3 ms·

> I think you're taking a lot of flack here for implying that homosexuality, or homosexual behaviour is somehow unnatural and needed to evolve First you disput

by vorg 10y ago

> I think you're taking a lot of flack here for implying that homosexuality, or homosexual behaviour is somehow unnatural and needed to evolve First you dispute my use of "origin", then you dispute my use of "homosexual". Now are you saying my use of "origin of homosexuality" to explain the almost in "A almost always mates with B" implies I think homosexuality is "unnatural"? You have an overly pedantic reaction to my use of certain words if you're inferring the opinion words "unnatural" and "aberration" from my first one-line comment.

astrodust 10y ago
I have no idea how that could be construed any other way. Whatever you're trying to say, you're saying it in the most confusing way possible. There's nothing even remotely "homosexual" about your "A mates with B" statement. Horses almost always mate with other horses. Sometimes they mate with donkeys. That does not make the act homosexual in the least. There's no origin, genesis, beginning, or start of anything homosexual with this addition of new sex genes. It just broadens the spectrum of what gender actually is.
- vorg 10y ago
  > I have no idea how that could be construed any other way. Whatever you're trying to say, you're saying it in the most confusing way possible I think my clarifying comments above are clear enough, certainly not "the most confusing way possible". Your comments each argue against something I'm not saying or implying. If you have no idea how my original comment couldn't be construed as anything other than implying "homosexuality is somehow unnatural and an aberration", then I suggest perhaps you're bringing something from your personal situation into your reading process. I wrote the comment immediately after reading the entire article.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    You asked why you were being down-voted, so I explained how your comment was perceived. You can either put down the shovel or keep digging.

by vorg 10y ago

astrodust 10y ago

I have no idea how that could be construed any other way. Whatever you're trying to say, you're saying it in the most confusing way possible. There's nothing even remotely "homosexual" about your "A mates with B" statement. Horses almost always mate with other horses. Sometimes they mate with donkeys. That does not make the act homosexual in the least. There's no origin, genesis, beginning, or start of anything homosexual with this addition of new sex genes. It just broadens the spectrum of what gender actually is.

vorg 10y ago
> I have no idea how that could be construed any other way. Whatever you're trying to say, you're saying it in the most confusing way possible I think my clarifying comments above are clear enough, certainly not "the most confusing way possible". Your comments each argue against something I'm not saying or implying. If you have no idea how my original comment couldn't be construed as anything other than implying "homosexuality is somehow unnatural and an aberration", then I suggest perhaps you're bringing something from your personal situation into your reading process. I wrote the comment immediately after reading the entire article.
- astrodust 10y ago
  You asked why you were being down-voted, so I explained how your comment was perceived. You can either put down the shovel or keep digging.