Olga #fundie

Olga #fundie rr-bb.com

My sister said homosexuals exist as a way to make sure overpopulation is under control. If that's true, how are bisexuals explained? And why not just make some people unable to reproduce? So many holes in that theory!

Homosexuals are ill. I pray and pray they find a way out and get right before it's too late.

76 comments

old comment by GigaGuess

My sister said homosexuals exist as a way to make sure overpopulation is under control.
It's a possible explanation, anyways.

If that's true, how are bisexuals explained?
I would imagine it's a similar thing, balancing adding to reproduction as well as aiding with the care of the young...I don't know.

And why not just make some people unable to reproduce?
There are, however, the males are still hard wired to be competitive just making a null addition to the community, whereas the homosexual will integrate much easier.

So many holes in that theory!
Your point? Even if it was purely a choice...so what? What does it matter to you?

Homosexuals are ill.
APA disagrees, but hey, don't let the professionals and their "definitions" stop you.

I pray and pray they find a way out and get right before it's too late.
And I can only hope that you find your own life so you can stop meddling in others'.

old comment by Kristine

@Boy Wonder: "No one's quite sure why homosexuals exist"

That's easy: Evolution -- sorry, evilutionism.

Since evolution works without a specific goal, homosexuality simply developed (by chance) and for one reason or another proved to be not detrimental to the survival of a species (human or otherwise), therefore surviving itself. As did a whole lot of other attributes such as lefthandedness, blue eyes or a fondness for plush elephants. Of course, homosexuality might even have benefits for a species, but those benefits were not the reason it developed in the first place.

Of course, which genes or which hormones in the womb influence sexual orientation is another question ...

old comment by dionysus

Uh, how about because evolution is a blind process and its solutions aren't always ideal. For example, humans have a blind spot in the eye. Now, any engineer can tell you that you just move the optic nerve back behind the retina and that fixes the problem. How does evolution fix it? It fucking makes the eye wiggle slightly to compensate. Yeah, it's not a very intelligent process.

Homosexuals are ill. I pray and pray they find a way out and get right before it's too late.

No, they are not although I'm glad you're praying instead of doing something that might actually affect them. So kudos.

old comment by MadBumperJumper

I have my own theory. Bisexuals by being receptive to sexual relations with either sex reduced competition(and hence death from the more violent competitions and had the unintended effect of giving every man and woman "turns" with the opposite sex at timese more attractive ones were having relations with the same sex) but would still sometimes mate with the opposite sex and so reproduce and maybe even mated even more often and more successfully than heterosexuals because they would've had more sexual opportunities and so more practice at attracting a mate(most human evolution happened in nonmonogamous societies, in fact in societies without any concept of marriage at all).

But since bisexuals had some genes for heterosexuality and some for homosexuality this naturally lead to homosexuals at times and the pendulum over history keeps swinging between bisexuals and heterosexuals as the majority because the larger either becomes the greater the evolutionary advantage of the other, more heterosexuals means more competition(sometimes violent) for the opposite sex helping bisexuals increase their numbers and more bisexuals means more of their descendants will be homosexual gradually decreasing the number of bisexuals over time. But this might not work now in monogamous societies where a bisexual's chance of reproducing is almost cut in half. But there are many sociological reasons(not about to get into them) that society will one day turn towards communal families and this might lead back to the original "free love" we started out with.

EDIT: Another reason that's been proposed is that bisexual men had more access to females through the opportunity of forming sexual relations with men in power. This is confirmed if you look at history with all the examples of powerful bisexuals(Alexander the Great, many Roman Caesars, many Pharoahs of Egypt,...)

old comment by NyogaAnimos

DOS Et AL

One of the main reasons that homosexuality caused by genes is still around is that fucktard religious fundamentalists and people like you who take ancient literature too literal force those of us who are gay to hide out of fear for our own lives. In order to keep up appearances, a lot of closeted men and women will have children. That results in the gene still passing on. That and combined with the antibodies a female's body builds against male fetuses, and whatever else is part of one being gay, even if all of us that are gay disappeared, within a decade or so, more gay people would be born. Oh and by the way, there is no ethical reason to wipe homosexuality from the gene pool. I don't care what your holy book says, gayness is a naturally occurring phenomenon in nature and causes no harm. In fact, it helps the earth. With the breeding habits of most humans, we surpassed the planets capacity for humans about 30 or so years ago. If we keep producing children at our current rate, there will not be enough food or water within a couple of decades to sustain a large population. Since male gay couples and some lesbian couples do not have children by natural birth, that reduces strain on the planet. Plus if gay couples were allowed to adopt the unwanted children of the world, we could help many children whose parents either couldn't take care of them, or didn't give two shits about them.
Sorry for the rant, but I dislike it when someone passes over facts that just take a few minutes on legitimate websites to find to support their beliefs.

DOS et AL, I hope you see the light. Otherwise, you are just one of many making the world darker.

old comment by DOS Et AL

@NyogaAnimos

"we surpassed the planets capacity for humans about 30 or so years ago."

Thomas Malthus and the Malthusian problem has been proven wrong. Look up any modern
Economics book.

"Plus if gay couples were allowed to adopt the unwanted children of the world, we could help many children whose parents either couldn't take care of them, or didn't give two shits about them."

Yeah and tell them that being gay is normal, and influence their Orientation to fit the ones you think should be dominant. There is some evidence to show that enviornment and upbringing does influence Orientation. There is still not 100% proof homosexuality is genetic. Fact is homosexuality is not biolagically natural or beneficial in the evolutionary sense, for a species. If it is a mutation, there is no reason not to develop a cure for it. it is not Eugeneics, its curing a disease, albeit a genetic one.

old comment by Kristine

@DOS: "If being a fag is genetic as the libs say, then why havent they been weeded out of the gene pool."

A big riddle you shouldn't try to solve with your small brain.

"Isnt that natural selection, after all they cant pass on their genes because they cant reproduce."

Indeed, all homosexuals are sterile.

"Homosexuality in a strict sense is detrimental to the individual on an evolutionary scale."

Lucky evolution is about the survival of the species, then.

"And you all know how liberals worship the theory of evolution."

Yes, they worship it. While sacrificing religious fundamentalists using MRSA.

"I guess this implies the gay gene is a MUTATION,"

And here I was thinking that evolution *designed* the gay gene.

"not hereditary, as mutations are not generally passed on,"

Lucky we. Otherwise we would all be mutated by now.

"which implies there has to be a cure some time."

That's important to you, isn't it? That there is a "cure" for whatever you deem bad.

old comment by Kristine

DOS: "Yeah and tell them that being gay is normal,"

Of course. It *is* normal, isn't it?

"and influence their Orientation"

Wait. You said in another post that homosexuality was genetic. How can that be influenced later?

"to fit the ones you think should be dominant."

Psst. You're revealing part of the homosexual agenda.

"There is still not 100% proof homosexuality is genetic."

Now there isn't?

"Fact is homosexuality is not biolagically natural or beneficial in the evolutionary sense, for a species."

That is a fact, yes? Did your pastor tell you that?

"If it is a mutation, there is no reason not to develop a cure for it."

Lefthandedness is also a mutation. Will somebody *please* develop a cure for it and heal me already? I'm tired of using my mouse with my left hand instead of my right!

"it is not Eugeneics, its curing a disease, albeit a genetic one.."

If the cure is forced, then it is eugenics. But then again, you wouldn't have a problem with a second Holocaust, so you probably also would be allright with eugenics.

old comment by Murdin

The first paragraph is actually pretty sensible. For a range of reasons, the media (and sometimes, the scientists themselves) often present vague, heavily flawed, poorly supported hypotheses as scientific facts. This leads many people to take what essentially amounts to wild ass guessing as indisputable truths.

Bisexuals are usually explained as being either gay and in denial, or straight and confused. Our little theories would break if we try to take them into account, so let's just assume that they're wrong about themselves. Anyway, most men, ~~even~~ especially gay men, don't leave much place to shades of grey in their vision of sexuality. Everybody wins if we just admit that bisexuals don't really exist.

Actually, we will go so far as to say that the concept of bisexuality is harmful to the gay cause. They hamper the recognition of (real, out and proud) gay people as a legitimate, distinct, characterised, homogeneous minority. The straight world should learn to live with the gay community despite their essentialist differences ; the concept of bisexuality implies that homosexuals aren't so different from heterosexuals, and that assumption only furnishes weapons to the homophobic propaganda.

Of course, all those things applies to men and only men. Since nobody cares about women's sexuality beyond its erotic potential, we tend to assume that they're all inherently fluid, and leave it at that. This way, their lack of real sexual orientation can contrast with and reinforce the idea that men are divided between two very different sexual orientations. Science! loves gender dualism.

old comment by NyogaAnimos

It is beneficial, at least the mutation that causes hyper-sexuality in one gender and homosexuality the opposite is. The pro is that the gene makes the person possessing it want to mate more, but if the gene is transferred to a child of the opposite sex, it can cause attraction to the same sex.
It is natural. Especially since a lot, if not most, mammals engage in bi-sexual and homo-sexual activities as often as hetero-sexual activities.

I would not force my kid, like you idiots do, to conform to my idea of gender identity and sexual orientation. I would let them develop however they seem to be developing. I would answer any questions they may have to the best of my ability. The same goes for religion.
Also, because I know it is always on religious folks minds, I would let my child, if I had one, follow whatever faith they felt was the right one for them. I would let them know my opinion, but I wouldn't try to force them to follow my beliefs.

old comment by NyogaAnimos

I am unaware of recent publications on Economics and the like as I am too busy struggling to survive in the hell Bush made for lower-income families to purchase any new books. I have also never heard of this problem. I am merely stating what I was taught just two years ago in my high school economics and social sciences class.
Also if you think that being gay is a genetic disease, then why don't we cure you of every single mutation? That would turn you all the way back to a single celled micro-organism that even bacteria can destroy fairly quick thanks to them being mutated, too.
Also, there is a group consensus in the scientific community that homosexuality is genetic, and that it is a result of a variety of genetic traits and conditions rather than one specific gene.
There are also studies that show that children raised by gay parents, in particular lesbian parents, are better adjusted to society as compared to children raised by heterosexual couples.
Oh and if you wanna pick on us gays, bring it on little man. I have had to put up with your ilk all my fucking life. I am a proud gay male who used to act just like you until I almost killed myself because of the depression caused by the fucking mental torture of trying to change who I am to please a figment of some crazy (or high) ancestor of ours imagination and the idiotic mountain people who make up a good bit of my town.

I mean really, you insult a gay guy for criticizing your poor dating habits (and those of your friends on love shy)yet you will happily criticize gay people's dating habits? Filthy hypocrite! You know, Jesus hates hypocrites, so if I go to hell, you will most likely burn alongside me.
Oh and for the actual topic, I feel the others have handled it pretty good. Sorry if it sounds like I am picking on DOS, but I can't stand idiocy.

Sorry for posting like this, but it was a long comment.

old comment by DOS Et AL

"How does it feel to know that the only hand that'll ever touch you is your own?"

Its sucks. But hey thats what prostitutes are for. hey i know its a sin, but its either that or a long walk off a short cliff, (yeah i know "you should do that, and spare us", no need for the obvious jab) Not much i can do about it. If you think that is an insult, you're off. Im well aware of that fact. So your point is?

@Boy Wonder

In retrospect calling you "faggot" was unwarrented, as you have not be a massive asshole like every one else. Sorry. Force of habbit.

"There are also studies that show that children raised by gay parents, in particular lesbian parents, are better adjusted to society as compared to children raised by heterosexual couples."

First off, one study does not constitute scientific fact, and if true, what then? Out law hetero-sexual parents, and make it leagal only to reproduce for the purpose of lesbos rasing children? Yeah what a great world. If that study turns out to be true id rather kill myself than live in a world where fags are better parents. Its only then a stones throw until 90% of the planet gets influenced into homosexuality.

"But of course, a conservative like you wouldn't know that."

And neither would a liberal given your disdain for religions and religious traditions. Its only ever "freedom FROM religion" To you guys, never what was actually written "freedom OF religion".

old comment by Boy Wonder

@DOS

I accept your apology, but if you're unhappy with how you're being treated here, I really suggest you leave. Despite your apology, you've demonstrated contempt and hatred for anyone of my sexuality and my political leanings. You have insulted so many members of this site and then took offence when they treated you in kind. If you feel mistreated, consider your role in the perpetuation of this mistreatment. Realize that the only thing keeping it going is your presence and see that you accomplish nothing but to drive up the number of comments per quote.
I do not pretend that we are totally innocent. The entire point of this site is the derision of fundy quotes. But to expose yourself to us time and time again, to stoke the flames and start battles only to become so indignant that you'd get a whole lot of fight is a little silly.
Cut your losses and go. We are a site of free speech and it's highly unlikely that you'll be banned but, there is simply no benefit for you here.

old comment by some guy

I actually think being gay or bisexual doesn't have anything to do with evolution, especially the gay part. Evolution has no regard for the human species or its survival, it only works on individuals and, as such, a gay person would not pass on his genes and I'm pretty sure being gay is not transmitted to offspring anyway.

My bet (although I'm not a biologist) is that being gay or straight is as much of a chance process as being male or female, although I doubt it uses the same mechanisms as gender.

Just stating this here for all the people saying it exists to keep overpopulation under control. Sure it helps in that regard but it hasn't come up for that purpose

EDIT: after reading trough some more comments: this goes mostly to you, Kristine

old comment by dionysus

Well, my point was to be as mean to you as you were to Boy Wonder. I do see that you apologized for your remark so I'll apologize for mine. I still don't like you, but at least you now actually have a little bit of respect from me for doing the right thing and apologizing.

First off, one study does not constitute scientific fact, and if true, what then? Out law hetero-sexual parents, and make it leagal only to reproduce for the purpose of lesbos rasing children?

No, simply give them the same rights as heterosexuals have, that's all anyone has ever asked for.

Yeah what a great world. If that study turns out to be true id rather kill myself than live in a world where fags are better parents.

Listen there are lots of people that are better than other people at certain things. That's no reason to go offing yourself. Then again, I don't think you'd actually do it anyway and think you're just seeking attention.

Its only then a stones throw until 90% of the planet gets influenced into homosexuality.

You can't get influenced into homosexuality as attraction is not a conscious choice.

And neither would a liberal given your disdain for religions and religious traditions. Its only ever "freedom FROM religion" To you guys, never what was actually written "freedom OF religion".

Bullshit. I've defended religious rights against those that want to ban religion. However, the reason you don't hear people do that as often is because that's still a very tiny minority; there are FAR more theocrats than there are religion banners.

old comment by NyogaAnimos

Hey DOS, I didn't say we make better parents, overall we are about the same, it is just that our kids are, statistically speaking, better adjusted to reality having seen and grown up experiencing the prejudices people like you have towards us. They tend to be more likely to live and let live then to harm or be mean to another kid simply because they are different. And it was several studies, unfortunately I cannot find the sites where the statistics were posted, but I am sure someone here has a copy of a few of them, and if not a quick Google search is advised.

Oh, and please quit saying fag or any other insult for that matter as it makes you sound like an fifteen year-old. It also makes it hard for me to be polite.

old comment by DOS Et AL

"You have insulted so many members of this site and then took offence when they treated you in kind."

Look despite my hatred of the left, and more specifically their attemots to force me to live in a society that encourages values and actions against my face, i will be civil with you, as you have been civil (which is something that doesnt exist with MOST liberals when criticizing the evil connservative ideology) I have NOT taken offense. I am well aware that liberals treat any conservative opinion with offense. Looking at some of the responses to the quotes or the FSTDT forum should show you that. THEY START OUT with flinging insults, why? because they think conservative ideals are evil and deserve to be insulted; thats the exact position i take with them. Thats why i insult.

FSTDT has many people who call conservatives ignorant, and worse, say they should be killed (even in jest, its being hypocritical) and other nasty comments. Why not respond in kind? Thats the way the Left and the Right deal with eachother, and FSTDT isn innocently civil.

@ dionysus

"Well, my point was to be as mean to you as you were to Boy Wonder. I do see that you apologized for your remark so I'll apologize for mine. I still don't like you"

And i dont like you. We can at least agree on that. Im generally unly uncivil and asanine to people who are the same to me or dont respect by beliefs. That generally has been about 99% of the people on FSTDT both here, and on the forums. I apologised to Boy Wonder only because the insult against him was not warrented as he has ben civil.

Olga #fundie rr-bb.com

76 comments

Confused?