~50% for both? Has homosexuality been proven MORE genetically based than alcoholism?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

This is absolutely stupid on your part. Why would you spend so much time thinking about a typo?

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.

Originally posted by Stoic
many of these people become alcoholics, and it was by choice. Am I right? You've confused me. 😕

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.

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.

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

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I will apologize for the way that sounds despite your responses here, though.

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

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.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
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.

Let's assume what you're saying is true for a moment, for the sake of discussion.

Then kindly explain the following excerpt to me:

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

I tried to find some mention of Scottie and [former Women's Basketball star Sheryl] Swoopes’ breakup, with no luck. But given some of the things Sheryl said when she came out, I guess I shouldn’t be as surprised as I am that her sexuality is fluid.

Swoopes never accepted the notion that she was born gay. Nor did she think that being married to a man meant she was bisexual. Outsports.com talked to her a few days after her ESPN coming out interview.

“I’m not bisexual,” she said. “I don’t think I was born [gay]. Again, it was a choice. As I got older, once I got divorced, it wasn’t like I was looking for another relationship, man or woman. I just got feelings for another woman. I didn’t understand it at the time, because I had never had those feelings before.”

She did, however, eventually get comfortable with calling herself gay. “After being [with Alisa] for three to four years and not having feelings for another man is when I understood who I really was.”

Or, more accurately, who she was at the time.

I don’t blame Swoopes for not having a sort of reverse coming out party. This news will bring up a lot of feelings in the lesbian community, some of which will not be pleasant. But Sheryl has no regrets about her relationship with Scotty.

“There is nothing I’ve been through in my life that I regret, or that I would go back and change,” she told Mechelle Voepel. “I feel like everything that happened — personally and professionally — I went through for a reason, and I learned from those things.”

Admittedly, I am not thrilled to learn that Sheryl is with a man. I don’t feel betrayed or anything, just a little sad — not for her, but for myself. Whenever an admired woman comes out as a lesbian, our community benefits. We like knowing that someone who is talented, respected and beautiful is a member of our tribe.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.afterellen.com/people/89989-sheryl-swoopes-comes-out-as-nsgaa-not-so-gay-after-all

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

I don’t know, I’m heterosexual, and I was born that way. At no point did I ever choose to be attacked to women. You will have to ask someone who is gay. Here is what some gay people say…

Need More Proof Being Gay Isn't a Choice? Here It Is!
…Here are some of the responses Thompson received:
- "Being gay is not a choice. No one would choose to be gay and go through all the ridicule."
- "It's far from a choice. It's how you are born. You cannot control who you develop feelings for and who you find attractive."
- "Of course it's not a choice! When did you choose to be straight? Why would you want to throw yourself against the current of society?"
- "Nobody would choose to become a second class citizen and to get death threats and not be accepted by their own family."
- "With such an anti-homosexuality society, I'd rather choose to be straight (sadly saying). But I'm proud of myself for being gay, for being me."
- "Growing up I would have chosen straight if I could so the ass kicking would have stopped."
There you have it, right from the very people who know better than anyone else because they are gay and they didn't choose…

Don’t let your homophobia blind you.

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."

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

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
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.

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

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

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
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?

The rest of the post didn’t make any sense.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

The rest of the post didn’t make any sense.

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/

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

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

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
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.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
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.

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.