/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11708573
>It was proposed by one Jew and one Christian.
Religion has nothing to do with the argument, except perhaps the fact that Christians are more easily persuaded by Jews, so I don't see why you pointed out the other was a Christian. It's not uncommon to see non-Jews working with Jews, whether knowingly or unknowingly. The act was indeed passed by hundreds of white men in government; again, this has nothing to do with the argument at hand. It's a very common Jewish trick to suppose that a Jewish majority is required to accuse something of being Jewish or Jewish run. It's generally just a few powerful Jews that run things - not a group - who either enlist or trick non Jews.
> It was *passed*
I used one word somewhat incorrectly (albeit colloquially it barely matters, given context you can see I obviously was referring to the writing of the act) and you're going to say my entire argument is wrong without reading it, then call me a "touched inbred"? Interesting.

>>11705674
>I don't really want to deal with you.
That's because you can't refute any of my points, and you've known you're fucking retarded since your world has been falling apart around you from the moment you completely contradicted yourself on the natural selection argument - causing you to realize all of your parrot points aren't actually supported by anything other than your feelings.
>>11705678
>Also, there's 4 hypothesis there, you know.
No, there were two unsupported hypothesis that you linked. I didn't read the next two because you didn't link them.
Regarding the first one, kin selection doesn't prove anything about homosexuality being a preferable trait, much less "asexuality". It simply says that the relatives of such people reproduce, and thus continue the gene. The next point states that the lack of complete rejection of heterosexuality in gays causes them to continue the gene.
>"There is considerable evidence that human sexual orientation is genetically influenced, so it is not known how homosexuality, which tends to lower reproductive success, is maintained in the population at a relatively high frequency."
I don't know how to explain this to you any fucking better you blabbering fucking retard. We are not talking about homosexuals. We already know homosexuals exist, you literal fucking troglodyte fuck. We're arguing about the existence of asexuality, and those studies you posted have nothing to fucking do with asexuality. They might propose reasons that an asexual gene might continue a pool; they don't give any data on whether or not it exists, because it doesn't and those studies are about homosexuals, you fucking unironic Jewish nigger. You already have contradicted yourself multiple times, you don't know how to read scientific studies, in fact, you can't even draw ideas from their abstracts or wikipedia summaries, which is a pretty amazing feat of fucking retardation, considering those things say exactly what the study is about.