Opinions Wanted

[East Coast Hustle]

Well, aren't white people a "mistake" also? Meaning - you can't easily label some evolutionary dead-ends until you're looking at the overall picture with the benefit of hindsight.

White People are ABSOLUTELY a mistake. One that should be remedied (read: eradicated) as soon as possible.

[LMNO]

:looks down at hands:

[East Coast Hustle]

At lunch today a co-worker and I were talking and somehow the subject of homosexuality came up, and I made the grave mistake of saying what I really thought about the subject.

I commented, rather off-handedly and probably altogether too casually, that I believed that homosexual behaviour was, scientifically speaking, a genetic mistake.

The co-worker went quickly ballistic.  Red faced, stuttering, apparently barely able to contain the urge to strike me.

Noticing this display I quickly added that I personally saw nothing wrong with homosexual behaviour, and that people should be able to fuck whoever they want (within obvious reason), but the co-worker was having none of it.

She blurted out "You're the last person I would have thought to be a homophobe", which both shocked and dismayed me.  Obviously my opinion on the scientific validity of homosexuality is not a popular one, but to be labeled a 'homophobe' should one not be against the practice of homosexuality?  I am honestly not, I don't care what others do sexually, and think men and men and women and women are fine... I just happen to believe that there is no genetic benefit to the practice, and therefor is probably a mistake in nature.

So, opinions... clearly I talk too much, and don't think enough about what I say before I speak, but am I a homophobe?

I don't think so.  I mean, it's clear that *I* am a genetic mistake, and you don't seem to hold it against me.  You certainly haven't tried to prevent me from having sex.  This may have been a grave error on your part, as I have managed to propagate that error not once but twice.

But you're wrong on one count.  Homosexuality is a survival trait in an overcrowded biome, when survival at the tribal level (or above) is considered.  It adds workers (hunters, etc), without adding additional mouths later.  Homosexuality (and, incidentally, insanity) also increases in frequency with population crowding, as demonstrated by the generic adaptative syndrome work done way back in the 50s (When we studied it in rats...Now you can walk out your front door and study it in humans).

if this is the case, why isn't the Gaza Strip the most flamingly gay place on earth? I mean, it should make Ibiza look like, well, the Gaza Strip.

[themenniss]

At lunch today a co-worker and I were talking and somehow the subject of homosexuality came up, and I made the grave mistake of saying what I really thought about the subject.

I commented, rather off-handedly and probably altogether too casually, that I believed that homosexual behaviour was, scientifically speaking, a genetic mistake.

The co-worker went quickly ballistic.  Red faced, stuttering, apparently barely able to contain the urge to strike me.

Noticing this display I quickly added that I personally saw nothing wrong with homosexual behaviour, and that people should be able to fuck whoever they want (within obvious reason), but the co-worker was having none of it.

She blurted out "You're the last person I would have thought to be a homophobe", which both shocked and dismayed me.  Obviously my opinion on the scientific validity of homosexuality is not a popular one, but to be labeled a 'homophobe' should one not be against the practice of homosexuality?  I am honestly not, I don't care what others do sexually, and think men and men and women and women are fine... I just happen to believe that there is no genetic benefit to the practice, and therefor is probably a mistake in nature.

So, opinions... clearly I talk too much, and don't think enough about what I say before I speak, but am I a homophobe?

I don't think so.  I mean, it's clear that *I* am a genetic mistake, and you don't seem to hold it against me.  You certainly haven't tried to prevent me from having sex.  This may have been a grave error on your part, as I have managed to propagate that error not once but twice.

But you're wrong on one count.  Homosexuality is a survival trait in an overcrowded biome, when survival at the tribal level (or above) is considered.  It adds workers (hunters, etc), without adding additional mouths later.  Homosexuality (and, incidentally, insanity) also increases in frequency with population crowding, as demonstrated by the generic adaptative syndrome work done way back in the 50s (When we studied it in rats...Now you can walk out your front door and study it in humans).

if this is the case, why isn't the Gaza Strip the most flamingly gay place on earth? I mean, it should make Ibiza look like, well, the Gaza Strip.

not openly gay maybe?
because they get killed for that over there?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

At lunch today a co-worker and I were talking and somehow the subject of homosexuality came up, and I made the grave mistake of saying what I really thought about the subject.

I commented, rather off-handedly and probably altogether too casually, that I believed that homosexual behaviour was, scientifically speaking, a genetic mistake.

The co-worker went quickly ballistic.  Red faced, stuttering, apparently barely able to contain the urge to strike me.

Noticing this display I quickly added that I personally saw nothing wrong with homosexual behaviour, and that people should be able to fuck whoever they want (within obvious reason), but the co-worker was having none of it.

She blurted out "You're the last person I would have thought to be a homophobe", which both shocked and dismayed me.  Obviously my opinion on the scientific validity of homosexuality is not a popular one, but to be labeled a 'homophobe' should one not be against the practice of homosexuality?  I am honestly not, I don't care what others do sexually, and think men and men and women and women are fine... I just happen to believe that there is no genetic benefit to the practice, and therefor is probably a mistake in nature.

So, opinions... clearly I talk too much, and don't think enough about what I say before I speak, but am I a homophobe?

I don't think so.  I mean, it's clear that *I* am a genetic mistake, and you don't seem to hold it against me.  You certainly haven't tried to prevent me from having sex.  This may have been a grave error on your part, as I have managed to propagate that error not once but twice.

But you're wrong on one count.  Homosexuality is a survival trait in an overcrowded biome, when survival at the tribal level (or above) is considered.  It adds workers (hunters, etc), without adding additional mouths later.  Homosexuality (and, incidentally, insanity) also increases in frequency with population crowding, as demonstrated by the generic adaptative syndrome work done way back in the 50s (When we studied it in rats...Now you can walk out your front door and study it in humans).

if this is the case, why isn't the Gaza Strip the most flamingly gay place on earth? I mean, it should make Ibiza look like, well, the Gaza Strip.

Maybe these articles will help answer your question. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3211772.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2826963.stm
http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/world/israel/isnews006.htm

[The Good Reverend Roger]

At lunch today a co-worker and I were talking and somehow the subject of homosexuality came up, and I made the grave mistake of saying what I really thought about the subject.

I commented, rather off-handedly and probably altogether too casually, that I believed that homosexual behaviour was, scientifically speaking, a genetic mistake.

The co-worker went quickly ballistic.  Red faced, stuttering, apparently barely able to contain the urge to strike me.

Noticing this display I quickly added that I personally saw nothing wrong with homosexual behaviour, and that people should be able to fuck whoever they want (within obvious reason), but the co-worker was having none of it.

She blurted out "You're the last person I would have thought to be a homophobe", which both shocked and dismayed me.  Obviously my opinion on the scientific validity of homosexuality is not a popular one, but to be labeled a 'homophobe' should one not be against the practice of homosexuality?  I am honestly not, I don't care what others do sexually, and think men and men and women and women are fine... I just happen to believe that there is no genetic benefit to the practice, and therefor is probably a mistake in nature.

So, opinions... clearly I talk too much, and don't think enough about what I say before I speak, but am I a homophobe?

I don't think so.  I mean, it's clear that *I* am a genetic mistake, and you don't seem to hold it against me.  You certainly haven't tried to prevent me from having sex.  This may have been a grave error on your part, as I have managed to propagate that error not once but twice.

But you're wrong on one count.  Homosexuality is a survival trait in an overcrowded biome, when survival at the tribal level (or above) is considered.  It adds workers (hunters, etc), without adding additional mouths later.  Homosexuality (and, incidentally, insanity) also increases in frequency with population crowding, as demonstrated by the generic adaptative syndrome work done way back in the 50s (When we studied it in rats...Now you can walk out your front door and study it in humans).

if this is the case, why isn't the Gaza Strip the most flamingly gay place on earth? I mean, it should make Ibiza look like, well, the Gaza Strip.

Who says it isn't?  Wouldn't know, haven't been there (closest I ever got to Gaza was the Sinai).  I do know that if I was a gay guy in that community, I'd keep it nice and quiet.

But yeah, they do fit all the requirements for Generic Adaptative Syndrome.  Crowded, no territory, little chance to mate, etc.  They have the crazy thing down, but I haven't seen any evidence of excessive homosexuality.

[Elder Iptuous]

Blowing yourself up is so gay....

[Mangrove]

1. Hoops - definitely not a homophobe.
2. The 'science of homosexuality' is far from complete or conclusive.
3. 'Pre-emptively offended' is a wonderful  phrase which I am yoinking and using at the next opportunity.
4. (Cock & repost) Had I seen this thread earlier I was going to suggest that 'anomaly' was a better word than 'mistake'.
5. Your co-worker is a moron.

[Chief Uwachiquen]

At lunch today a co-worker and I were talking and somehow the subject of homosexuality came up, and I made the grave mistake of saying what I really thought about the subject.

I commented, rather off-handedly and probably altogether too casually, that I believed that homosexual behaviour was, scientifically speaking, a genetic mistake.

The co-worker went quickly ballistic.  Red faced, stuttering, apparently barely able to contain the urge to strike me.

Noticing this display I quickly added that I personally saw nothing wrong with homosexual behaviour, and that people should be able to fuck whoever they want (within obvious reason), but the co-worker was having none of it.

She blurted out "You're the last person I would have thought to be a homophobe", which both shocked and dismayed me.  Obviously my opinion on the scientific validity of homosexuality is not a popular one, but to be labeled a 'homophobe' should one not be against the practice of homosexuality?  I am honestly not, I don't care what others do sexually, and think men and men and women and women are fine... I just happen to believe that there is no genetic benefit to the practice, and therefor is probably a mistake in nature.

So, opinions... clearly I talk too much, and don't think enough about what I say before I speak, but am I a homophobe?

I don't think so.  I mean, it's clear that *I* am a genetic mistake, and you don't seem to hold it against me.  You certainly haven't tried to prevent me from having sex.  This may have been a grave error on your part, as I have managed to propagate that error not once but twice.

But you're wrong on one count.  Homosexuality is a survival trait in an overcrowded biome, when survival at the tribal level (or above) is considered.  It adds workers (hunters, etc), without adding additional mouths later.  Homosexuality (and, incidentally, insanity) also increases in frequency with population crowding, as demonstrated by the generic adaptative syndrome work done way back in the 50s (When we studied it in rats...Now you can walk out your front door and study it in humans).

Slightly off topic but:

I think I remember reading about that study, Roger. Didn't the studies in the rats show that once population crowding kept going cannibalism started up?

At lunch today a co-worker and I were talking and somehow the subject of homosexuality came up, and I made the grave mistake of saying what I really thought about the subject.

I commented, rather off-handedly and probably altogether too casually, that I believed that homosexual behaviour was, scientifically speaking, a genetic mistake.

The co-worker went quickly ballistic.  Red faced, stuttering, apparently barely able to contain the urge to strike me.

Noticing this display I quickly added that I personally saw nothing wrong with homosexual behaviour, and that people should be able to fuck whoever they want (within obvious reason), but the co-worker was having none of it.

She blurted out "You're the last person I would have thought to be a homophobe", which both shocked and dismayed me.  Obviously my opinion on the scientific validity of homosexuality is not a popular one, but to be labeled a 'homophobe' should one not be against the practice of homosexuality?  I am honestly not, I don't care what others do sexually, and think men and men and women and women are fine... I just happen to believe that there is no genetic benefit to the practice, and therefor is probably a mistake in nature.

So, opinions... clearly I talk too much, and don't think enough about what I say before I speak, but am I a homophobe?

I don't think so.  I mean, it's clear that *I* am a genetic mistake, and you don't seem to hold it against me.  You certainly haven't tried to prevent me from having sex.  This may have been a grave error on your part, as I have managed to propagate that error not once but twice.

But you're wrong on one count.  Homosexuality is a survival trait in an overcrowded biome, when survival at the tribal level (or above) is considered.  It adds workers (hunters, etc), without adding additional mouths later.  Homosexuality (and, incidentally, insanity) also increases in frequency with population crowding, as demonstrated by the generic adaptative syndrome work done way back in the 50s (When we studied it in rats...Now you can walk out your front door and study it in humans).

if this is the case, why isn't the Gaza Strip the most flamingly gay place on earth? I mean, it should make Ibiza look like, well, the Gaza Strip.

not openly gay maybe?
because they get killed for that over there?

I think it's the same deal with China. They've got strict anti-homosexuality laws and the homosexuals there are afraid to let the proverbial cat out of the proverbial prada handbag. Yet they're overpopulated as fuck.

[Captain Utopia]

1. Hoops - definitely not a homophobe.
2. The 'science of homosexuality' is far from complete or conclusive.
3. 'Pre-emptively offended' is a wonderful  phrase which I am yoinking and using at the next opportunity.
4. (Cock & repost) Had I seen this thread earlier I was going to suggest that 'anomaly' was a better word than 'mistake'.
5. Your co-worker is a moron.

As good a summary as we're likely to find.

[AFK]

What I learned:  Don't go to lunch with co-workers.

Correct motorcycle. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So, opinions... clearly I talk too much, and don't think enough about what I say before I speak,

No.  It is my considered opinion that you should poke this coworker at every conceivable opportunity.  Don't stop til she's convinced you're a fucking pig.

Then ask her out to lunch again.


TGRR,
Channeling Redman.

[BabylonHoruv]

I don't think viewing homosexuality as a genetic mistake makes you a homophobe,  you neither fear nor dislike gay people.  On the other hand it is awfully rude. 

As an example, I view blue eyes as a genetic mistake.  I'll say that here because this boards tolerance for rudeness is a lot higher than most places, and I think people know it doesn't mean i think less of any people out there with blue eyes.  But saying that to someone, blue or brown eyed, in real life, is a pretty rude thing to say.

Whether being gay is a genetic mistake or not is the sort of thing that I think could make an interesting debate, but only with someone I am comfortable enough with that i know feelings won't get high.  I personally think it is genetically advantageous. (not to the gay individual, who isn't reproducing, but to their genetic line as it causes them to serve as extra support for their heterosexual relatives.  Also to their species, as high populations densities tend to correlate with homosexuality, which leads to less reproduction, which is good at high population densities.)

[BabylonHoruv]

i also think that the gene could have a purpose: population control, if everybody was heterosexual then wouldn't that cause a massive increase in the growth or our population where it would become rapidly too big for the limited resources we have on earth?

So it's fair to say that homosexuals are like serial killers in that respect?

not quite. serial killers kill people.
homosexuals don't kill anything as it never existed in the first place.
unless you're a gay serial killer. in which case 'surprise butt stab'?

homosexual serial killers (assuming they are killing homosexuals) would be a genetic mistake, since they are not taking breeders out of the gene pool.

[Fuquad]

I agree with that statement about adding workers without adding mouths.  I'm not sure that the inability to procreate (in a homosexual relationship) should be classified as a mistake.  In this day and age, I'd consider it an advantage.  If humans continue to procreate at the rate we are now indefinitely, it will arguably hasten our extinction.  From that angle, the increasing frequency of homosexuality could be seen as a positive adaptive development.

So, same as serial killers, then?

Homosexuals are workers that don't add extra mouths. Serial Killers subtract workers and extra mouths.