sexual orientation biological afterall . . .?

Originally posted by .😖pace Opera:.
Three main studies are cited by "gay rights" activists in support of their argument—Hamer's X-chromosome research, LeVay's study of the hypothalamus, and Bailey and Pillard's study of identical twins who were homosexuals.

In all three cases, the researchers had a vested interest in obtaining a certain outcome because they were homosexuals themselves. More importantly, their studies did not stand up to scientific scrutiny by other researchers. Also, "the media typically do not explain the methodological flaws in these studies, and they typically oversimplify the results". There is no reliable evidence to date that homosexual behavior is determined by a person's genes.

Fallacies in these statements

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

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. Until someone lets us cut open living gay men we will be unable to measure the difference at differing stages in life. There is no way that we can do the experiment prior to the individual dying, nor can we do it before a person makes his sexual orientation known.

"The media typically do not explain the methodological flaws in these studies, and they typically oversimplify the results." They do not do this with many studies they post, this would reduce the impact of their stories. Also, Christian media does the exact same thing. When was the last time you read about some Christian scientist doing something and a Christian media source explaining "the methodological flaws in these studies."

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...

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"[/quotes]

Close horses? Some little known bit of old English professor?

[quote]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?

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

You see how it works Mister?

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

*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.

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.

Secular psychologists assure us that 'children raised in lesbian and gay households are similar to children raised in heterosexual households on characteristics such as intelligence, development, moral judgments, self-concepts, social competence and gender identity'.

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 [b]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:

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

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.

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.

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 Imperial_Samura
Good for you.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
This coming from the guy who reckons most abstainers are to ugly to have sex

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.

I was trying to point out that these people are just hypocritcal Bible thumpers, who believe in a 5 thousand year old book that has been found to be historically accurate by most modern theologians.

these people brag about being reborn abstinents to cover up the fact that they can't get any because there not good looking anymore and full of STD's. Nobody wants to have sex with them. that's why they CLAIM to be abstinent. Once again, you selectively cut and paste what I've said, and subjectively present it. Refuting my arguments with logical ones is often the sign of the weaker person..who has a weaker argument.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
every heterosexual and homosexual person on this forum is your enemy, that most heterosexuals are in some way homophobic and so on.

your argument is sh*t!!

I've opened up a thread for LBGT people in this forum and am generally respected by the homosexual AND heterosexual community in KMC. and I've also helped out homeless crippled people in real life on the streets who lost their colastamy bags, by giving them leftover grocery bags that I got from 7 Eleven.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
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.

Firstly..I don't CHOOSE to do anything. I was born the way I am.
Secondly, i was talking about regional dialects and how teh historical context of words is different from what they are now..read the next response and I'll go into full detail..

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
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.

Jeans were first created in Genoa, Italy when the city was an independent Republic and a naval power. The first jeans were made for the Genoese Navy because it required all-purpose trousers for its sailors that could be worn wet or dry, and whose legs could easily be rolled up to wear while swabbing the deck. Gênes is the name of a département of the First French Empire in present Italy. It was named after the city Genoa.

The French word for these trousers was very similar to their word for Genoa; this is where we get the term 'jeans' today.

So anyway..the english word genes is actually derived from the italian word Genoa..the english used to spell the word genes too but American's got the word and started spelling it JEANS.

😂

you know nothing about the english language, and I am an english teacher.

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?

^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.