Gay Adoption (5 Viewers)

[Cheesio]

I have sex for pleasure, that's the ultimate goal I seek from it.

And I am sure when you've done it and when Klin has done you were pleased.

Never sait it's not pleasing. But it's ultimate goal is to have your own kids. For me it is.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Quetzalcoatl]

No, i don't care because it will never happen in my country or any other muslim country. If they adopt somewhere else, Then good for them. I started replying in this thread when some argued that Homosexuality is genetic. Wich is not.

You keep saying that like it's a fact when it's only a feeling that you have.

 

[Cheesio]

You keep saying that like it's a fact when it's only a feeling that you have.

And people keep saying it's genetic with no scientific proof. Until otherwise I have the right to say it's not genetic because it was proved that there is no Gay gene.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

And people keep saying it's genetic with no scientific proof. Until otherwise I have the right to say it's not genetic because it was proved that there is no Gay gene.

Gay people generally say that it's not a choice. Logic would tell you that in most countries in the world, there is no reason someone would choose to be gay. And there is more evidence pointing to it being genetic than not.

Biology and sexual orientation is the subject of research into the role of biology in the development of human sexual orientation. No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, but research suggests that it is by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences,[SUP][1][/SUP] with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.[SUP][2][/SUP] Biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual orientation include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation)

Yes, it's Wiki but they cite their sources here.

 

[Cheesio]

Gay people generally say that it's not a choice. Logic would tell you that in most countries in the world, there is no reason someone would choose to be gay. And there is more evidence pointing to it being genetic than not.

Biology and sexual orientation is the subject of research into the role of biology in the development of human sexual orientation. No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, but research suggests that it is by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences,[SUP][1][/SUP] with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.[SUP][2][/SUP] Biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual orientation include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation)

Yes, it's Wiki but they cite their sources here.

Not this again, We've been over this many times. I could provide you with many studies that say that Homosexuality is not genetic. Until they say it's conclusive, I hold the right it's not genetic.

 

[JCK]

Never sait it's not pleasing. But it's ultimate goal is to have your own kids. For me it is.

I was simply answering your question on what I think the purpose of sex is.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

Not this again, We've been over this many times. I could provide you with many studies that say that Homosexuality is not genetic. Until they say it's conclusive, I hold the right it's not genetic.

But you have nothing to base your belief on. Tell me, in countries where gays are persecuted, mocked, beaten, killed, why would they choose to be gay?

And the only sites I see that say homosexuality is not genetic are religious, or political sites i.e. sites with an agenda of their own/not neutral.

 

[AndreaCristiano]

But you have nothing to base your belief on. Tell me, in countries where gays are persecuted, mocked, beaten, killed, why would they choose to be gay?

And the only sites I see that say homosexuality is not genetic are religious, or political sites i.e. sites with an agenda of their own/not neutral.

Like the ones who say it is don't? Stop using that bs excuse. The reality is it hasn't been proven either way

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

Like the ones who say it is don't? Stop using that bs excuse. The reality is it hasn't been proven either way

Yes, some the sources are neutral, purely scientific. It hasn't been proven but there is strong evidence for it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa
http://www.livescience.com/2623-gays-dont-extinct.html

Are those sites biased?

And the question in my previous post still stands.

 

[Cheesio]

But you have nothing to base your belief on. Tell me, in countries where gays are persecuted, mocked, beaten, killed, why would they choose to be gay?

And the only sites I see that say homosexuality is not genetic are religious, or political sites i.e. sites with an agenda of their own/not neutral.

It's their choice, They find their plaisure being screwed by another man or screwing another man. And punishement doesn't stop you from doing something wrong.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

It's their choice, They find their plaisure being screwed by another man or screwing another man. And punishement doesn't stop you from doing something wrong.

That doesn't explain WHY they would CHOOSE to screw a man instead of CHOOSING to screw a girl, when CHOOSING to screw a girl makes your life so much easier than being hated and persecuted for your whole life.

 

[JCK]

Yes, some the sources are neutral, purely scientific. It hasn't been proven but there is strong evidence for it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa
http://www.livescience.com/2623-gays-dont-extinct.html

Are those sites biased?

And the question in my previous post still stands.

The Guardian is baiased because I posted a link from the site and it says under my username that I am biased. Can you argue with that?

 

[AndreaCristiano]

Yes, some the sources are neutral, purely scientific. It hasn't been proven but there is strong evidence for it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa
http://www.livescience.com/2623-gays-dont-extinct.html

Are those sites biased?

And the question in my previous post still stands.

Its the guardian its def biased

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

The Guardian is baiased because I posted a link from the site and it says under my username that I am biased. Can you argue with that?

I don't know the reason, but you clearly have an agenda to gay people everywhere. Perhaps BBC is less biased than you-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3735668.stm

 

[Cheesio]

That doesn't explain WHY they would CHOOSE to screw a man instead of CHOOSING to screw a girl, when CHOOSING to screw a girl makes your life so much easier than being hated and persecuted for your whole life.

Because they don't find plaisure screwing women, Failed relationship with women, Most dominating person in their life is a man, money...

 

[ALC]

It's their choice, They find their plaisure being screwed by another man or screwing another man. And punishement doesn't stop you from doing something wrong.

What you just said proves it's not a choice. You find pleasure on Brooklyn Decker, they don't. It's wrong, but it's not a choice.

 

[AndreaCristiano]

My point is the arguement can't be won either way because not only are there biases there is no definitive proof either way. Beside the fact that this really has nothing to do with the adoption question

 

[Kate]

Its the guardian its def biased

I do agree here, it is very well-known that the Guardian is a leftist newspaper. But that does not make the facts included in the article any less valid, if they were honestly scientifically proven.

 

[Quetzalcoatl]

Its the guardian its def biased

Really? Who they are biased for and against?

And what about livescience.com? Or BBC?

What are the criteria for a non-biased source, so that I can find one?

 

[IrishZebra]

@ people thinking non biased news exists.