Canes_Knights wrote:In regards to the gay stuff, I think pretty much all the most intelligent animals on the planet engage in it. I think it does serve a natural purpose (population control) to have a percentage of any population be homosexual.

The difference is, I don't think they engage in true homosexuality.


I see dogs humping other dogs But They never actually fuck.

And if you put that same male that was humping the male in a cage with a female and male he's going for the female every time.


They are choosing to show dominance and or if they could, probably try to bust a nut.

If they could fuck the female over the male any and every time

Canes_Knights wrote:In regards to the gay stuff, I think pretty much all the most intelligent animals on the planet engage in it. I think it does serve a natural purpose (population control) to have a percentage of any population be homosexual.

Yes, much like being obese*, repulsive, goth/emo, anime obsessed, or a Gator fan. Still abnormal though. Being a fellow social liberal, I have no problem with people being any of these, so long as it doesn't infringe on the wellbeing or freedom of others.


*Fatties (and others who make poor health-related decisions) do drive up healthcare costs, and I do feel that they - not society - should be the ones paying for their poor decisions. This should be between the provider and patient, IMO, but I'm pretty sure this is no longer an option under our new HC legislation.

Muck FcDisney wrote:

Canes_Knights wrote:In regards to the gay stuff, I think pretty much all the most intelligent animals on the planet engage in it. I think it does serve a natural purpose (population control) to have a percentage of any population be homosexual.

Yes, much like being obese*, repulsive, goth/emo, anime obsessed, or a Gator fan. Still abnormal though. Being a fellow social liberal, I have no problem with people being any of these, so long as it doesn't infringe on the wellbeing or freedom of others.


*Fatties (and others who make poor health-related decisions) do drive up healthcare costs, and I do feel that they - not society - should be the ones paying for their poor decisions. This should be between the provider and patient, IMO, but I'm pretty sure this is no longer an option under our new HC legislation.

Also, I don't think "animals do it" is the best argument. Cannibalism, rape, incest, and theft are not normal or acceptable, and the animals do all of those.

And population control is not really a valid argument either. Eugenics, genocide, and sterilization are all fine ways of controlling the population, but I wouldn't encourage them. China's centralized efforts of population control have been a nightmare. The government has literally kidnapped and tortured people to force them to have abortions (I''m sure US liberals would cheer their efforts, but that's another subject...). If you actually do manage to have that 2nd child, you have to pay a fee/tax in the range of 3-6 YEARS salary. And of course the male/female ratio is getting a little unfavorable if you're a dude looking to get laid. Population control will occur naturally with or without human efforts or homosexuality.

Muck FcDisney wrote:

Muck FcDisney wrote:

Canes_Knights wrote:In regards to the gay stuff, I think pretty much all the most intelligent animals on the planet engage in it. I think it does serve a natural purpose (population control) to have a percentage of any population be homosexual.

Yes, much like being obese*, repulsive, goth/emo, anime obsessed, or a Gator fan. Still abnormal though. Being a fellow social liberal, I have no problem with people being any of these, so long as it doesn't infringe on the wellbeing or freedom of others.


*Fatties (and others who make poor health-related decisions) do drive up healthcare costs, and I do feel that they - not society - should be the ones paying for their poor decisions. This should be between the provider and patient, IMO, but I'm pretty sure this is no longer an option under our new HC legislation.

Also, I don't think "animals do it" is the best argument. Cannibalism, rape, incest, and theft are not normal or acceptable, and the animals do all of those.

And population control is not really a valid argument either. Eugenics, genocide, and sterilization are all fine ways of controlling the population, but I wouldn't encourage them. China's centralized efforts of population control have been a nightmare. The government has literally kidnapped and tortured people to force them to have abortions (I''m sure US liberals would cheer their efforts, but that's another subject...). If you actually do manage to have that 2nd child, you have to pay a fee/tax in the range of 3-6 YEARS salary. And of course the male/female ratio is getting a little unfavorable if you're a dude looking to get laid. Population control will occur naturally with or without human efforts or homosexuality.

The argument isn't that everything that animals do is ok, the argument is that it is not abnormal because it seems to be a thing that animals just do.

None of the things you listed are natural ways of limiting a population. But if you have a built-in mechanism where approx. 5 to 10 percent of a population is homosexual, that will limit population growth.

Muck FcDisney wrote:

Canes_Knights wrote:In regards to the gay stuff, I think pretty much all the most intelligent animals on the planet engage in it. I think it does serve a natural purpose (population control) to have a percentage of any population be homosexual.

Yes, much like being obese*, repulsive, goth/emo, anime obsessed, or a Gator fan. Still abnormal though. Being a fellow social liberal, I have no problem with people being any of these, so long as it doesn't infringe on the wellbeing or freedom of others.


*Fatties (and others who make poor health-related decisions) do drive up healthcare costs, and I do feel that they - not society - should be the ones paying for their poor decisions. This should be between the provider and patient, IMO, but I'm pretty sure this is no longer an option under our new HC legislation.

:ays

Y4NK33 PL4N3T wrote:

Muck FcDisney wrote:

Canes_Knights wrote:In regards to the gay stuff, I think pretty much all the most intelligent animals on the planet engage in it. I think it does serve a natural purpose (population control) to have a percentage of any population be homosexual.

Yes, much like being obese*, repulsive, goth/emo, anime obsessed, or a Gator fan. Still abnormal though. Being a fellow social liberal, I have no problem with people being any of these, so long as it doesn't infringe on the wellbeing or freedom of others.


*Fatties (and others who make poor health-related decisions) do drive up healthcare costs, and I do feel that they - not society - should be the ones paying for their poor decisions. This should be between the provider and patient, IMO, but I'm pretty sure this is no longer an option under our new HC legislation.

:ays

What about me does not fit that mold?

https://www.statnews.com/2016/06/03/who ... ification/

:thought

Muck FcDisney wrote:

Y4NK33 PL4N3T wrote:

Muck FcDisney wrote:

Canes_Knights wrote:In regards to the gay stuff, I think pretty much all the most intelligent animals on the planet engage in it. I think it does serve a natural purpose (population control) to have a percentage of any population be homosexual.

Yes, much like being obese*, repulsive, goth/emo, anime obsessed, or a Gator fan. Still abnormal though. Being a fellow social liberal, I have no problem with people being any of these, so long as it doesn't infringe on the wellbeing or freedom of others.


*Fatties (and others who make poor health-related decisions) do drive up healthcare costs, and I do feel that they - not society - should be the ones paying for their poor decisions. This should be between the provider and patient, IMO, but I'm pretty sure this is no longer an option under our new HC legislation.

:ays

What about me does not fit that mold?

He doesn't know what that means

Muck FcDisney wrote:https://www.statnews.com/2016/06/03/who-transgender-mental-illness-classification/

:thought

ICD-10 was put to use in 94 and I THINK they just started using it or maybe using it and only it here. I'll have to ask Ashley because she just got her coding stuff

You had to start using 10 in either November or October of 15 instead of icd9

How long until this discussion continues?

:bump