Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2244488,00.html

hmm . . .

die whob

Originally posted by PVS
die whob

His Uncle Lester stories amuse me.

Originally posted by PVS
die whob

homsexuality is most likely a combination of biological and environmental factors...like most things.

Originally posted by Alliance
homsexuality is most likely a combination of biological and environmental factors...like most things.

Hey Alliance, we actually agree on something!

imagine that

...................ok,

in other news, masturbation most frequently occurs when a person is alone. Given this fact it is being studied as to whether individuals with no siblings and limited parental contact masturbate more frequently than the rest of the population. This may be due to genetics. The reasoning is that if the mother did not have more children she probably didn't get it all that often, and may have been prone to masturbation prior to the birth. Her body has thus become a craving machine for the neurotransmitters released by masturbation. Thus giving rise to a masturbation craving baby. Or at least his brain developed that way

Ummm, yep, science alright

I'd bet Freud would have a hay day with this...

Originally posted by Gay Guy
All of my brothers and 4 my male cousins are gay. We were all babysat by my Uncle Lester at one time or another. Uncle Lester didn't get along with women too well, so he never would babysit my sisters that much even if one of them asked him to. None of my sisters turned out to be gay, but most of them are into older men. I don't know why they are though. It probably all has to do with genetics and biology, just like me and my brothers and cousins being gay.
Wow... just wow.

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6797/sign7bz.png

But what confuses me about the study is that I am my mother and father's only true biological child (they had together).

I have no older siblings, only two younger half brothers and one half sister.

Yet, I'm bisexual....hmmm

Originally posted by leonidas
The increased chance of homosexuality applied even where men had older full brothers who had been raised separately in a different home, offering further evidence for a biological effect.

Gender selection will be rife now, with couples chosing to have girls rather than boys, for fear of having a homosexual son.

Originally posted by Gay Guy
All of my brothers and 4 my male cousins are gay.

ALL of your brothers?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
ALL of your brothers?

Lets just make sure we all know he is lying.

sounds like an oversimplified hypothesis to me...

Indeed.

Originally posted by .pace Opera:.
sounds like an oversimplified hypothesis to me...

I doubt it's even true.

Not all gay people have older brothers.

I think it was more of a trend than a rule. I haven't seen the study.

there just trying to make up some bullshit explanation for the gay 'gene' so they can get equal rights. now believe me, once they come out with a reasonable argument for gay rights then i will support it, but i havent seen anything yet that makes me wanna side with it.

Originally posted by .pace Opera:.
there just trying to make up some bullshit explanation for the gay 'gene' so they can get equal rights. now believe me, once they come out with a reasonable argument for gay rights then i will support it, but i havent seen anything yet that makes me wanna side with it.
Yeah cause the fact that gay people are human and want to marry the people we love is completely unreasonable.

remember, im a hristian, so its a little harder for me to except

Correlation does not equal causation.

Originally posted by .pace Opera:.
there just trying to make up some bullshit explanation for the gay 'gene' so they can get equal rights. now believe me, once they come out with a reasonable argument for gay rights then i will support it, but i havent seen anything yet that makes me wanna side with it.

Be carefful though. Designating a "gay gene" will also open up te posibillity that homosexuality could be selected for, repressed, and/or engineered out of humans. It could become genetic descrimination. The "gay gene" is a very sharp two edged sword. On the one hand it gives gay rights ultimate credibility, on the other hand it opens up physical descrimination.

well sadly theyre used to that anyways

Originally posted by .pace Opera:.
there just trying to make up some bullshit explanation for the gay 'gene' so they can get equal rights. now believe me, once they come out with a reasonable argument for gay rights then i will support it, but i havent seen anything yet that makes me wanna side with it.

Yeah, it is most certainly isn't a reasonable argument that gay people are no different from heterosexual people and are just as capable and deserving or having a loving relationship and therefore deserve equal rights.

And you don't seem to have much respect for science - fact: scientists are not, repeat not, in the habit of making up theories to support political stances. However they are often victims of people with political stances who try and censure them with theological/political views. Similar to what you seem to be saying here, which is the way I read it.

"Scientists have an agenda to trick people into allowing gay people to marry. Thus anything scientists say on the subject should be ignored due to this and rather people should insist on maintaining the status quo - that is not giving gays equal rights"

Christian expert... in what?

I'm sure the Baptist Union of Western Australia has no vested interests.

Originally posted by .pace Opera:.
Since other groups who have been discriminated against (such as women, blacks and the disabled) have been given equal opportunity, homosexuals claim that they, too, should be liberated. However, as one Christian expert has said...

"Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does."

By the same token, by that definition it should be ok then for people not to be given rights based upon - religious views, political views, being a part of a union and so on. I wonder if that Christian expert believes a Christian should have equal rights to a Muslim or Buddhist, or would he accept the discrimination because it is what he chooses to be rather then it being in his blood.



If you pop over to the "homosexual: chosen or genetic" thread you will discover a great many more studies. It is a contentious issue because it is not certain, and because there is perceived to be a lot of evidence for both sides - it is untrue that there is "no reliable" evidence, plenty of studies support the proposition that it is not chosen.

And it reminds me of some of the old historical texts dealing with early studies of Africans - when they proved that genetically they were no different or genetically inferior to a white people would say "propaganda, just trying to make the slavers look bad, damn abolitionists, they can't be let say blacks are equal to us, then they will want equal rights."

And really that is a crux, isn't it? If it turns out to be natural it would fall into the "Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is..." category, and there would be no way people could argue a gay person should be discriminated against without appearing to be a bigot. Thus it is vital to attack any fact or finding that would make this so.



I feel like saying there is a lot of difference between kleptomania and alcoholism and homosexuality. To compare them is erroneous and misleading. If people believe homosexuality to be psychological they have a tendency to group it with things like kleptomania or schizophrenia. Madness

Well, if it is biological or not does in my opinion hardly matter. Certainly something I'd like to know, but in what way does it affect equal rights? Not at all, equal rights should just be there for everybody.

Where's Gay Guy when you actually need him? He's the new and improved authority on Gays and genes, so I'd like to hear his take on the matter.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, if it is biological or not does in my opinion hardly matter. Certainly something I'd like to know, but in what way does it affect equal rights? Not at all, equal rights should just be there for everybody.
They are when it comes to marriage.

Originally posted by .pace Opera:.
remember, im a hristian, so its a little harder for me to except
Right, sorry... Must be so hard for you. I could not give a damn if you're christian or not but don't you preach that bullshit. Don't you pretend the study is less credible because you don't like homosexuals.

And how is it hard to "except"? You can't neglect the fact that there are plenty of two males out there loving each other. So, why should they not be allowed to get married and adopt kids?

Originally posted by botankus
Where's Gay Guy when you actually need him? He's the new and improved authority on Gays and genes, so I'd like to hear his take on the matter.

Ha Ha..funny.

Tell me just because a Jew is Jewish..does that automatically mean he knows how to save money?

Just because a black guy is black, does that mean that he can shoot hoops and speak ghetto slang?

You think because they now have that show called "Queer eye" or whatever that Gay people know everything about being fashion conscience.

Personally I prefer Jordache genes to Levis, but what the hell does that have to do with me being Gay? I've seen hetero's who are just as much of the close horses as us "homos"

You mentioned how your father likes to stick 18 inch steel rods up his butt in another thread..should I now assume that you also like to stick 18 inch rods up your but?

You see how it works Mister?

Stereotyping is wrong, and it hurts the feelings of all those who are involved in it.

Originally posted by .pace Opera:.
sounds like an oversimplified hypothesis to me...

Does it sound any simpler than this one..

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."



You Christians don't talk about abiogenesis and cosmology like the real sciences do. They just believe that everything complex is created..

Tell me, since homosexuality is a complex human behavior, would that then mean that God designed homosexuality?

No gay guy....thats the devils work Its here to tempt us to stry from the light. angel

Originally posted by Alliance
homsexuality is most likely a combination of biological and environmental factors...like most things.
Definitely not 100% one or the other.

Originally posted by Gay Guy
You mentioned how your father likes to stick 18 inch steel rods up his butt in another thread..should I now assume that you also like to stick 18 inch rods up your but?

I said from butt to neck...that's easily 2-1/2 feet.

Originally posted by .pace Opera:.
there just trying to make up some bullshit explanation for the gay 'gene' so they can get equal rights. now believe me, once they come out with a reasonable argument for gay rights then i will support it, but i havent seen anything yet that makes me wanna side with it.



Uh...Wrong. Scientists don't normally get involved in Politics, it's not thier job.

1) So you wouldn't support Gay Rights until you have proof that being gay is genetic? Wow...you are so loving a person

2) Again like Eis said, the fact that Gay people are human beings who deserve the right to be with the person they love means.......?

3) You haven't seen anything that makes you wanna side with gay rights.....what could possibly make a conservative Christian like yourself side with gay civil rights?

I think it important that the quote Space Opera uses comes from the following website:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c040.html

And once you read it, he is following their script in all his arguments.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I think it important that the quote Space Opera uses comes from the following website:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c040.html

And once you read it, he is following their script in all his arguments.

SpaceOpera that is dissapointing. That fact suggests that you lack individiality and the ability to think for yourself...which i know is not true.

The last pm you sent me i thought was incredibly open minded and genuine...why do you refuse to show the rest of the debators the side of your mentality that you've shown me ?

Originally posted by Gay Guy
Ha Ha..funny.

Tell me just because a Jew is Jewish..does that automatically mean he knows how to save money?

Just because a black guy is black, does that mean that he can shoot hoops and speak ghetto slang?

You think because they now have that show called "Queer eye" or whatever that Gay people know everything about being fashion conscience.

An attempt at humor? It has to be, nobody out there think genes and jeans are the same thing. Or do they...



..... Ok. But anyway, that is not actually stereotyping, rather assuming like father like son, which is just an erroneous way of approaching an issue.



*cough *hypocrite* cough* And anyway, he didn't seem to be stereotyping to me.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I think it important that the quote Space Opera uses comes from the following website:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c040.html

And once you read it, he is following their script in all his arguments.
I love that site...it make me want to die evertime I read it.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I think it important that the quote Space Opera uses comes from the following website:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c040.html

And once you read it, he is following their script in all his arguments.

And he calls scientists working with pure, unbiased facts biased.



So... what are all those heterosexual households doing wrong, seeing as how the majority of gay people come from heterosexual parents? Why don't the nonsecular Christian experts explain that to us eh?

And God damn God, he doesn't seem to care that the children of gays - few as they are - are no different in terms "moral judgments, self-concepts, social competence and gender identity." Seems vary nitpicky to me, like some kid in the playground punching another kid because his dad is a garbage man or something "I don't care if you can be just as morally good as anyone else, your dad collects garbage, so you aren't a good person!"

I think one thing interesting about having two dads: If they get divorced and remarry, you could very well have four of them!

Originally posted by Regret
Fallacies in these statements

LeVay's studies did show a difference. We discussed this in one of my human physiology classes. His work hasstood up to scientific scrutiny.


I wouldn't say stood up to. At best I'd say it stood up to the scrutiny of those who agreed with his position..

Originally posted by Regret
The issue with Levay's work isn't whether or not the differences were fact, it is whether the behavior led to the difference or if the difference led to the behavior.


Or in other words..which one was the cause, and which one was the effect..

Originally posted by Gay Guy
I wouldn't say stood up to. At best I'd say it stood up to the scrutiny of those who agreed with his position..

There was a difference in weights between men and women, and gay men's weights were consistent with the women's weights. His study had valid evidence, the issue was his story (his interpretation) of that evidence.

Originally posted by Gay Guy
Or in other words..which one was the cause, and which one was the effect..

Yes

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
An attempt at humor? It has to be, nobody out there think genes and jeans are the same thing. Or do they...


I was using the word allophonically to represent the word JEANS. in the old english language, that's how they spelled genes. In my culture..that's how they spel genes to.


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
..... Ok. But anyway, that is not actually stereotyping, rather assuming like father like son, which is just an erroneous way of approaching an issue.



look up stereotyping in the dictionary and you'll get...

"A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image."

It is steroetyping if you oversimplify something..he was simplifying the concept of me knowing fashion concepts because I'm gay..and I was oversimplifying him liking to stick 2 foot poles up his behind because his dad likes to do it.


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
*cough *hypocrite* cough* And anyway, he didn't seem to be stereotyping to me.

you need to brush up on you're english language skills. And I am an english professor by the way.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I think it important that the quote Space Opera uses comes from the following website:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c040.html

And once you read it, he is following their script in all his arguments.

Exactly..this type of argument has easily been refuted countless times..for example...


Simon LeVey found that the hypothalamus in the gay male was substantively smaller in gay men than in straight men. Fewer androgens could easily account for a smaller hypothalamus. Critics would say this theory isn't good at explaining why "identical" twins are more likely to share the same sexual preference than "fraternal" twins are even though wombs are the same for both types of twins.


Differences in genetic code. Bailey and Pillard showed that if one monozygotic twin (commonly called an "identical twin" was gay the other twin, who has the same DNA, was 52% likely to also be gay. Among dizygotic twins (commonly called "fraternal twins" who share half the same DNA, the concordance of homosexuality was 22%, about half as likely. And among adoptive brothers, who would have no common parent and therefore less genetic similarity, the concordance of homosexuality dropped to 11%. Bailey and Benishay found virtually identical percentages among homosexual women's siblings. Critics say that if homosexuality were truly a genetic trait, monozygotic twins would share the same sexual preference 100% of the time. But monozygotic twins aren't actually identical. They have similar but different fingerprints, for example. They should also have slightly different brain constructions that might account for different sexual preferences.

Originally posted by Gay Guy
you need to brush up on you're English language skills. And I am an English professor by the way.

Good for you. And you:



This coming from the guy who reckons most abstainers are to ugly to have sex, that every heterosexual and homosexual person on this forum is your enemy, that most heterosexuals are in some way homophobic and so on.

Yes, I can see how you really *aren't* at all hypocritical.



I don't need a dictionary to understand the definition of stereotyping. Nothing in his post suggested that he was talking about gays and jeans, and thus gays and fashion. According to you you decided to impose that bit of stereotyping by using "old English" to get jeans from genes. You chose to do it. And generally, in sociological terms stereotyping is not imposed due to broad social trends (believed) - a father and son doesn't seem like a large enough group to start a stereotype.

Now tell me, how far were you going back? Considering in historical terms fashion wise "jeans" are a relatively new invention, describe the old English genes to me.

Originally posted by Gay Guy
I wouldn't say stood up to. At best I'd say it stood up to the scrutiny of those who agreed with his position..

So, what do you mods need? Do you want Whob to actually piss in your faces before you ban him?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
So, what do you mods need? Do you want Whob to actually piss in your faces before you ban him?


Your so full of sh***t..reported.

Originally posted by Gay Guy
I've opened up a thread for LBGT people in this forum and am generally respected by the homosexual AND heterosexual community in KMC.

I think it's working great! Maybe as an English professor, your definition of "respected" is a bit different. Maybe it's like the "genes" / "jeans" thing.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
So, what do you mods need? Do you want Whob to actually piss in your faces before you ban him?
Without solid proof, we' re not allowed to take action. You may bring your grievance to Raz, but I wouldn' t mention the "piss in your faces", as it is anything but appreciated!

^Agree with what she said.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
So, what do you mods need? Do you want Whob to actually piss in your faces before you ban him?

Is someone going to ban this guy already?

Originally posted by Gay Guy
Is someone going to ban this guy already?

How about you just drop it and move on. There is topic here...no more hostility....enough.

Originally posted by Gay Guy
There you go again..you post some drivel..and then you LIE..

you post some more drivel. and then you LIE..

You know nothing about me.. have you ever even had sex?!!! Do you even masterbate?

no one in this forum stated that most abstainers are ugly..what they stated was that most people who CLAIM to be reborn abstinents are too ugly to have sex.

Oh, well that seems to be very in depth, you were attacking "reborn abstinent" - strange how one can't see any of that in the *actual post*



Yes, a veritable critique there of a particular portion of abstinent, not "most people."



Hahahahahaha.... Hahahahaha. So refuting *your arguments* with logical ones is a sign of weakness? How are you still not stereotyping? I find it hard to believe a proud, self confident gay such as your self would spend a lot of time around hard line Christian abstinent in order to be able to make such a claim that you are not stereotyping when you say "most of them are to ugly."

And lets not forget I just above quoted your post I am referring to. It says nothing about what you have said above. Nor did you refute the evidence from other threads where you blithely insulted and implied a good portion of the other members where homophobic, even the gay ones.



Right back at ya. In fact that is a lovely snap shot of your debating skills right there.



Odd, I seem to remember you reporting KMC member after KMC member the other day because they disagreed with you, insulting all the way. Tell me, precisely which KMC members hold you in high respect?

Now let me get back to my laughter. So, you give homeless people plastic bags because they have lost their colostomy bags? My Goodness, you make it sound like a normal thing. How many do you help a night?



Regional dialect? You claim to come from California, last time I was in California people called jeans jeans.



Lucky you have wikipedia. Because what you just posted was cut straight from there. And incidentally you have misinterpreted the evolution of the word. Shame on you. And besides, way to show that you know nothing about fashion. Trying to pretend you actually know the history of jeans.

Likewise, perhaps you should go to wiki again and look up "genes" or "gene".



Despite all evidence to the contrary.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Oh, well that seems to be very in depth, you were attacking "reborn abstinent" - strange how one can't see any of that in the *actual post*

Yes, a veritable critique there of a particular portion of abstinent, not "most people."

Hahahahahaha.... Hahahahaha. So refuting *your arguments* with logical ones is a sign of weakness? How are you still not stereotyping? I find it hard to believe a proud, self confident gay such as your self would spend a lot of time around hard line Christian abstinent in order to be able to make such a claim that you are not stereotyping when you say "most of them are to ugly."


It always amazes me how people like you can cut and paste statements that I've made to selectively prove that the basic presumed premise of your point, underlies the inherent stupidity of mine.

Once again, your definitions of the words I used is flawed. I stated that people who CLAIM to be abstinent are the one's who are ugly. Not the ones who ARE abstinent. Perhaps you should look up the word CLAIM and ABSTINENT in teh dictionary, because you are obviously having difficulty understanding the meanings of both words.


Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Nor did you refute the evidence from other threads where you blithely insulted and implied a good portion of the other members where homophobic, even the gay ones.

Right back at ya. In fact that is a lovely snap shot of your debating skills right there.


Let me get this straight, your likening all homosexuals and their anti homophobic arguments to sh*t? By doing this your basically comparing homosexuals to being interested in sexual behaviors that involve sh*t, and I don't know how much longer your arguments should continue to be allowed to be presented in these forums.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Now let me get back to my laughter. So, you give homeless people plastic bags because they have lost their colostomy bags? My Goodness, you make it sound like a normal thing. How many do you help a night?


You know, I've always wondered how people like yourself can satirize the compassionate gestures of others, yet at the same time not realize how oblivious they are to the fact that they themselves are unabel and unwilling to perform such acts of charity. For your information, I gave not one, but TWO homeless people without colastamy bags, "plastic bags" to sh*t in.

I walked right up to the 7 eleven, cut in front of all the other people in line and put a dollar bill in front of the cashier. I then asked him to give me as many bags as he could for a dollar. Each homeless man received not just one bag, but TWO bags. I told them both that they could sh*t in each bag that they received instead of on the ground, and then throw the sh*tty bags in the dumpster located behind the store.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Despite all evidence to the contrary.


You can't win an argument by selectively quoting sh*t from biased websites and using basic common sense to refute my arguments. The next time you wake up with a wet dream and another cum spot in your sheets, remember that's one less time you could have ejaculated on a woman or a man. Ohh..and everyone is laughing at you.

Originally posted by Gay Guy
It always amazes me how people like you can cut and paste statements that I've made to selectively prove that the basic presumed premise of your point, underlies the inherent stupidity of mine.

Once again, your definitions of the words I used is flawed. I stated that people who CLAIM to be abstinent are the one's who are ugly. Not the ones who ARE abstinent. Perhaps you should look up the word CLAIM and ABSTINENT in teh dictionary, because you are obviously having difficulty understanding the meanings of both words.

Of course. Because people who "are" abstinent don't claim to be, do they? And people who "claim" to be abstinent, well of course they aren't actually abstinent at all? I posted, word for word your post. No selective editing. Fact: You are stereotyping. Pure. Simple.

You defense is to try and obfuscate your previous post on a technical level. "No, I wasn't actually talking about abstinence at all, just the people who claim to be abstainers." It seems like saying "I wasn't talking about Christians at all, just the ones who believe the Bible." You used a blanket statement to the effect that "most of the people" in a group are to ugly, thus their stance. Regardless of ones feelings on the subject of abstinence any basically intelligent person would know that such a statement is stereotypical and thoroughly unprovable. Unless you tell me know that your university gave you a grant to survey abstainers to see what % are ugly (ugly, of course, being purely subjective)



Hmmm. Botankus asks why you don't come and talk about genes and you accuse him of stereotyping. You claim my arguments are something, and I say the same could be said about yours, and suddenly it becomes somehow homophobic and linked to sexual orientation. Does taking things out of context and giving them a totally new meaning come natural to you, or do you have to work at it? And fact: we weren't talking about homosexuality and arguments for or against - we were talking about you stereotyping.



Oh, I don't need to satirize this. You are doing a great job with a story that I fear is full of the same stuff as a colostomy bag. As someone who has done plenty of volunteer work with a day clinic, let me tell you that that story has not a single fact of truth, and not single working component. You might have done better to simply pick words from a dictionary, which would create a more believable scenario.

But let me clarify - your greatest charity act - *you claim* - was to buy four plastic bags for two homeless men.



Actually you selectively quoted from wikipedia. Your "history of jeans" was cut straight from there. I didn't quote a web site at all. I think your memory must be going - to reiterate You posted from a website. And you, sock or no, are in trouble if your arguments can't stand up to common sense, the most basic part of a debate.

And as to everyone laughing... I notice you couldn't provide names of the people who hold you in high regards. Speaks fathoms.

No one is born Gay. Becoming gay is mostly due to circumstances. Tons and tons a research proves this. If you probe every gay deep enough you will always find our the event or events that made him become gay.

If you really want to find our more then get the BRINGING UP BOYS dvd collection.

Originally posted by MARCMAN
No one is born Gay. Becoming gay is mostly due to circumstances. Tons and tons a research proves this. If you probe every gay deep enough you will always find our the event or events that made him become gay.

If you really want to find our more then get the BRINGING UP BOYS dvd collection.

I agree with you totally. But no one is born straight either. No one is born thinking about sex or who you want to have it with. But the moment you exist in this world, we all start developing personality traits. None of which are chosen. Perhaps that's proof of god. I don't know. But neither do you.

And people who, like youself, preach that being gay is a learned trait, I pose the question: How? How does a parent, through direct intervention or otherwise, "teach" their child to be gay? I might be gay, but no one tried to make me gay...which is the inherent flaw in such an argument. "Oh, Johnny became gay because he learned it from his parents!" So, tell us how you make a kid gay. I'd really like to know. You seem to think it's a matter of the influence picking the child, rather than the other way around. Any child, biologically, genetically, or otherwise, figures out the things to which he or she is attracted. I hated wrestling growing up. All my friends had those rubber Hulk Hogan and Andre the Giant figures...but I played with GI Joe. I'm sure there are many people on this forum that play video games....experience the violence in such things...and don't go out and kill someone. So, if violence in video games causes violent reactions from children, then I'm sure that an effiminate character in a movie will cause a child to "turn out" gay. However, such is not the case. We've all been kids, and we've all experienced "adult" situations at that age. But how that experience changes someone on such a basic level as sexual attraction is beyond me. You blame it on circumstance. Which is cool. Your opinion is your own. But circumstance is beyond the control of everybody that reads this forum. You can't do anything about circumstance any more than you can about genetics.

Originally posted by leonidas
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2244488,00.html

hmm . . .

Environment not biological. A good excuse in my opinion.

Originally posted by Justbyfaith
Environment not biological. A good excuse in my opinion.

An opinion with no supporting evidence is worthless.

Originally posted by MARCMAN
No one is born Gay. Becoming gay is mostly due to circumstances. Tons and tons a research proves this. If you probe every gay deep enough you will always find our the event or events that made him become gay.

If you really want to find our more then get the BRINGING UP BOYS dvd collection.

The DVD would not work. Let me guess, it has rules like:

1) Always make sure your son plays sports
2) Never let your son play with dolls
3) Have your child look at naked women at an early age
4) Never take showers with your son
5) Tell him being gay is wrong

ETC ETC ETC

That is all worthless......there are gay people who are born from straight, conservative, religious parents. How do you figure?

There are straight kids who come from gay parenting...how do you figure?

It has nothing to do with NURTURE.....it is most likely all physiological...developments that are brought on by the environment perhaps, but involuntary, indirect stimuli.

You cannot make your kid straight, gay, or bisexual...it is something that happens without your permission or intervention. NATURE has ALL to do with it.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
That is all worthless......there are gay people who are born from straight, conservative, religious parents.

Not so. I was born to those types of people, but they showed me gay porn, encouraged me to play with dolls, to envy female singers like Madona, Cher, Diana Ross, etc., to speak with a lisp. They also told me that vagina was evil and that Republicans and Jesus hated ****...which they had convinced me I was. Then they started me on a ritual diet of pot, sin, red meat, show tunes and condoms.

And look at me now.

In all actuality: I have a deep voice, I don't own a CD by a female artist, musical theater irritates the hell out of me, I played with GI Joe growing up, I don't pluck my eyebrows or wear make-up, I can change a tire(but I won't) and I never pick up my clothes when I take them off. Oh, and I've also never bought an item out of a catalouge that wasn't a toy, DVD, electronics or clothes retailer.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
An opinion with no supporting evidence is worthless.

Then doesn't that mean the opinion that you've just given is 'worthless'...

Originally posted by Gay Guy
Then doesn't that mean the opinion that you've just given is 'worthless'...

I did not give an opinion.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I did not give an opinion.

Well then..I guess that means that you believe what you've given us a fact, however, that is just your opinion of what you've given us, one in which we are not obligated to accept or believe.

So you see my friend, by your own admission, what you originally posted above was worthless. As is the proceeding opinion that you just posted. Does this then mean that my opinion of your opinions is worthless as well? Of course not, because you see the fact remains, you've given me two worthless opinions as evidence to base my opinion on.

Have a nice day.

Is playing an idiot easy for you?

Originally posted by Gay Guy
Well then..I guess that means that you believe what you've given us a fact, however, that is just your opinion of what you've given us, one in which we are not obligated to accept or believe.

So you see my friend, by your own admission, what you originally posted above was worthless. As is the proceeding opinion that you just posted. Does this then mean that my opinion of your opinions is worthless as well? Of course not, because you see the fact remains, you've given me two worthless opinions as evidence to base my opinion on.

Have a nice day.

A valid argument consists of a set of true premises that support a particular conclusion. Stating an opinion, i.e. a particular conclusion, without evidence, i.e. a set of true premises that support this conclusion, is worthless, i.e. is not a valid argument. Nice try.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Is playing an idiot easy for you?

Only when I'm engaging in conversation/debate with people who aren't that intelligent.

Have a nice day.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Is playing an idiot easy for you?

What makes you think he is playing?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
What makes you think he is playing? Hmm, true.

- from page 2 in GODLESS: The Curch of Liberalism by Ann Coulter

"If people are born gay, why hasn't Darwinism weeded out people who don't reproduce?"

What has the one to do with the other? Homosexuals can reproduce.
Also, it might be a mixture of genes. And generally recessive, with that not possible to be "weeded out". All in all a stupid question. That doesn't mean that I think it is Genetic, but it doesn't prove anything,


"And if gays can't change, who do liberals think child-molesters can?"

On the one hand that are two different things. But even then, do liberals really think you can "cure" paedophiles. Or that you can convince them to not answer to those urges?

Originally posted by Darth Callous
- from page 2 in GODLESS: The Curch of Liberalism by Ann Coulter



A book of HATRED written by a Hateful Woman. Doesn't seem to relevant when it comes to Civil Rights.

WOW, I REALLY WANNA READ THAT !!!!!! I think the title "Godless" was meant to describe Ann Coulter herself. IF God is a god of LOVE, then Ann Coulter is his antithesis.





Secondly, most Peadophiles are STRAIGHT.....the minority of them are Gay. Get your facts straight. No pun intended.

Pedophilia and Homosexuality are NOT the same thing, so stop cheap-shooting with that kind of INVALID argument