MasteroftheGods

I have think I know the "best" solution for the time being. It is simple - give his what ever he wants, as well as a seat in the security council. It may sound like we are encouraging this kind of behaviour but becaues no one else will disarm as a jesture of good will, then the only way to stop us from destroying...well, everything, is to just give in and try to appease the man in anyway possible, it worked with the USSR. Kim Jong-li is a lunitic, and does anyone think that given the chance Adolf Hitler would have thought twice about using the nuke? Hardly, he would have rather killed each and every person on earth then accept defeat, and if he had the nuke he would have without a second thought. We are looking at a country that has very little econmic power (bankrupt) has an extremly powerful military and a nut job as a leader. Sounds like Per-WWII Germany, accept Germany was economicly powerful then and had much more to lose then south Korea. So we have an insane, paranoid dictator, a country in econmic disarray, with one of the most powerful militaries in the world, which posses nuclear capibilities and with very little (if anything) to lose. This does not sound good. The problem is if we assassinate this monster of a dictator one of his friends within the oligarchy will be furious with the international community, and lets face it there parinoid enough as it is. It's more then likely it would set them off. Well, if anyone needs me I will be hiding in the woods in my cave with a twelve gage, a lot of food and a laptop so I can keep up with where the bombs are headed. And to see what is in store for us (make sure your computers sound is on) and go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ynu7lpkTkGM

Actually gays have tons of children....millions of them every year.....you and many others assume that a homnosexual exchews completely the other sex....and by your post, you seem to think that's the way it has always been. Not so. In the past, for gay men they got married did their duty and their wives had kids like everyone else. The difference between them and me is....they really didn't have the "Oh My God! You are so fusckering Amazing, Oh My God Oh My God shhhhhh, (the kids might hear) OH MY GOD...monkey sex that most men and women have. If the gay man was self actualized or self aware, he might understand that he was attracted to other men....maybe even sexually attracted..and he might even found release....... And of course gay women were having same experiances. They might love their husbands (platonicly?) and their children but again, they might not have even understood their own feelings..... My stance is still the same, I will not deny that gays in the past and present, have married the opposite sex for social and procreation reasons, but again marrige is a social construction. What I am suggesting is that the homosexual "gene" if there ever was such a thing then it would no longer exist as it probalbly would not have surrvied even before the human evolved. For example, austrolopithicus was an acient ancestor of humans with little more intelegence then a common chimp. Chimps in captivity and vertiually all other mamals that are born homosexual tend consentrate only on the sex of their desired intrest and ingnore the opposite sex. It has been very rare, if at all, to see sex between a homosexual mamals have sex with the opposite sex, makeing procreation from difficult to impossible. Which leads me to believe that although I will not deny that homosexuality technically"could" be a ressive gene, but I find it rather hard to believe that something that rare could find itself so pominant in our society and the natural world. Furthermore, Recently I assissed my psychology proffessor in a recreation of an experiment in the text book for some extra credit, he experimented with high amounts of testosterone in unborn rats. The result was truly facinating, the male rats were found to be overly sexual (though I personally didn't notice a difference, as they were rats). But the female rats exibited a strange behavior, they tried to mount one another. So it they truly were turned into "gays" then it proves at least on some level that womb enviroments have a significant effect on sexual orientaion. So it would seem that his finding support my preivous conclusion. I was already aware of the sickle cell aneima and its ablity to fight off malaria, but that however is different in that it increases the odds a certain genes surrival, Homosexualiaty does not (as least visably) assits in the orginsm gene in surrival. In lower life forms the only drive there is to reproduce is that of the drive for sex, so if the drive for sex indicates a path which leads to nonreproduction then that is what the organism does. Humans however as you all have mentioned have addapted for this cultually and socially, so gays can have children (your right I did not state this and I should have). For example marrying the opposite sex for, emotional reasons or for reasons other then sexual gratification as has been mentioned and is prominate in our society. But in other mamals there is no need for emotional attachment or for establishing social position, If animals only have this sexual drive to promote there genes as is the case, and they do not have societies (at least not ones as complicated as our) which provide norms, such as rasies families, then genticly there can be little ro no conection between genes and sexual orentation. As the gene would not have surrvied eariler mamals, and would have bred itself out before ever entering the hunan genepool. I mean no offence by anything written here, and if I have offened anyone I appolgise, though I would still like a respone so as we can contniue this debate. P.S. What no one mentioned about the sickle cell aneima disorder is that it is virtually unheard of anywhere outside of malaria prominant areas, so in other populations it did largly breed itself out.

You raise an interesting point. If someone is blind because of an inherited trait we have no problem calling the blindness a genetic 'defect' and everyone understands that we are not judging the blind person by saying they have a 'defect'. OTH, suggesting that a hypothetical homosexual gene is a genetic defect will lead to condemnation. You raise an interesting point. If someone is blind because of an inherited trait we have no problem calling the blindness a genetic 'defect' and everyone understands that we are not judging the blind person by saying they have a 'defect'. OTH, suggesting that a hypothetical homosexual gene is a genetic defect will lead to condemnation. If homo sexuality were a genetic disorder, don't you think that it would have been bread out of the genpool by now? Not a lot of "gays" are able to have children (duh). Thus according to Darwin's theory you would think homosexuality would no longer exist. But it does. So this means that homosexuality muct come from somewhere other then gentics. I am suggesting that it is not an act of god, or of genetics, but an imbalance of testoserone while the child is in the womb, and most suseptable to "mental disorders". It could be caused by the mothers diet, stress, activities there really is no way to know for sure. anyway... This morning I heard a conservative in my poliSci class, refer to gays as un-natural and needed to be saved. That's just plain untrue. Truth be told Homo sexuality is extremely natural, it is acctualy one of the most naturally occoring phenomina within in human species. It is found (and surpringly common) in every species of mamals on earth as well as some reptiles. From this we can deduce that Homo sexuality is at least as old as the first mammals, or roughly 100 million years old. I think that is a little older (and more supported) then some book which has been writen and rewriten so many times there is scarcely a shread of truth left in it, yet for some reason this book is the more valued text, That dosen't make sense. I have yet to hear one vaild arugument as to why "gays" should be treated as people in need of help by the "normals". Society defines what is normal and if we wish to make homo sexuality devient it will be treated as such. But to say it is un-natural or evil is just plain nonsence, as there is absolutly no solid eviedence to support this claim. I offered concrete eveidence of the naturality of Homo sexualism, now will someone PLEASE give me an argument to the contrary with equal or greater concrete scientific facts.