"Live Strong in Character - Don't Leave Your Family"

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> In short Mohammed said: ""Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the
>> one that it is being done to." (in reference to the active and passive
>> partners in gay sexual intercourse) "
>
> Where? We were talking about the Koran specifically, not everything
> Mohammed might have said.

Bill, if you knew anything about Islam you'd know that they don't use the
Koran as their only source for Muslim law. But plainly you don't.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Wogster <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> >>The Bible also does not declare homosexuality to be a capital crime,
>> >>although it does prohibit certain specific sex acts between Jewish men,
>> >>who thousands of years ago could be sentenced to death for those
>> >>sex acts but who would not have been for their sexual orienation alone.
>> >>
>> >>The Koran appears to be completely silent on both topics from what I
>> >>can tell by quickly scanning an on-line copy and trying a google
>> >>search. It is at <http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html>. If
>> >>something is in there (perhaps I need to use different keywords),
>> >>would someone mind pointing to the relevant section? You know,
>> >>provide a URL to a passage in the Koran showing the literal text in an
>> >>English translation?
>> > Isn't it curious how educated about homosexuality that Bill is? Or
>> > perhaps it isn't curious.
>> >
>>
>> I think it's a non-starter, I really don't give a rats derriere about
>> Bill's sexual orientation.
>
> Kunich sure does. A few years ago he was on another of his
> homophobic rants, that time about something like "genetic mistakes"
> and he got real mad at me when I basically quipped that it is kind of
> hard to make genetic mistakes when people don't reproduce (I've yet to
> hear of guys getting other guys pregnant) unless they have superior
> genes that they are withholding from the gene pool, something I didn't
> think he wanted to claim. I thought it was a funny observation, but
> Kunich went through the roof.

Well Bill, you certainly have a lot of those kinds of stories. But strangely
enough you never seem to have a citation to back it up.

 

[Steven L. Sheffield]

On 08/07/2005 10:01 PM, in article
[email protected], "Tom Kunich"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> The Wogster <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>> The Bible also does not declare homosexuality to be a capital crime,
>>>>> although it does prohibit certain specific sex acts between Jewish men,
>>>>> who thousands of years ago could be sentenced to death for those
>>>>> sex acts but who would not have been for their sexual orienation alone.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Koran appears to be completely silent on both topics from what I
>>>>> can tell by quickly scanning an on-line copy and trying a google
>>>>> search. It is at <http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html>. If
>>>>> something is in there (perhaps I need to use different keywords),
>>>>> would someone mind pointing to the relevant section? You know,
>>>>> provide a URL to a passage in the Koran showing the literal text in an
>>>>> English translation?
>>>> Isn't it curious how educated about homosexuality that Bill is? Or
>>>> perhaps it isn't curious.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think it's a non-starter, I really don't give a rats derriere about
>>> Bill's sexual orientation.
>>
>> Kunich sure does. A few years ago he was on another of his
>> homophobic rants, that time about something like "genetic mistakes"
>> and he got real mad at me when I basically quipped that it is kind of
>> hard to make genetic mistakes when people don't reproduce (I've yet to
>> hear of guys getting other guys pregnant) unless they have superior
>> genes that they are withholding from the gene pool, something I didn't
>> think he wanted to claim. I thought it was a funny observation, but
>> Kunich went through the roof.
>
> Well Bill, you certainly have a lot of those kinds of stories. But strangely
> enough you never seem to have a citation to back it up.



Oddly enough, most of the time, neither do you.

Here's the original post to which Bill refers:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/b2bf760a6a977cfb?h
l=en&

Here's Bill's quip, from
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/847cb0c1d2e0ad1b?h
l=en&

"In any case, the concept of a "genetic mistake" would seem to have some
real problems with it in this instance. If, aside from sexual orientation,
gays have genes that are similar to everyone else's, then there's no
effect on the gene pool at all due to them not reproducing. Instead, you
get a lower growth rate for the species. But we already have an
overpopulation problem, so reducing the growth rate is not exactly a
bad thing in and of itself. On the other hand, if they have really
underdesirable genes, the lack of reproduction would seem to improve
the gene pool. That leaves one additional possibility: that (aside
from factors leading to sexual orientation) gays have superior genes, and
by not reproducing they are helping to eliminate these superior genes
from the gene pool. Now, that would be a real mistake, or at least a
real loss, but I don't think you want to claim that gays are for the
most part genetically superior to the rest of us, given everything
else you said ."

Shortly thereafter, Kunich responds thusly:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/8c3ffd81adcba38e?h
l=en&

"(Bill accusing other's of being bigoted because he likes to suck on
things.)"

Then, 3 years later, when Bill is having a discussion with Guy Chapman about
forgery, during the course of a helmet thread, Tom pops his head in and
says:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.soc/msg/0ad48062b17620b9?hl
=en

"What was that again Bill? I'm sorry I can't understand you. You'll have to
remove that penis from your mouth."

And, lest anyone accuse me of taking Bill's side in a helmet thread, I
choose to wear a helmet most of the time. I do not think that will protect
me from being injured in the case of many crashes, but it certainly can't
hurt to wear one. And I definitely don't believe in mandatory helmet laws,
so Kunich and I actually have one small basis of common ground.

Of course, that won't stop Kunich from accusing me of being a queer
somewhere along the line ... He's done it in the past, he'll do it again.



--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [foreword] slash

 

[Tom Kunich]

Thanks for citing that posting in order to put the discussion into context
Steven. I see that, like Bill, you don't understand what I mean when I said
"genetic mistake" and both of you are thinking that means that somehow it is
a reproducible genetic change. In fact that ISN'T what that research I was
discussing meant at all. Not that it would mean anything at all to you, but
the fact is that along the DNA chain there are places where a break or
"error" occur more easily than in other places. The research paper I had
been discussing concerned the fact that there appeared to be that sort of
error in homosexuality.

So you'll forgive me if I didn't understand what the hell Bill was talking
about when he was saying that an error in the gene just wouldn't reproduce.
Such an idea was too stupid to understand.

But then we can go back to your expertise in Christian terrorist Terry
Nichols. I suppose when you feel the need for blaming the USA for 9/11
you'll call anyone that is required for the issue.

So you're making California wages and living in Salt Lake huh? You'll
forgive me if I chuckle. What is "California Wages"? Illegal alien farm
worker wages? Or maybe one of those gay insurance company CEO's from San
Francisco? And just to make your point - weren't you looking to give one of
those CEO jobs? Or was that some other sort of 'job'?


"Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BF1CA30E.26836%[email protected]...
> On 08/07/2005 10:01 PM, in article
> [email protected], "Tom Kunich"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> The Wogster <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Bible also does not declare homosexuality to be a capital crime,
>>>>>> although it does prohibit certain specific sex acts between Jewish
>>>>>> men,
>>>>>> who thousands of years ago could be sentenced to death for those
>>>>>> sex acts but who would not have been for their sexual orienation
>>>>>> alone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Koran appears to be completely silent on both topics from what I
>>>>>> can tell by quickly scanning an on-line copy and trying a google
>>>>>> search. It is at <http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html>. If
>>>>>> something is in there (perhaps I need to use different keywords),
>>>>>> would someone mind pointing to the relevant section? You know,
>>>>>> provide a URL to a passage in the Koran showing the literal text in
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> English translation?
>>>>> Isn't it curious how educated about homosexuality that Bill is? Or
>>>>> perhaps it isn't curious.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think it's a non-starter, I really don't give a rats derriere about
>>>> Bill's sexual orientation.
>>>
>>> Kunich sure does. A few years ago he was on another of his
>>> homophobic rants, that time about something like "genetic mistakes"
>>> and he got real mad at me when I basically quipped that it is kind of
>>> hard to make genetic mistakes when people don't reproduce (I've yet to
>>> hear of guys getting other guys pregnant) unless they have superior
>>> genes that they are withholding from the gene pool, something I didn't
>>> think he wanted to claim. I thought it was a funny observation, but
>>> Kunich went through the roof.
>>
>> Well Bill, you certainly have a lot of those kinds of stories. But
>> strangely
>> enough you never seem to have a citation to back it up.
>
>
>
> Oddly enough, most of the time, neither do you.
>
> Here's the original post to which Bill refers:
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/b2bf760a6a977cfb?h
> l=en&
>
> Here's Bill's quip, from
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/847cb0c1d2e0ad1b?h
> l=en&
>
> "In any case, the concept of a "genetic mistake" would seem to have some
> real problems with it in this instance. If, aside from sexual orientation,
> gays have genes that are similar to everyone else's, then there's no
> effect on the gene pool at all due to them not reproducing. Instead, you
> get a lower growth rate for the species. But we already have an
> overpopulation problem, so reducing the growth rate is not exactly a
> bad thing in and of itself. On the other hand, if they have really
> underdesirable genes, the lack of reproduction would seem to improve
> the gene pool. That leaves one additional possibility: that (aside
> from factors leading to sexual orientation) gays have superior genes, and
> by not reproducing they are helping to eliminate these superior genes
> from the gene pool. Now, that would be a real mistake, or at least a
> real loss, but I don't think you want to claim that gays are for the
> most part genetically superior to the rest of us, given everything
> else you said ."
>
> Shortly thereafter, Kunich responds thusly:
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ba.transportation/msg/8c3ffd81adcba38e?h
> l=en&
>
> "(Bill accusing other's of being bigoted because he likes to suck on
> things.)"
>
> Then, 3 years later, when Bill is having a discussion with Guy Chapman
> about
> forgery, during the course of a helmet thread, Tom pops his head in and
> says:
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.soc/msg/0ad48062b17620b9?hl
> =en
>
> "What was that again Bill? I'm sorry I can't understand you. You'll have
> to
> remove that penis from your mouth."
>
> And, lest anyone accuse me of taking Bill's side in a helmet thread, I
> choose to wear a helmet most of the time. I do not think that will
> protect
> me from being injured in the case of many crashes, but it certainly can't
> hurt to wear one. And I definitely don't believe in mandatory helmet
> laws,
> so Kunich and I actually have one small basis of common ground.
>
> Of course, that won't stop Kunich from accusing me of being a queer
> somewhere along the line ... He's done it in the past, he'll do it again.
>
>
>
> --
> Steven L. Sheffield
> stevens at veloworks dot com
> bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
> ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
> aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
> double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [foreword] slash
>
>

 

[Steven L. Sheffield]

On 08/08/2005 07:27 PM, in article
[email protected], "Tom Kunich"
<[email protected]> wrote:


> So you're making California wages and living in Salt Lake huh? You'll
> forgive me if I chuckle. What is "California Wages"? Illegal alien farm
> worker wages? Or maybe one of those gay insurance company CEO's from San
> Francisco? And just to make your point - weren't you looking to give one of
> those CEO jobs? Or was that some other sort of 'job'?


Put it this way. A six-figure income goes a hell of lot further here than
it does there.

And I knew it wouldn't take long for you to call me a queer. But that's to
be expected from a self-confessed woman-beater like yourself.




--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [foreword] slash

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:BF1D74A2.26920%[email protected]...
> On 08/08/2005 07:27 PM, in article
> [email protected], "Tom Kunich"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> So you're making California wages and living in Salt Lake huh? You'll
>> forgive me if I chuckle. What is "California Wages"? Illegal alien farm
>> worker wages? Or maybe one of those gay insurance company CEO's from San
>> Francisco? And just to make your point - weren't you looking to give one
>> of
>> those CEO jobs? Or was that some other sort of 'job'?
>
>
> Put it this way. A six-figure income goes a hell of lot further here than
> it does there.
>
> And I knew it wouldn't take long for you to call me a queer. But that's
> to
> be expected from a self-confessed woman-beater like yourself.

I calls 'em the way I see's um and I met you. I noticed that all of those
club members with me were staying out of your reach. 6 figure income indeed!
Next you'll be telling us that you converted to Seventh Day.

 

[Steven L. Sheffield]

On 08/09/2005 08:02 PM, in article
[email protected], "Tom Kunich"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:BF1D74A2.26920%[email protected]...
>> On 08/08/2005 07:27 PM, in article
>> [email protected], "Tom Kunich"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> So you're making California wages and living in Salt Lake huh? You'll
>>> forgive me if I chuckle. What is "California Wages"? Illegal alien farm
>>> worker wages? Or maybe one of those gay insurance company CEO's from San
>>> Francisco? And just to make your point - weren't you looking to give one
>>> of
>>> those CEO jobs? Or was that some other sort of 'job'?
>>
>>
>> Put it this way. A six-figure income goes a hell of lot further here than
>> it does there.
>>
>> And I knew it wouldn't take long for you to call me a queer. But that's
>> to
>> be expected from a self-confessed woman-beater like yourself.
>
> I calls 'em the way I see's um and I met you. I noticed that all of those
> club members with me were staying out of your reach. 6 figure income indeed!
> Next you'll be telling us that you converted to Seventh Day.



I think they were leaving me alone because you were following me around like
a puppy. I kept trying to escape, but you had me cornered. I figured they
were just laughing at the fat old wife-beating pervert with the jug ears.

I'm not going to justify my income to you. Investment banks pay well, and I
know what my tax return says, and so does the IRS. That's all that counts.

Why would I convert to Seventh Day Adventist in the land of Zion? We're all
Saints (of the Latter Day sort) here!




--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [foreword] slash

 

[Bill Z.]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Sorry I don't see it in there (which is possibly why someone called
> > Richard Burton "suggests" it has something to do with it, as opposed
> > to "stating" that it does). The references are just too vague.
>
> That must be why Wahabis commonly execute homosexuals in the public squares
> in Arabia.

Your statement is a non-sequitor, since the issue was what was in the
Bible or Koran, not the Sharia or the Wahabi interpretation of that.
You do understand the difference, don't you?

If you want to start a discussion about how "common" it is, however,
you can start with some hard data - average number of executions per
year. Surely that should be a matter of public record.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> In short Mohammed said: ""Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the
> >> one that it is being done to." (in reference to the active and passive
> >> partners in gay sexual intercourse) "
> >
> > Where? We were talking about the Koran specifically, not everything
> > Mohammed might have said.
>
> Bill, if you knew anything about Islam you'd know that they don't use the
> Koran as their only source for Muslim law. But plainly you don't.

As I said, the post I replied to specifically mentioned the Koran. Perhaps
you'd make less of a fool of yourself if you'd learn to read with some
minimal comprehension.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

"Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]> writes:

[Thanks for posting the URLs documenting Kunich's behavior while I
was out of town].

> And, lest anyone accuse me of taking Bill's side in a helmet thread, I
> choose to wear a helmet most of the time. I do not think that will protect
> me from being injured in the case of many crashes, but it certainly can't
> hurt to wear one. And I definitely don't believe in mandatory helmet laws,
> so Kunich and I actually have one small basis of common ground.

Oddly, Steven and I don't seem to really disagree - "my side" of the
helmet thread was simply that Kunich and company haven't proven their
case. I've actively opposed mandatory helmet laws, and don't tell
people whether to use a helmet or not, viewing it as a personal
decision.

Where we might possibly disagree is that I'd settle for an injury
reduction instead of protection from being injured. How much
protection you get is probably highly dependent on the type of
riding you do, since if the impact exceeds the helmet design
standards, all bets are off.

> Of course, that won't stop Kunich from accusing me of being a queer
> somewhere along the line ... He's done it in the past, he'll do it again.

Well, as you pointed out in a subsequent post, it happened pretty
quickly!

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> Thanks for citing that posting in order to put the discussion into context
> Steven. I see that, like Bill, you don't understand what I mean when I said
> "genetic mistake" and both of you are thinking that means that somehow it is
> a reproducible genetic change. In fact that ISN'T what that research I was
> discussing meant at all.

In fact, you referred to "genetic research that seems to indicate that
homosexuality is a genetic mistake" with no citation to any published
paper or other source, and your "discussion" of this "research"
consisted of mindless assertions like

"it proves that statement by the American Psychological
Association to be completely incorrect. Homosexuality is
stated bluntly to be a deviation in virtually every medical
text that covers it. Got that? A deviation -- NOT a
variation. And these are books that are being published right
now."

> Not that it would mean anything at all to you, but the fact is that
> along the DNA chain there are places where a break or "error" occur
> more easily than in other places. The research paper I had been
> discussing concerned the fact that there appeared to be that sort of
> error in homosexuality.

Kunich is lying - he didn't mention any such research about a "break"
in the post we are referring to, and he did not discuss any "research
paper". He just posted a highly bigoted rant that I ignored other
than quipping about his "genetic mistake" thing, which seemed too
funny to pass up.

> So you'll forgive me if I didn't understand what the hell Bill was talking
> about when he was saying that an error in the gene just wouldn't reproduce.
> Such an idea was too stupid to understand.

I think I made what I was saying pretty damn clear in the post Steven
cited. As to your current "theory", that is even more idiotic. A
"genetic mistake" is basically a mutation, and it is highly unlikely
that you'd get the same mutation to repeat over and over again
(without being propagated through offspring) to the point where it
shows up in a few percent of the population. Can you point to any
evidence that such a novel mechanism has ever been shown to exist,
showing the exact location of said "break" for a trait exhibited by
even one species on the face of the earth?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Kyle Legate]

Bill Z. wrote:
>
> I think I made what I was saying pretty damn clear in the post Steven
> cited. As to your current "theory", that is even more idiotic. A
> "genetic mistake" is basically a mutation, and it is highly unlikely
> that you'd get the same mutation to repeat over and over again
> (without being propagated through offspring) to the point where it
> shows up in a few percent of the population. Can you point to any
> evidence that such a novel mechanism has ever been shown to exist,
> showing the exact location of said "break" for a trait exhibited by
> even one species on the face of the earth?
>
There are no genetic "mistakes" that don't quickly lead to death.
Especially if such a "mistake" is a "break", whatever that means. If
that refers to a break in a chromosome the result would be random fusion
of DNA ends, which leads to cancer, certainly not to alternate sexual
preference. As usual, Kunich doesn't know what he's talking about. He's
like the Peter Pan of RBR retards.

 

[Stu Fleming]

Bill Z. wrote:

> Your statement is a non-sequitor, since the issue was what was in the
> Bible or Koran, not the Sharia or the Wahabi interpretation of that.
> You do understand the difference, don't you?

RBR meme alert!
"I know how to spell non-sequitur, dammit!"


--
IT Management. Tel: +64 3 479 5478
Web and database hosting, Co-location. Web: http://www.wic.co.nz
Software development. Email: [email protected]

 

[Bill Z.]

Stu Fleming <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > Your statement is a non-sequitor, since the issue was what was in the
> > Bible or Koran, not the Sharia or the Wahabi interpretation of that.
> > You do understand the difference, don't you?
>
> RBR meme alert!
> "I know how to spell non-sequitur, dammit!"

Sorry about a typo - I posted it just after a 5 hour drive.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:

> "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]> writes:

> > Of course, that won't stop Kunich from accusing me of being a queer
> > somewhere along the line ... He's done it in the past, he'll do it again.
>
> Well, as you pointed out in a subsequent post, it happened pretty
> quickly!

It's a pretty standard pattern. First he tries to act like the other person
in the discussion is stupid (e.g. "Real historian, aren't you?"), then he starts
wildly building strawmen, then he finishes with homosexual references. Because
anyone who disagrees with Tom must surely be a **** of the worst sort. Of
course, most of his "data" on homosexuality is taken from seriously suspect
sources, like Paul Cameron (booted out of the APA) or Don Boys. Or, more
correctly, plagiarized from those sources:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/78255f77a2ea183f?hl=en&

Oh well, what else would you expect from am guy who seems to worship at the
alter of Fred Phelps?

Strange, then, that the guy who is so adamantly anti-homosexual seems to
mention penises so frequently.

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Bill Z.]

Howard Kveck <[email protected]> writes:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
> > "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]> writes:
> > > Of course, that won't stop Kunich from accusing me of being a
> > > queer somewhere along the line ... He's done it in the past,
> > > he'll do it again.
> > Well, as you pointed out in a subsequent post, it happened pretty
> > quickly!
>
> It's a pretty standard pattern.
> <snip>
> Strange, then, that the guy who is so adamantly anti-homosexual seems to
> mention penises so frequently.

I don't think Sigmund Freud would have thought it was strange, but
rather the basis for a diagnosis!

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Konstantinos Koukopoulos]

Kyle Legate wrote:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>> I think I made what I was saying pretty damn clear in the post Steven
>> cited. As to your current "theory", that is even more idiotic. A
>> "genetic mistake" is basically a mutation, and it is highly unlikely
>> that you'd get the same mutation to repeat over and over again
>> (without being propagated through offspring) to the point where it
>> shows up in a few percent of the population. Can you point to any
>> evidence that such a novel mechanism has ever been shown to exist,
>> showing the exact location of said "break" for a trait exhibited by
>> even one species on the face of the earth?

There has been speculation though that if there is a genetic trait that
corresponds to a tendency towards homosexuality and if it was located in
the X chromosome then it could play different roles in female and male
offspring. If the supposed gene, for example coded for an increased
attraction towards men then the female offspring with this gene might
compensate for the male offspring's lack of propagation by an increased
drive to mate with men. More plainly imagine a female person who get's this
"genetic mistake" which leads to a greater attraction towards males. She
naturally mates many times and produces many children, some male and some
female. The male offspring that get this "genetic mistake" will have a low
probability of propagatin this gene because they will be attracted towards
men, not women. But the "genetic mistake" will still get propagated by the
female offspring who will be even more attracted to men than usual.

Of course "mistake" carries negative connotations but in evolution we are
all "mistakes".

 

[Bill Z.]

Konstantinos Koukopoulos <[email protected]> writes:

> There has been speculation though that if there is a genetic trait that
> corresponds to a tendency towards homosexuality and if it was located in
> the X chromosome then it could play different roles in female and male
> offspring. If the supposed gene, for example coded for an increased
> attraction towards men then the female offspring with this gene might
> compensate for the male offspring's lack of propagation by an increased
> drive to mate with men. More plainly imagine a female person who get's this
> "genetic mistake" which leads to a greater attraction towards males. She
> naturally mates many times and produces many children, some male and some
> female. The male offspring that get this "genetic mistake" will have a low
> probability of propagatin this gene because they will be attracted towards
> men, not women. But the "genetic mistake" will still get propagated by the
> female offspring who will be even more attracted to men than usual.

How does this model explain lesbians?

> Of course "mistake" carries negative connotations but in evolution we are
> all "mistakes".

That's basically my objection to Kunich's posts - the use of loaded
language that has no basis (in this case, in biology).

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Kyle Legate]

Bill Z. wrote:
> Howard Kveck <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote:
>>
>>>"Steven L. Sheffield" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>>Of course, that won't stop Kunich from accusing me of being a
>>>>queer somewhere along the line ... He's done it in the past,
>>>>he'll do it again.
>>>
>>>Well, as you pointed out in a subsequent post, it happened pretty
>>>quickly!
>>
>> It's a pretty standard pattern.
>><snip>
>> Strange, then, that the guy who is so adamantly anti-homosexual seems to
>>mention penises so frequently.
>
>
> I don't think Sigmund Freud would have thought it was strange, but
> rather the basis for a diagnosis!
>
Envy?

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > Sorry I don't see it in there (which is possibly why someone called
>> > Richard Burton "suggests" it has something to do with it, as opposed
>> > to "stating" that it does). The references are just too vague.
>>
>> That must be why Wahabis commonly execute homosexuals in the public
>> squares
>> in Arabia.
>
> Your statement is a non-sequitor, since the issue was what was in the
> Bible or Koran, not the Sharia or the Wahabi interpretation of that.
> You do understand the difference, don't you?

I hate to point this out to someone so well versed as yourself, but Muslims
don't use ONLY the Koran as their total law.

> If you want to start a discussion about how "common" it is, however,
> you can start with some hard data - average number of executions per
> year. Surely that should be a matter of public record.

Why don't you look it up if you're interested?

> My real name backwards: tihS piD