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

So you could not have come up with a better thread title or something more simple like "Homosexuality?"

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
So you could not have come up with a better thread title or something more simple like "Homosexuality?"



I had some very specific questions.

You really think a generic one-word title would have reflected everything I'm asking better than the current one does?

Yes because all your questions could be asked in the thread.

jjPQ_jVlEnQ

Unfortunate title; that's a pretty amazing video you posted.

He voiced one idea I'd given thought to myself:

If homosexuality is something quite separate from depression, etcetera, if said mental stress, depression, etcetera, is due to perceived rejection by American society, shouldn't you expect countries in Europe to have "happier" populations?

That is, shouldn't rates of depression among people who identify as homosexual
match the rates of depression of those who identify as heterosexual?
Instead of far exceeding those of heterosexuals?

Especially in a country like the Netherlands, where people who identify themselves as gay are accepted? And where gay "marriage" has been legal for a decade now?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Unfortunate title; that's a pretty amazing video you posted.

He voiced one idea I'd given thought to myself:

If homosexuality is something quite separate from depression, etcetera, if said mental stress, depression, etcetera, is due to perceived rejection by American society, shouldn't you expect countries in Europe to have "happier" populations?

That is, shouldn't rates of depression among people who identify as homosexual
match the rates of depression of those who identify as heterosexual?
Instead of far exceeding those of heterosexuals?

Especially in a country like the Netherlands, where people who identify themselves as gay are accepted? And where gay "marriage" has been legal for a decade now?

Interesting. So gay people, even in countries where gay-culture is widely accepted and seen as normal, still have mental health issues?

Are there any statistics of depression rate for gays in an accepting area vs. like, gays in Tennessee?

According to blue there are.

Source needed though.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Unfortunate title; that's a pretty amazing video you posted.

He voiced one idea I'd given thought to myself:

If homosexuality is something quite separate from depression, etcetera, if said mental stress, depression, etcetera, is due to perceived rejection by American society, shouldn't you expect countries in Europe to have "happier" populations?

That is, shouldn't rates of depression among people who identify as homosexual
match the rates of depression of those who identify as heterosexual?
Instead of far exceeding those of heterosexuals?

Especially in a country like the Netherlands, where people who identify themselves as gay are accepted? And where gay "marriage" has been legal for a decade now?
Don't kid yourself, legal recognition doesn't immediately translate to full acceptance. There are still plenty of bigots even in a country like the Netherlands, as well as an underlying sense among many people (including many homosexuals) that homosexuality is somehow unnatural.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Unfortunate title; that's a pretty amazing video you posted.

He voiced one idea I'd given thought to myself:

If homosexuality is something quite separate from depression, etcetera, if said mental stress, depression, etcetera, is due to perceived rejection by American society, shouldn't you expect countries in Europe to have "happier" populations?

That is, shouldn't rates of depression among people who identify as homosexual
match the rates of depression of those who identify as heterosexual?
Instead of far exceeding those of heterosexuals?

Especially in a country like the Netherlands, where people who identify themselves as gay are accepted? And where gay "marriage" has been legal for a decade now? he's a comedian.... he's trolling for lulz... just thought i'd let you know what you're cosigning

Originally posted by red g jacks
he's a comedian.... he's trolling for lulz... just thought i'd let you know what you're cosigning

True enough, and I thank you for the cautionary note, but, there's a catch ...

... he's trolling by using TRUE statistics.

That comedian explains even in his descriptions of the act that his purpose was to make the audience as uncomfortable as possible.

(Obviously he succeeded -- ~20% of the room cleared out before his act was over.)

The comedian also had the serious point to make that there are some subjects that people generally thought of as liberal are unwilling to explore even as they ask for tolerance and fair-mindedness from others.

He doesn't make it easy by giving false information, however.
Nearly every statement he makes has a reasonable amount of evidence to back it up.


No, I wasn't joking in the least, that really WAS a remarkable clip you submitted, one which makes points worth viewing and researching.

Thank you for citing some of your points.



But what I take away from this is gay women are okay but gay men aren't?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
True enough, and I thank you for the cautionary note, but, there's a catch ...

... he's trolling by using TRUE statistics.

That comedian explains even in his descriptions of the act that his purpose was to make the audience as uncomfortable as possible.

(Obviously he succeeded -- ~20% of the room cleared out before his act was over.)

The comedian also had the serious point to make that there are some subjects that people generally thought of as liberal are unwilling to explore even as they ask for tolerance and fair-mindedness from others.

He doesn't make it easy by giving false information, however.
Nearly every statement he makes has a reasonable amount of evidence to back it up.


No, I wasn't joking in the least, that really WAS a remarkable clip you submitted, one which makes points worth viewing and researching. alright. well here's another remarkable video for you

klQfRznxP2E

Originally posted by |King Joker|
Are there any statistics of depression rate for gays in an accepting area vs. like, gays in Tennessee?

I do remember a story about how when 'anti-bullying stuff isn't allowed to specific protect gay kids/don't say gay' rules were passed in a city, the suicide rate significantly went up in the school districts. It's hard to find the articles from a few years back but, yes, there's an effect.


Oh, and the Mormon church had to re-examine it's stance after Mormon parents who'd lost kids confronted some of the church leadership.

Article on high suicide rate among gay Mormon youths

Originally posted by red g jacks

alright. well here's another remarkable video for you ...




I can only assume you're trying to use the tactic of "poisoning the well" with this last submission. But the quality of one video has little if anything to do with the quality of this more recently submitted video of yours.

Trying to say it does would be like rating the song "More than Words" by Extreme on, say, the title of the album it appeared in. Or the Sophie B. Hawkins lullaby "As I Lay Me Down", a loving homage to her father, on the basis of the OTHER song she was once famous for.

Won't work.
Those were real stats the comic used in the FIRST video you presented, and they deserve to be given serious discussion.

Originally posted by dadudemon


Thank you for citing some of your points.



But what I take away from this is gay women are okay but gay men aren't?


The page I linked to actually had several studies, not just one. What I presented for you earlier were successful actual suicides. It is merely the most extreme indicator of depression. It is hardly the only one. If you'd read a little further, for instance, you'd have found the following ...


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In contrast to the data on death by suicide, a relationship between sexual orientation and nonfatal suicidal behavior has been observed worldwide (Mathy, 2002a) ...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662085/#R73






Having said that, however, yes, overall, there DO seem to be at least SOME gender differences among the groups. Indeed, it's easy to see where that comic, in reporting true facts, got his statistics of "6 times more likely", etcetera from:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since the early 1990s, population-based surveys of U.S. adolescents that have included questions about sexual orientation have consistently found rates of reported suicide attempts to be two to seven times higher in high school students who identify as LGB, compared to those who describe themselves as heterosexual (DuRant, Krowchuk, & Sinal, 1998; Falkner & Cranston, 1998; Garofalo, Wolf, Kessel, et al., 1998; Garofalo, Wolf, Winssow, et al., 1999; Remafedi, 2002; Russell & Joyner, 2001).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662085/#R73






Also:


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using another population-based approach, a longitudinal study of a large New Zealand birth cohort found that at age 21, those who identified as LGB were six times more likely than those who identified as heterosexual to report one or more lifetime suicide attempts (Fergusson, Horwood, & Beautrais, 1999). When interviewed again at age 25, LGB individuals in this cohort reported a significantly higher rate of suicide attempts since age 21 than did heterosexual respondents (Fergusson, Horwood, Ridder, & Beautrais, 2005).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662085/#R73




Finally:



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many of the studies that have investigated suicide attempts in LGB groups have also measured suicidal ideation, with combined results showing LGB respondents to be twice as likely as comparable heterosexual respondents to report suicidal ideation (King et al., 2008). Several studies have reported that the gender pattern for suicidal ideation is opposite that for suicide attempts, with risk of suicidal ideation higher among lesbian/bisexual women and risk of suicide attempts higher among gay/bisexual men. One large-scale U.S. survey (Gilman et al., 2001) found a three times higher rate of reported suicidal ideation in lesbian/bisexual women compared to heterosexual women, but no higher rate in gay/bisexual compared to heterosexual men. Thus, reported suicidal ideation does not appear to be a stable predictor of LGB suicidal behavior.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662085/#R73

http://gawker.com/ambitiously-homophobic-nebraska-woman-sues-every-gay-on-1702486002


Lol

Originally posted by Lestov16
http://gawker.com/ambitiously-homophobic-nebraska-woman-sues-every-gay-on-1702486002


Lol

She's clearly doing God's work.

Originally posted by dadudemon


Thank you for citing some of your points.



But what I take away from this is gay women are okay but gay men aren't?




------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In contrast to the data on death by suicide, a relationship between sexual orientation and nonfatal suicidal behavior has been observed worldwide ...



a longitudinal study of a large New Zealand birth cohort found that at age 21, those who identified as LGB were six times more likely than those who identified as heterosexual to report one or more lifetime suicide attempts ...



Many of the studies that have investigated suicide attempts in LGB groups have also measured suicidal ideation, with combined results showing LGB respondents to be twice as likely as comparable heterosexual respondents to report suicidal ideation ...



... One large-scale U.S. survey found a three times higher rate of reported suicidal ideation in lesbian/bisexual women compared to heterosexual women ...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662085/#R73

Originally posted by dadudemon

But what I take away from this is gay women are okay but gay men aren't?

Clearly wasn't biased, not at all.

Originally posted by Robtard
Clearly wasn't biased, not at all.




"Biased"?


Where exactly would this bias have a chance to show itself?


They were tallying the suicide deaths of different groups.
Do you think they made up the numbers?


It's fairly well established that there IS a difference among genders in terms of "successful" suicides, and the following suggests a fairly well accepted reason why:



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women who commit suicide use less violent methods, such as drugs and carbon monoxide poisoning, than do men, who more often use violent methods such as guns and hanging. Theories that attempt to explain this finding focus on gender differences in suicidal intent, socialization, emotions, interpersonal relationships, orientation and access to methods, and neurobiological factors. Data from a psychological autopsy study were used to test the theory that women who commit suicide use less violent means because they are less intent on dying. Although women were significantly less likely to use a violent method than men, there was no difference in the lethality of their suicidal intent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PMID: 11079640


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11079640

I have one question. I thought that Sexuality began in the mind?

Originally posted by Stoic
You see here's the thing. Fetuses have been monitored, and it was shown that they masturbate before ever being born. Yes they touch themselves. Sexuality originates from the brain.

There is quite a lot of informative material on this page that I'm posting. The reason that I posted it was because there is a movie on the page that shows some pretty compelling evidence in favor of the researchers working on the project. http://discovermagazine.com/2009/oct/10-where-does-sex-live-in-brain-from-top-to-bottom Babies need pockets or the masturbation talk in the womb, otherwise they just jerk off all the time.

Luttle perverts with their perfect fine tuned motor skills of the arms and hands, always thinking about the snatch they're about to come out of

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I can only assume you're trying to use the tactic of "poisoning the well" with this last submission. But the quality of one video has little if anything to do with the quality of this more recently submitted video of yours.

Trying to say it does would be like rating the song "More than Words" by Extreme on, say, the title of the album it appeared in. Or the Sophie B. Hawkins lullaby "As I Lay Me Down", a loving homage to her father, on the basis of the OTHER song she was once famous for.

Won't work.
Those were real stats the comic used in the FIRST video you presented, and they deserve to be given serious discussion. i don't even know where the stats came from... he's an online troll so he could be making them up for all i know.. if you have the original source then it'd be appreciated if you share it with me...

but i don't dismiss any of the points he made in the first video... there could be a correlation between homosexuality and some other mental illness... that doesn't indicate causation, btw... that's just a basic concept in science: you need more than just an apparent correlation to establish that one is derived from the other. but even if it is a causal relationship...

the last video i posted wasn't an attempt to poison the well.. actually it was just an attempt to share a funny video. but clearly you aren't interested in videos that don't disparage the particular group you are looking to disparage... though i would argue the 2nd video also touched on some points that had a fair amount of truth to them, even if they were presented in a bigoted/offensive/funny way

edit...

VYt1L3LTjnY

Originally posted by red g jacks


the last video i posted wasn't an attempt to poison the well.. actually it was just an attempt to share a funny video.



If that's all it was, I appreciate the attempt.

It might be worthwhile to tell you that, while one of them earned, and still earns, the right to be called "remarkable" by me, I did not find EITHER video particularly funny.

Neither made me laugh, and neither seem particularly humorous to me.

Truthfully, I'd be interested in knowing what percentage of people actually DO find the material and delivery of those 2 clips "funny". I don't imagine it's a particularly high percentage. Certainly most in the audience in the first clip didn't get the joke.

Nevertheless, thank you once again for the attempt.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison


not similar. There far more alcoholics in the world then homosexuals.



~50% in either case.


And with alcoholics the percentage seems to be slightly higher.





Originally posted by Shakyamunison


I am glad to see that you admit that homosexuality is rooted in genetics and not a choice.


I don't see the two concepts as mutually exclusive.

Alcoholism is apparently rooted in genetics, after all. In fact, some studies suggest alcoholism has a stronger claim to genetic heritage than homosexuality does.


Yet Alcoholism is regarded as a choice.

Originally posted by Spawningpool
Is this really where our tax dollars are going?




Governments study just about everything.
Matthew Lesko made a fortune off this realization.




http://borngay.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000019

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-use-disorders/genetics-alcohol-use-disorders

Alcoholism is often cited as a "disease" or "medical condition", seems to imply that the choice is not really a choice, at least in terms of desire to drink and not the actual imbibing.

You're welcome.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison



So, what you are saying is that Alcoholics choose to be Alcoholics?




Alcoholics have a choice as to whether or not they drink, and, if they unwisely choose TO drink, are held fully responsible for anything that might result from their actions.

Will the fact that alcoholism seems to have a strong genetic component be enough to get an alcoholic off if he or she, say, has too much to drink and then tries to drive home and gets into a car crash?


Regardless of how much more difficult it may be for the alcoholic to refuse to drink, regardless of the level of his or her desire, he or she is still held fully responsible.

Ultimately, with the proof being that the drinker is held responsible in the event of complications, both the law and the public at large consider the action of drinking a conscious choice, not a genetic mandate that must be followed.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Alcoholics have a choice as to whether or not they drink, and, if they unwisely choose TO drink, are held fully responsible for anything that might result from their actions.
Are you implying that homosexuals don't have a choice in who they f*ck?

Originally posted by Astner
Are you implying that homosexuals don't have a choice in who they f*ck?

Except that he took care to differentiate between "desire" and "action", that would actually be what people like Robtard are implying, not me.

My point is nearly exactly the opposite.

Because sexual desire likely isn't a choice, action is. eg a gay woman being attracted to other females isn't a choice she can turn on and off, the action of having sex is sometime she can control.

Your notion that sexual attraction is something you control like a light-switch is silly and why people laugh at you

Did you consciously choose to be straight (if you are)?

Originally posted by Robtard
Because sexual desire likely isn't a choice, action is. eg a gay woman being attracted to other females isn't a choice she can turn on and off, the action of having sex is sometime she can control.

Your notion that sexual attraction is something you control like a light-switch is silly and why people laugh at you

Did you consciously choose to be straight (if you are)?



I don't recall ever likening sexual attraction to a light switch.

Is desire something malleable, however? Something that can be influenced?

I believe that it is. Most people, when they're being honest, would probably agree. In fact, in one of the links I provided earlier today, one of the researchers state nearly exactly that, attributing the non-genetic factors to be due to "environmental influences".


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Dean Byrd, PhD, Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of Utah School of Medicine, in his Sep. 2, 2004 article in Meridian Magazine titled "Born That Way? Facts and Fiction About Homosexuality," wrote:
"Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard who focused on identical twins, non-identical twins, non-adopted siblings and adopted siblings... found a 52% concordance rate for the identical twins which means that for every homosexual twin, the chances were about 50% that his twin would also be homosexual...
If there is something in the genetic code that makes an individual homosexual, why did not all of the identical twins become homosexual since they have the exact same genetic endowment?... Some comparative data on twin studies the concordance rate for identical twins on measures of extroversion is 50%, religiosity is 50%, divorce is 52%, racial prejudice and bigotry is 58%. From the Bailey and Pillard study one has to conclude that environmental influences play a strong role in the development of homosexuality."

Sep. 2, 2004 - A. Dean Byrd, PhD

http://borngay.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000019

Recall harder

Environment may factor in, but that wasn't the initial point so nice deflection again

I read the first two sentences, then decided to stop and go on about my life as and don't need yet another round of "gays are mental and they disgust me".

Or to sum it up even shorter: TL;DR

As far as your deflection, you deflected again, good job

Originally posted by Robtard



I read the first two sentences, then decided to stop ...





Finally you were honest enough to admit you were only going off your preconceived notions about what you THOUGHT I might have written in this thread, and not anything you actually examined.

Which would explain why your responses have been around three sentences throughout this thread.

Good to know. Thanks for clearing that up.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Alcoholics have a choice as to whether or not they drink, and, if they unwisely choose TO drink, are held fully responsible for anything that might result from their actions.

Will the fact that alcoholism seems to have a strong genetic component be enough to get an alcoholic off if he or she, say, has too much to drink and then tries to drive home and gets into a car crash?


Regardless of how much more difficult it may be for the alcoholic to refuse to drink, regardless of the level of his or her desire, he or she is still held fully responsible.

Ultimately, with the proof being that the drinker is held responsible in the event of complications, both the law and the public at large consider the action of drinking a conscious choice, not a genetic mandate that must be followed.

You are making a bad comparison. The rest of your logic (illogic) doesn't work.

Alcoholism is an over sensitivity to alcohol while homosexuality is a type of sexuality. Everyone has a sexuality, but everyone does not drink alcohol.

You can compare Alcoholism to Diabetes or heterosexuality to homosexuality, but you only get nonsense when you compare homosexuality to Alcoholism. It would be like trying to compare Diabetes to heterosexuality.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Finally you were honest enough to admit you were only going off your preconceived notions about what you THOUGHT I might have written in this thread, and not anything you actually examined.

Which would explain why your responses have been around three sentences throughout this thread.

Good to know. Thanks for clearing that up.

Nice strawman tactic

Originally posted by Robtard
Nice strawman tactic

That is all he has.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is all he has.

It's rather sad and pathetic when people need to resort to strawmen bashing

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is all he has.

No, in this one there are actually quite a few stats and studies to back up my assertions.

Which is probably why you are not actually addressing anything I've presented.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
No, in this one there are actually quite a few stats and studies to back up my assertions.

Which is probably why you are not actually addressing anything I've presented.

It's all nonsense. You can have all the stats and data in the world, but if your original primus is wrong, then it doesn't matter.

You cannot compare homosexuality to alcoholism.

You get an F!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison


... if your original primus is wrong, then it doesn't matter ...





It actually took me until a few moments ago to figure out what you were trying to type here.

I even looked up the word "primus" on several websites, including Merriam Webster,
which told me that "primus" is the presiding bishop of the Scottish Episcopal Church:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/primus

It actually made me wonder if you had some really profound and unusual truth you were trying to get across.

(Just for a moment, mind you, but it DID make me wonder that.)



Certainly if you're trying to convey the point that relatively minor miscommunication(s) can fairly or unfairly hurt a cause, you provided a good illustration here.

Brace yourself, deflection incoming

Originally posted by red g jacks
jjPQ_jVlEnQ

I love how he owns the hipsters and how some can't even take it and have to walk out. The funny thing is he did it all by mostly just stating facts in a funny way.

I also like how at the end they are whining at him for his hate speech and then tell him to KILL HIMSELF. They call him an internet troll and then respond by acting like internet trolls. Dipshits I swear..

Originally posted by Robtard
Brace yourself, deflection incoming

Is running away considered a deflection?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I'd be interested in knowing what percentage of people actually DO find the material and delivery of those 2 clips "funny". I don't imagine it's a particularly high percentage. yea... i can agree with you there.

On the internet, everything is serious.

Honestly?

Because you seem to think I am a Christian, and don't seem to have been lying or joking when you wrote the following:


Originally posted by Shakyamunison


I use the language and the way I write to get my point out in as few words a possible. I'm not a good speller and sometimes I can't spell the word I want to say, so I say the word I can spell. I am extremely dyslexic, if you talked to me in person you would understand that I do not believe that I am better than you.

I have a lot of pain still in my heart, from the days when I HATED Christians. Talking to you and others is helping me understand this pain. I am sorry if, form time to time, you see the pain in me.


http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=354880&pagenumber=6


Given the above,
and given how often people associate the matters of homosexuality, law, and religion,
and given our posting interactions of the past year or so,

I'm trying to make a reasonable determination of whether you're actually writing what you mean, mean something else but aren't expressing yourself properly,
are writing what you mean but in an unconventional way, or are writing what you mean but with little if any regard to any of the actual information shared in this thread.


You and I are NOT first time poster relating to first time poster on some completely neutral matter, after all.

Our exchanges would look quite different if that were the case.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Honestly?

Because you seem to think I am a Christian, and don't seem to have been lying or joking when you wrote the following:




http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=354880&pagenumber=6


Given the above,
and given how often people associate the matters of homosexuality, law, and religion,
and given our posting interactions of the past year or so,

I'm trying to make a reasonable determination of whether you're actually writing what you mean, mean something else but aren't expressing yourself properly,
are writing what you mean but in an unconventional way, or are writing what you mean but with little if any regard to any of the actual information shared in this thread.


You and I are NOT first time poster relating to first time poster on some completely neutral matter, after all.

Our exchanges would look quite different if that were the case.

STOP taking things I've said out of context. That quote was from 2005 on a completely different topic.

I can tell you what is going on here. You are a TROLL!

You are pretending to not understand so you can try and paint me in a bad light. That is a personal attack!

Sense you are off topic, If God told you to fly an airplane into a building, would you?

Stupid Troll!

Originally posted by Stoic
They don't? Hold on a second now. There are many people that are born and aren't alcoholics, but later on in life gain a taste for alcohol.
Not true. Alcoholism is a genetic disease. You do not have to drink alcohol to be an alcoholic.
Originally posted by Stoic
many of these people become alcoholics, and it was by choice. Am I right? You've confused me.
They were always alcoholics, and they will always be alcoholics.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison


STOP taking things I've said out of context. That quote was from 2005 on a completely different topic.



Only someone unfamiliar with your posting history would think that statement was out of context.
On the other hand, I imagine most people ARE unfamiliar with your posting history, and that's precisely why I posted that.


Your query about flying a plane into a building suggests you still hold animosity toward people who believe in an Abrahamic God, for instance.

And a lot of it.


Originally posted by Shakyamunison

I can tell you what is going on here ...


You can tell me a lot of things, but that doesn't make them so.

I will apologize for the way that sounds despite your responses here, though.

For you might genuinely believe otherwise, and it is actually not my intention to antagonize you.


Originally posted by Shakyamunison

You are making a bad comparison. The rest of your logic (illogic) doesn't work.

Alcoholism is an over sensitivity to alcohol while homosexuality is a type of sexuality. Everyone has a sexuality, but everyone does not drink alcohol.




I don't think I'm making a bad comparison, and most of the reasons for thinking that I gave in my opening post.

Besides this, you yourself are making a bad analogy.
That sensitivity sounds suspiciously like the low tolerance mentioned in one of the preceding articles that certain ethnic groups possess.
It's theorized to result in LOWER incidence of alcoholism, however, not more.


Moreover, you're trying to compare desire to an action.
If you want your analogy to hold, you should be saying something like, "everyone engages in sexual relations (action)".
I think you'll realize the argument you're trying to make is flawed if you actually do that, however.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Only someone unfamiliar with your posting history would think that statement was out of context.
On the other hand, I imagine most people ARE unfamiliar with your posting history, and that's precisely why I posted that.
It was a post from 10 years ago. What are you? Stupid?
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Your query about flying a plane into a building suggests you still hold animosity toward people who believe in an Abrahamic God, for instance.
I hold animosity toward stupid trolls like you!
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
You can tell me a lot of things, but that doesn't make them so.
You are a stupid troll!
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I will apologize for the way that sounds despite your responses here, though.
Are you apologizing for taking my quotes out of context? I doubt it.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
For you might genuinely believe otherwise, and it is actually not my intention to antagonize you.
This is not the first time you have done this. I have told you over and over again not to take my quotes out of context. Not only are you trying to antagonize me, you are trying to slander me.

Please stop!

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
...I don't think I'm making a bad comparison, and most of the reasons for thinking that I gave in my opening post.

Besides this, you yourself are making a bad analogy.
That sensitivity sounds suspiciously like the low tolerance mentioned in one of the preceding articles that certain ethnic groups possess.
It's theorized to result in LOWER incidence of alcoholism, however, not more.


Moreover, you're trying to compare desire to an action.
If you want your analogy to hold, you should be saying something like, "everyone engages in sexual relations (action)".
I think you'll realize the argument you're trying to make is flawed if you actually do that, however.

Homosexuality is not an action. Homosexuality is a sexual preference just like heterosexuality.

A heterosexual virgin who has never engage in sex, is still be a heterosexual. The same is true with homosexuals.

sexual preference:

The preference one shows by having a sexual interest in members of the same, opposite, or either sex.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexual+preference

There needs to be honest dialogue here. If merely asking these questions makes one "homophobic", "racist", or any other "-ic" or "-ist", you need to seriously examine your definition of these words and ask yourself how employing terms like this against others does not equate to attempted censorship.

The fact is, nearly everything I've written to this point in this thread is verifiable, including, and perhaps especially, my opening post.

If you disagree, challenge it, SHOW me where I'm wrong -- that's what this thread is for.

I GET that people have charged emotions over this issue, but does that very fact mean we should not discuss what is and isn't true of what people on either side have to say?


I have to say, Shake, I appreciate the article interview you shared.

However, I find it to be largely a concerted appeal to emotion.

No one is denying that many of these people feel desire and pain.
However, such is not exclusive to this particular group, and comparisons CAN be made with the other group implied to be featured in this thread.

In fact, we can use those quotes with a bare minimum of substitutions to illustrate that, and such might make the point more clearly.

So, let's put the disclaimer that no single person is meant to be understood to have said any particular sentence below. Even so, almost any honest and informed reader will recognize this IS the reality for many people who struggle with alcoholism:




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Need More Proof Being Alcoholic Isn't a Choice? Here It Is!


- "Being alcoholic is not a choice. No one would choose to be alcoholic and go through all the ridicule and judgement."
- "It's far from a choice. It's how you are born. You cannot control how you crave alcohol."
- "Of course it's not a choice! When did you choose to be someone who can enjoy beer with his friends at a game, have a glass of wine at family dinner, celebrate with champagne as part of a fine meal, or go to parties and enjoy drinking in moderation? Why would you want to throw yourself against the current of society?"
- "Nobody would choose to become a second class citizen and to risk dying in a car accident or becoming a murderer and not be accepted by their own family because they couldn't control their craving."
- "Growing up I would have chosen to have a sober father if I could have so the beatings would have stopped."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You've probably not had much experience with alcoholism if that's true:


Craig Ferguson speaks as a Recovering Alcoholic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZVWIELHQQY
(12 min 30 sec)

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
You've probably not had much experience with alcoholism if that's true:


No, not al all (sarcasm): Both my brother and sister are alcoholics.

There's a portion of homosexuality that is NON-genetic.
If it is approximately 50% genetic, that implies that environment comprises the other 50%.

Environment includes social conditions as well as physical ones.
It includes how we're educated, the language we use, and what we view.

I will admit I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable with one thing, and that's the degree to which language, perception, and the retelling of actual events seem to be being reshaped by media.

If there's anywhere where this is more apparent than affairs involving the LGBTQ movement, whether that's homosexuality or any other topic closely associated with them, well, I'm more in the dark than I thought.

Only a few days ago, for instance, hearing the name over the radio or something, I was curious as to who "Caitlyn Jenner" was. They had mentioned the name in connection with Bruce Jenner, of course, famous decathlete from the late 1970s.
I naively thought, "That must be the name of Jenner's wife or daughter".

Nope. Not the name of wife or daughter.
It's the name Jenner calls himself now, and apparently most of the U.S. media.

Bruce Jenner is a well-known male athlete and the father of at least 4 kids.
But here now is the current entry on Bruce Jenner in Wikipedia, the go-to source for information for people nationwide:



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caitlyn Jenner (born William Bruce Jenner on October 28, 1949) is a 1976 Olympic track and field champion and American television personality. She came out as a trans woman in 2015, previously being known as Bruce Jenner.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caitlyn_Jenner


THAT's disturbing. To think a fact as basic as the gender of a person famous worldwide can be altered through media retelling.


I wonder to myself if things like this really do not enter the consciousness of anyone else, but then I recall a definition I'd heard in relation to paradigm shift:


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes the convincing force is just time itself and the human toll it takes, Kuhn said, using a quote from Max Planck: "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift


Problem is, the above also describes how convincing LIES proceed.

Almost any teacher of propaganda will tell you that the younger you start with your audience the better.

Can anyone giving credit to that idea at all NOT consider that the colors the LGBTQ community have chosen are those of a child's Crayolas?

Is it mere coincidence that, if you search for the phrase "gay marriage" today on Google you get a colorful image that looks like a string of children's paper dolls?


For that matter, how is information like the following to be considered?
If Kuhn's statement is true, what does this imply?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the 2011 PRRI survey, views on same-sex marriage are evenly divided among the U.S. population as a whole: 47 percent of Americans favor it and 47 percent oppose it. Interestingly, this national survey reveals that 62 percent of Millennials (age 18 to 29) favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry. In contrast, only 31 percent of senior citizens (age 65 and older) report favoring same-sex marriage. The fact that Millennials are twice as likely as senior citizens to support same-sex marriage provides important evidence of a generation gap on this hot-button issue.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/01/4435/

This thread is a real shitshow, but my favorite part is at the end of page 2 where the OP at one point accidentally claims that 50% of people are homosexual...


(The stock response here that you GDF regulars missed is that it's a mistake to make a value judgment based on the degree to which sexuality is genetically predetermined. That mistake is rooted in a misunderstanding of the way that biologists talk about a trait being determined by the environment. But more importantly, even a world in which sexuality was wholly volitional (in the radical freedom sense) would not be justified in vilifying homosexuality simply because of deviation from some established norm. So this clown can gtfo.)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
STOP taking things I've said out of context. That quote was from 2005 on a completely different topic.

I can tell you what is going on here. You are a TROLL!

You are pretending to not understand so you can try and paint me in a bad light. That is a personal attack!

Sense you are off topic, If God told you to fly an airplane into a building, would you?

Stupid Troll!

Wait a second. You're accusing someone of taking things that you've written out of context? This here seems to be the pendulum swinging the other way, now doesn't it? How does that irony taste?

Originally posted by Stoic
Wait a second. You're accusing someone of taking things that you've written out of context? This here seems to be the pendulum swinging the other way, now doesn't it? How does that irony taste?

It was a post from ten years ago and had nothing to do with this topic. I have never taken any of your posts from years ago and tried to insert them into the current topic.

I don't think you really know what you are talking about.