year. * 70 percent of these new infections occur in men and 30 percent occur in women. * By race, 54 percent of the new infections in the United States occur among African Americans, and 64 percent of the new infections in women occur in African American women. * 75 percent of the new infections in women are heterosexually transmitted. * Half of all new infections in the United States occur in people 25 years of age or younger. Thanks Soxy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 4, 2007 Author Share Posted January 4, 2007 QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 4, 2007 -> 10:16 AM) perhaps that the deviant lifestyle is susceptible to population diminishing diseases? IIRC, syphillus, gonorhea, etc are all animal derived diseases...as is AIDs. STDs are primarily spread through unprotected sex with many different partners with little or no commitment to relationship. Which is not completely unique to homosexual lifestyles traditionally, but the percentages of individuals in sustainable committed monogamous relationships has always been on the side of heterosexuals. Aside from that, I don't know how this pertains to the conversation. Bird Flu is an animal derived disease as well. But like I said, I don't see what that point has to do with anything. STDs are spread through unprotected sex. Correct. I would actually argue that monogamy is just as common in homosexual relationships. What's the difference? There aren't any "monogamy" night clubs. So people don't know about it and don't talk about it. Since same sex partners are not allowed the same monogamous social covenants that heterosexuals are allowed, it would be difficult to prove your point or my point in either way. It's been my experience that gay people seek stable, loving relationships just like straight people do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 4, 2007 -> 01:25 PM) Bird Flu is an animal derived disease as well. But like I said, I don't see what that point has to do with anything. STDs are spread through unprotected sex. Correct. I would actually argue that monogamy is just as common in homosexual relationships. What's the difference? There aren't any "monogamy" night clubs. So people don't know about it and don't talk about it. Since same sex partners are not allowed the same monogamous social covenants that heterosexuals are allowed, it would be difficult to prove your point or my point in either way. It's been my experience that gay people seek stable, loving relationships just like straight people do. exactly. just because their genetically wired to be attracted to different people doesnt mean they're wired to be promiscuous... there's always that connotation with gays that they go from partner to partner blah blah blah but come on now look at today's straight culture as well - we could talk divorce rate, we could talk vegas weddings a la britney spears. people who try to protect the "sanctity of marriage" really are being unbelievably hypocritical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 4, 2007 -> 10:28 AM) This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you. cowards...every last one of you. QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 4, 2007 -> 12:46 PM) people who try to protect the "sanctity of marriage" really are being unbelievably hypocritical. why? I plan on never getting divorced and I have a great relationship with my future wife. The only way it would be hypocritical is if I were to be a divorcee and claim some moral high ground. your logic is inaccurate. This is the big kids discussion area, try the "palehose" section and then work your way up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 QUOTE(Soxy @ Jan 4, 2007 -> 10:39 AM) Good memory. From until.org United States: * An estimated one million people are currently living with HIV in the United States, with approximately 40,000 new infections occurring each year. * 70 percent of these new infections occur in men and 30 percent occur in women. * By race, 54 percent of the new infections in the United States occur among African Americans, and 64 percent of the new infections in women occur in African American women. * 75 percent of the new infections in women are heterosexually transmitted. * Half of all new infections in the United States occur in people 25 years of age or younger. Susan Surrandon really brings legitimacy to that website. (har har) 1) It's nearly impossible to track the total number of individuals with AIDS. So right off, these numbers are laughable. (hence the CDC's call for universal confidential name-based tracking) 2) From the CDC's report on AIDS transmission between 2001-2005 Male adult or adolescent 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Male-to-male sexual contact 16,212 16,102 15,758 16,556 18,722 Injection drug use 4,805 4,024 3,695 3,314 3,506 the numbers seem to be on about heterosexual female transmission, but the term "high-risk" is added by the CDC meaning: a Heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection. (which doesn't limit the definition from involving drugs, homosexual behavior, etc.) not sure what your point was otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Jan 4, 2007 -> 02:33 PM) cowards...every last one of you. why? I plan on never getting divorced and I have a great relationship with my future wife. The only way it would be hypocritical is if I were to be a divorcee and claim some moral high ground. your logic is inaccurate. This is the big kids discussion area, try the "palehose" section and then work your way up. wow... wow... yeah i may not post a ton but i've been here for what, 3 years now? i think i can post wherever the f*** i want. anyway - gays dont PLAN to break up either just as you dont PLAN to divorce. No one does. but at the same time how do you explain all of those republican congressmen who rail against gay marriage but are on their 3rd wife themselves? THATS what i'm saying - and my logic is not inaccurate my friend. prove me wrong. and by the way - i was not specifically talking about YOU with my last post. fyi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Pratt Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 If it makes you feel better, Reddy, I formally give you permission to post in the big kid's area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jan 4, 2007 -> 03:12 PM) If it makes you feel better, Reddy, I formally give you permission to post in the big kid's area. you're not a big kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Pratt Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 But I am the President. Even if you refuse to recognize that. /tongue in cheek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 4, 2007 -> 03:09 PM) wow... wow... yeah i may not post a ton but i've been here for what, 3 years now? i think i can post wherever the f*** i want. anyway - gays dont PLAN to break up either just as you dont PLAN to divorce. No one does. but at the same time how do you explain all of those republican congressmen who rail against gay marriage but are on their 3rd wife themselves? THATS what i'm saying - and my logic is not inaccurate my friend. prove me wrong. and by the way - i was not specifically talking about YOU with my last post. fyi button pushed. prove you wrong? That's what I just did. You said "People who try to protect the "sanctity of marriage" really are being unbelievably hypocritical" I'm a person who believes in protecting the sanctity of marriage and at least in this area of my life, I'm not a hypocrit... Reddy meet Wrong. If you MEAN politicians who rail against gay marriage, then SAY politicians. Otherwise, your logic is inaccurate. QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jan 4, 2007 -> 03:13 PM) But I am the President. Even if you refuse to recognize that. /tongue in cheek you and al gore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts