Homosexual Divorce....

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Vic
"Bad" science is when you only find the conclusions you're looking for and ignore those that don't reinforce your pre-conceived opinions. Faulty logic is when you believe the someone would never do something simply because YOU find it personally distasteful. Bigotry comes in many flavors, for example, thinking that someone must be born a particular way because of behaviors you find offensive, i.e. "Don't you know they stick their blanks in the blanks?" *GASP* :roll:

It's not the civil rights movement. Were I black, I would find that tie-in offensive. A black person is obviously black and obviously born that way. Being black requires no action on his part, and even all of Michael Jackson's money couldn't change it if he wanted.
OTOH, if all gay people were born that way, they wouldn't have those "Curious?" ads in the alternative newspapers, nor the fact that a high percentage of gay men and women were once in a heterosexual marriage and did not become homosexual until after a divorcing in their early-to-mid 20's. I like the analogy to right- or left-handedness. While people are seemingly born with a predisposition to be one of the other, behavorial training in early childhood can change that from one to the other without the child even knowing it. This is because humans are the least genetically programmed of all animals, and the most behavioristically programmed, which is why it takes almost 20 years to raise our children.

You were babbling about science, Kibbo? You want bad science, read 0roo0roo's post above.

Anyway, you don't have to be gay to act gay. However distasteful YOU may find it (with your enlightened egalitarian nose high in the air I'm sure -- I think your cries of "bigotry" are born from guilt now, Moonie :roll, there are some people who will try anything. Personally, I think that humans are just as much generalists in our sexual behaviors as we are in our eating behaviors (in other words, we'll fsck anything), which is why we have such strong behavioralistic programming against taboo forms of sexualities. Or next people are going to be telling me that Montana sheep fsckers are born that way too? :roll:

babbling? i'm against equal rights for blacks until its genetically proved beyond a doubt they are not inferior. not to mention interbreeding with potential inferior beings. anti misegination laws ahoy!

as for curiousity, you've obviously never heard of the kinsky scale i've never been curious. perhaps you have been.

and talk about bad science indeed. comparing sexual preference to handedness? we already have studies showing that old way of thought to be just false. it was because of people who thought like you that for years and years all babies born with ambiguous genitilia were converted to girls as this was obviously easier for the surgeons. the children were to be brought up as girls, nurture would always win they thought. case after case the nurture failed, and the child just knew something was not quite right after a while.

 

[Vic]

Lovely new way of arguing you have created there, Moonie. Let me try it


M: If homosexuality is a matter of choice, prove it to me by going out now and having gay sex. If you can, you will cast some doubt on my position. I say 'some' because I could no more make love to a man than fly off my roof. Actually I could fly off my roof much more easily. I am 100% heterosexual...

V: The purpose of the analogy was not to say that homosexuality is wrong, but to show the flaw in Moonie's logic that all gays just must be born that way because (in Moonie's opinion) the act of homosexuality is so abhorrent.

M: *insults* *denials* "Homophobe!" "BIGOT!"


Yeah, that works well. :roll:

Let us now recite the political fanboi mantra: "The person who disagrees with you doesn't do so because there may be a difference of opinion. He disagrees with you because he is evil."

There. Do we all feel better now?

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

V: You were babbling about science, Kibbo? You want bad science, read 0roo0roo's post above.

M: You are the scientist, no? Pleas deconstruct OrooOroo's post yourself. I don't trust Kibbo to do anything but corroborate OO's points.

Oroo Oroo's post wasn't scientific evidence per se. It was an evolutionary "justification" for homosexuality, only useful for countering similarly evolutionary arguments such as "homosexuality is not natural because it undercuts reproduction, and therefore evolution. In the absence of the prior argument, it is basically meaningless.

I was merely trying to criticize the assertion the the lack of finding a "gay gene" proves that there is no genetic componant. As well as reassert the correlational studies that suggest a genetic component to homosexuality. Note that I don't say "Prove."

And why do you not trust me to criticize another's post? That is suspiciously close to a flame, and I'm a little insulted. Justify your opinion of me.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

V: You were babbling about science, Kibbo? You want bad science, read 0roo0roo's post above.

M: You are the scientist, no? Pleas deconstruct OrooOroo's post yourself. I don't trust Kibbo to do anything but corroborate OO's points.

Oroo Oroo's post wasn't scientific evidence per se. It was an evolutionary "justification" for homosexuality, only useful for countering similarly evolutionary arguments such as "homosexuality is not natural because it undercuts reproduction, and therefore evolution. In the absence of the prior argument, it is basically meaningless.

I was merely trying to criticize the assertion the the lack of finding a "gay gene" proves that there is no genetic componant. As well as reassert the correlational studies that suggest a genetic component to homosexuality. Note that I don't say "Prove."

And why do you not trust me to criticize another's post? That is suspiciously close to a flame, and I'm a little insulted. Justify your opinion of me.

bingo, it was just to poke a hole in the assertion that it was in no way benifitial. after all, if you can poke any hole at all, that line of argument just dies away

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

V: You were babbling about science, Kibbo? You want bad science, read 0roo0roo's post above.

M: You are the scientist, no? Pleas deconstruct OrooOroo's post yourself. I don't trust Kibbo to do anything but corroborate OO's points.

Oroo Oroo's post wasn't scientific evidence per se. It was an evolutionary "justification" for homosexuality, only useful for countering similarly evolutionary arguments such as "homosexuality is not natural because it undercuts reproduction, and therefore evolution. In the absence of the prior argument, it is basically meaningless.

I was merely trying to criticize the assertion the the lack of finding a "gay gene" proves that there is no genetic componant. As well as reassert the correlational studies that suggest a genetic component to homosexuality. Note that I don't say "Prove."

And why do you not trust me to criticize another's post? That is suspiciously close to a flame, and I'm a little insulted. Justify your opinion of me.

I will be glad to. Vic said to look at OrooOroo's post for an example of bad science. I said that I did not trust you to be able to do that: You replied:

"Oroo Oroo's post wasn't scientific evidence per se. It was an evolutionary "justification" for homosexuality, only useful for countering similarly evolutionary arguments such as "homosexuality is not natural because it undercuts reproduction, and therefore evolution. In the absence of the prior argument, it is basically meaningless."

Was I not right. Did you not, as I anticipated, fail to find in OO's post an example of bad science. Did you not find in it instead, just as I did, a logical refutation of the 'homosexuality is not natural' argument, and is it not good science to dismiss such arguments as Vic's scientifically when they are logically refutable. If so then as I predicted based on the good sense I saw in your previous posts, you would fail to agree with Vic that OO's post was bad science. When I said I didn't trust you, I meant that I didn't trust you to be stupid. Actually I don't mean stupid because I don't think Vic is. He shows tremendous good sense in most areas it seems to me. Perhaps just in this area he is scientifically unsophisticated or not quite up to speed, as you ( Edit: do ) seem to be, of course in my opinion.

 

[Moonbeam]

V: Lovely new way of arguing you have created there, Moonie. Let me try it

M: Odd again Vic that you claim up be up to snuff on past homosexuality threads and yet are surprised by a form of reply I have been using for ages.

M: If homosexuality is a matter of choice, prove it to me by going out now and having gay sex. If you can, you will cast some doubt on my position. I say 'some' because I could no more make love to a man than fly off my roof. Actually I could fly off my roof much more easily. I am 100% heterosexual...

V: The purpose of the analogy was not to say that homosexuality is wrong, but to show the flaw in Moonie's logic that all gays just must be born that way because (in Moonie's opinion) the act of homosexuality is so abhorrent.

V: M: *insults* *denials* "Homophobe!" "BIGOT!"

Yeah, that works well. :roll:

Let us now recite the political fanboi mantra: "The person who disagrees with you doesn't do so because there may be a difference of opinion. He disagrees with you because he is evil."

There. Do we all feel better now?[/quote]

M: No I feel quite sad that you could be such a fool. I didn't think you had it in you. It seems I can be wrong. You seem to have a hell of a chip on your shoulder.

The person who disagrees with you doesn't do so because there may be a difference of opinion. He disagrees with you because he is evil. Really? Hehe, I have no problem with a difference of opinion. But as I've said in these threads on homosexuality many times 'there is opinion and there is opinion'. An opinion based on faulty logic is logically faulty and an opinion based on a prior irrational, inculcated belief that gays are evil, especially one religiously based, is bigotry. That is all I have ever said. You seem, actually, to be upset with reality. Can't do much for you there. The reasoning you put forth upon which you based your opinion that homosexuality is choice just doesn't wash. But You are entitled to your opinion regardless of its absurdity. "The person who disagrees with you doesn't do so because there may be a difference of opinion. He disagrees with you because he is evil" Maybe you should look at that yourself. You seem much more offended by my opinion than I by yours. And why not; you are the one who is wrong.

 

[Vic]

sigh...

 

[Moonbeam]

"The purpose of the analogy was not to say that homosexuality is wrong, but to show the flaw in Moonie's logic that all gays just must be born that way because (in Moonie's opinion) the act of homosexuality is so abhorrent."

The evidence points that way, Vic, and that's what I was saying. I could care less if they ware born or made. I will go with which way the evidence points. There is no must about it and no feeling of abhorrence. This is why I have no idea where you are coming from. I looks for all the world like your hallucination, your preconceived notion of what I have been saying that you are reacting to.

But it's pretty hard to respond thoughtfully to stuff like "*insults* *denials* "Homophobe!" "BIGOT!" in some sort of meaning way. sigh... :frown:

 

[LunarRay]

Start with two individuals in as similar an environment as possible.

Start with that fact that a person IS Gay or Lesbian.

Work from that simple basis. What occured from birth or pre birth if you like, until now? Or from now backwards.

Start with the fact that a person IS NOT

Apply the same look see to that person.


It is possible for someone to have severe emotional issues of self esteem that they find relief from the person or persons that provide it.. be they of the same sex or not. But, let's say it is from a same sexed person. You may say that is not genetic. Well why are some lacking in self esteem? You may say because of this or that that occurred leading to the absence of self esteem and I repeat well.. why did this or that occur... you keep developing predicates to developments until you have this individual in the cradle or womb.
It is simply a matter of the human genetic makeup and the environment that it is introduced into. Many roads or combination of roads can lead to the town of the homosexual preference.
Before you endevor to solve this issue.. you'd be well equipped if you were able to understand why guys and girls may prefer the opposite sex ... not for sex.. or making babies but for a long term comfortable one on one loving relationships. What makes them comfortable and why is that so much different to some when that same condition exists for same sexed persons.

 

[Klixxer]

LunarRay, that might very well be the best post i have ever read on this forum.

In this forum i have read everything from how it's an abomination to how it can be "cured" (yet Genesys ran away when i tried to introduce scientific evidence into that thread).

To me, this is just another thing that makes us humans different from one another, race, sexual preference, political stance, opinions, all just differences between us all.

Unless you introduce some kind of religious mentality or go for the nature vs nurture thing of it (or try to explain it scientifically, which won't work as we see the same variations in gays as we do in everyone else, except perhaps for a part of the brain that is developed during pregnancy and impossible to change once you are born) you cannot really view homosexuality as something abnormal, it is just another trait that makes us different from one another.

I think this article just proves one thing, homosexuals are no different from heterosexuals, in this department either, i am not sure how that could further an agenda against homosexual marriage, but i guess if you twist your reality enough, it will fit the way you like it.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Start with two individuals in as similar an environment as possible.

Start with that fact that a person IS Gay or Lesbian.

Work from that simple basis. What occured from birth or pre birth if you like, until now? Or from now backwards.

Start with the fact that a person IS NOT

Apply the same look see to that person.


It is possible for someone to have severe emotional issues of self esteem that they find relief from the person or persons that provide it.. be they of the same sex or not. But, let's say it is from a same sexed person. You may say that is not genetic. Well why are some lacking in self esteem? You may say because of this or that that occurred leading to the absence of self esteem and I repeat well.. why did this or that occur... you keep developing predicates to developments until you have this individual in the cradle or womb.
It is simply a matter of the human genetic makeup and the environment that it is introduced into. Many roads or combination of roads can lead to the town of the homosexual preference.
Before you endevor to solve this issue.. you'd be well equipped if you were able to understand why guys and girls may prefer the opposite sex ... not for sex.. or making babies but for a long term comfortable one on one loving relationships. What makes them comfortable and why is that so much different to some when that same condition exists for same sexed persons.

:beer:

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Regardless of the root cause, being gay is perfectly acceptable, and fscking sheep is not.

To this, I wholeheartedly agree.

The purpose of the analogy was not to say that homosexuality is wrong, but to show the flaw in Moonie's logic that gays just must be born that way because (in Moonie's opinion) the act of homosexuality was so abhorrent.

Well, there is evidence that gays are INDEED born gays, the Christian right tries to either deny that or just use it as a way to explain how it can be treated or cured.

There is a hormonal difference in the brain of homosexuals compared to heterosexuals, i have brought forth the theory that it has to do with the nandrolone (or lack thereof) production during pregnancy (which is pretty much what was proven with the animal experiments, not conclusive since we are very much different from rats, i agree) and to date we still lack a better explanation than that.

However, if you have any scientific (peer reviewed, published studies) evidence that points to the contrary i would very much like to read them. (or even a better theory of your own, i am open to new ideas as i see the evidence presented so far as somewhat lacking in quality of research or in some cases completely faulty as it comes from sources that either cannot be trusted or are out to prove what they were looking for)