PDA

View Full Version : Debunking the Gay Brain theory and other junk science studies



Pages : [1] 2

texmaster
12-11-2013, 11:21 AM
The far left has been trying to decades to claim homosexuality is natural or genetic when no study has ever proven that claim.

We've seen them all from the failed fruit fly study to the twins study and now the so called "brain" study.


But let's hear from the researchers themselves when they discovered the far left gay movement was lying about their findings.


A common flaw in interpreting “gay gene” studies is the supposition that supposed differences in the brain are genetic in origin rather than the result of behavioral change.

Dr. Savic “did not want to create the impression that the study proves sexual response is not learned. In fact, [the Swedish research team] seems pretty open to plausible interpretations. However, at present, from this study, nothing definitive can be concluded,” Throckmorton said.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2006/05/36108/#D7k0WV4wRRlq3e1I.99

A common flaw in interpreting “gay gene” studies is the supposition that supposed differences in the brain are genetic in origin rather than the result of behavioral change.Dr. Savic “did not want to create the impression that the study proves sexual response is not learned. In fact, [the Swedish research team] seems pretty open to plausible interpretations. However, at present, from this study, nothing definitive can be concluded,” Throckmorton said.



So once again the junk science studies don't hold up to scrutiny because scientists cannot prove that the changes they discovered are genetic or behavior aka learned.

In the scientist's own words

It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain … Since I looked at adult brains, we don’t know if the differences I found were there at birth, or if they appeared later.


There is no study on the myth of the gay gene that can either prove it exists or even prove the findings they conclude are actually caused by genetics and not learned behavior.

Sorry gay mafia, you'll have to find another way to lie about science for your new religion.

Codename Section
12-11-2013, 11:37 AM
texmaster

thank you for taking this to a new thread. Much appreciated.

Chris
12-11-2013, 11:59 AM
The far left has been trying to decades to claim homosexuality is natural or genetic when no study has ever proven that claim.

Science doesn't prove things to begin with.


But there is no single gene for anything.

nic34
12-11-2013, 12:01 PM
Sexual preference is not a choice.

Try it if you don't believe it.

Codename Section
12-11-2013, 12:04 PM
Sexual preference is not a choice.

Try it if you don't believe it.

No. I'll take your word on it.

Mister D
12-11-2013, 12:04 PM
We don't kow why people are gay. The end.

That said, "far left" regimes were traditionally moralisitic. Homosexuals were marginalized in the Eastern Bloc, for example, and among western Marxists as well. In fact, they sounded a lot like the family values conservatives we see today in the US. Things began to change only after the great compromise (i.e. when central planning was abandoned and a limited market accepted in return for a robust welfare state). The left has abandoned its original base (i.e. the western working classes).

Chris
12-11-2013, 12:05 PM
Sexual preference is not a choice.

Try it if you don't believe it.



Bisexuals?


To me 'choice' is ambiguous. You may not choose your sexual preference but you do choose to act on it.

Mister D
12-11-2013, 12:05 PM
Sexual preference is not a choice.

Try it if you don't believe it.

Pedophiles can't help it either.

Mister D
12-11-2013, 12:05 PM
Bisexuals?


To me 'choice' is ambiguous. You may not choose your sexual preference but you do choose to act on it.

Of course you do.

Chris
12-11-2013, 12:07 PM
We don't kow why people are gay. The end.

That said, "far left" regimes were traditionally moralisitic. Homosexuals were marginalized in the Eastern Bloc, for example, and among western Marxists as well. In fact, they sounded a lot like the family values conservatives we see today in the US. Things began to change only after the great compromise (i.e. when central planning was abandoned and a limited market accepted in return for a robust welfare state). The left has abandoned its original base (i.e. the western working classes).



Succinct.

Far as I know science is unsettled whether it's inherited or learned and best it can say is it's probably both. In short, science doesn't know.

The Xl
12-11-2013, 12:09 PM
No one has ever proven it's not genetic. The fact that pretty much every gay person claims its genetic, and the fact that random teens and whatnot have killed themselves over being shamed because of it is the only thing we have to go on.

Codename Section
12-11-2013, 12:10 PM
I don't think it matters why people are gay. Choice or not choice, I don't think the government should do anything special for anyone and I don't think I need to know.

I don't care what gays do. I won't go to a pride parade. I don't watch Rupauls show unless forced (thanks al) and I don't like techno music.

I would like if the same gays that say its something they were born would respect that straight is something I'm born with instead of making eyes at me or hitting on me at the gym.

Mister D
12-11-2013, 12:11 PM
Succinct.

Far as I know science is unsettled whether it's inherited or learned and best it can say is it's probably both. In short, science doesn't know.

Right. Human sexuality is pretty complex stuff. Certain genes may be involved but we don't know if the genes express themselves in particular environmental conditions or what. The interplay between the two isn't understood at the momment.

texmaster
12-11-2013, 02:36 PM
Science doesn't prove things to begin with.


But there is no single gene for anything.

So science doesn't prove how we procreate? That's still a theory for you?

texmaster
12-11-2013, 02:37 PM
We don't kow why people are gay. The end.

We know it hasn't been proven to be genetic or natural yet the far left makes false comparisons to race and gender every day in their arguments for gay marriage.

KC
12-11-2013, 02:38 PM
We don't kow why people are gay. The end.

That said, "far left" regimes were traditionally moralisitic. Homosexuals were marginalized in the Eastern Bloc, for example, and among western Marxists as well. In fact, they sounded a lot like the family values conservatives we see today in the US. Things began to change only after the great compromise (i.e. when central planning was abandoned and a limited market accepted in return for a robust welfare state). The left has abandoned its original base (i.e. the western working classes).

By "far left" I think he's just referring to American progressives.

texmaster
12-11-2013, 02:39 PM
No one has ever proven it's not genetic.


LOL. You just proved my point.


The fact that pretty much every gay person claims its genetic, and the fact that random teens and whatnot have killed themselves over being shamed because of it is the only thing we have to go on.

Their reasoning for killing themselves is pure speculation by you. Why should I change the law when you've admitted there is no evidence being gay is natural or genetic any more than people who make any other life choice?

KC
12-11-2013, 02:39 PM
No one has ever proven it's not genetic. The fact that pretty much every gay person claims its genetic, and the fact that random teens and whatnot have killed themselves over being shamed because of it is the only thing we have to go on.

You cannot prove a negative.

texmaster
12-11-2013, 02:41 PM
I don't think it matters why people are gay. Choice or not choice, I don't think the government should do anything special for anyone and I don't think I need to know.

I don't care what gays do. I won't go to a pride parade. I don't watch Rupauls show unless forced (thanks al) and I don't like techno music.

I would like if the same gays that say its something they were born would respect that straight is something I'm born with instead of making eyes at me or hitting on me at the gym.

It matters because it goes to the heart of the arguments used for gay marriage which they claim is a "right" falsely equating it to the true civil rights movement which was based on race and gender. Since they cannot prove it to be anything more than a choice there is no reason to change the law and set up special privilege for their specific lifestyle over all other lifestyles that we ban from being married.

Chris
12-11-2013, 02:55 PM
So science doesn't prove how we procreate? That's still a theory for you?

No, it proves nothing. You're conflating facts with doing science.


Your argument seems to be not proving something proves something.

Chris
12-11-2013, 03:00 PM
You cannot prove a negative.

Prove it. :-P

junie
12-11-2013, 03:15 PM
how is a theory, about how any individual's brain may or may not work, relevant to anything political...?

junie
12-11-2013, 03:26 PM
It matters because it goes to the heart of the arguments used for gay marriage which they claim is a "right" falsely equating it to the true civil rights movement which was based on race and gender. Since they cannot prove it to be anything more than a choice there is no reason to change the law and set up special privilege for their specific lifestyle over all other lifestyles that we ban from being married.


you're confused. marriage laws originated in state law.

the 14th amendment doesn't classify which citizens are equal under the law depending upon theories of how their brains work...

that state marriage laws had 'traditionally' gotten away with unchallenged inequality, does not change the meaning of the 14th!




"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

texmaster
12-11-2013, 03:56 PM
No, it proves nothing. You're conflating facts with doing science.


Your argument seems to be not proving something proves something.


Then you need to re-read 5th grade sex ed if you think procreation hasn't been proven.

texmaster
12-11-2013, 03:57 PM
how is a theory, about how any individual's brain may or may not work, relevant to anything political...?


Its the LACK of proof that being gay is genetic or natural that is the point because it goes to the heart of the arguments for gay marriage which rely on false comparisons to race and gender.

Chris
12-11-2013, 03:58 PM
Then you need to re-read 5th grade sex ed if you think procreation hasn't been proven.

And you a simple textbook on what science is. Because you haven't a clue.

texmaster
12-11-2013, 03:59 PM
you're confused. marriage laws originated in state law.

the 14th amendment doesn't classify which citizens are equal under the law depending upon theories of how their brains work...

that state marriage laws had 'traditionally' gotten away with unchallenged inequality, does not change the meaning of the 14th!


the 14th amendment NEVER mentions sexual preference anywhere. You are inserting words that do not exist.




"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


By that moronic logic ANY and ALL sexual preferences regardless of the laws against them could not be denied marriage. But you didn't think that through did you?

junie
12-11-2013, 04:30 PM
the 14th amendment NEVER mentions sexual preference anywhere. You are inserting words that do not exist.




By that moronic logic ANY and ALL sexual preferences regardless of the laws against them could not be denied marriage.

But you didn't think that through did you?



of course i have... this isn't my first time around this logical block... i didn't 'insert' anything.

as far as your 'moronic logic'.. laws against bestiality and pedophilia exist based on harm.

2 consenting adults = 2 consenting adults...

i'm not one to stop you from petitioning the state to marry your sister, but the state might care about the genetics of the possible offspring.

Ravens Fan
12-11-2013, 04:32 PM
By that moronic logic ANY and ALL sexual preferences regardless of the laws against them could not be denied marriage. But you didn't think that through did you?

Animals and minors cannot consent to sexual activity. Adults can. It's quite simple.

Ravens Fan
12-11-2013, 04:38 PM
It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain … Since I looked at adult brains, we don’t know if the differences I found were there at birth, or if they appeared later.



So in other words, More studies have to be done before we can say for sure. Hardly debunks anything.

Ravi
12-12-2013, 06:09 AM
Its the LACK of proof that being gay is genetic or natural that is the point because it goes to the heart of the arguments for gay marriage which rely on false comparisons to race and gender.
Just like the lack of proof that God exists proves he doesn't exist?

I wonder how those gay animals in the wild became gay? Nurture. :rolleyes:

jillian
12-12-2013, 06:15 AM
Its the LACK of proof that being gay is genetic or natural that is the point because it goes to the heart of the arguments for gay marriage which rely on false comparisons to race and gender.

actually, what the real science has shown is that it is probably a genetic predisposition which has some aspects of "nurture". either way, if you don't wake up every morning deciding not to be gay, then you should assume gays don't get up every morning deciding not to be heterosexual.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/homosexuality-linked-to-genes-ethical-dilemmas-loom-as-genetic-study-of-gays-families-suggests-predisposition-is-inherited-through-mens-mothers-1485079.html

mostly, it's really none of your business what people do in their private lives. the job of the law is to provide the same protections to everyone… even if you don't like them (probably especially if you don't like them since if you liked them, they wouldn't need protection).

texmaster
12-12-2013, 08:21 AM
And you a simple textbook on what science is. Because you haven't a clue.

If you can't even admit science has proven procreation over it being a theory then I can't help you.

texmaster
12-12-2013, 08:25 AM
of course i have... this isn't my first time around this logical block...

could have fooled us.


i didn't 'insert' anything.

yes you did. You inserted homosexuality in the 14th amendment when it is never ever mentioned.


as far as your 'moronic logic'.. laws against bestiality and pedophilia exist based on harm.

And many people make the same arguemnts against gay marriage yet you want those laws banned. What makes your personal preference more important than others?

2 consenting adults = 2 consenting adults... [/quote]

Nowhere in the 14th amendment does it say "two consenting adults"

Once again you are lying about what the 14th ammendment says to insert your personal sexual preference argument.

You can't give any argument where the 14th ammdnemnt applies to gay marriage and have it exclude marriages you don't like based on nothing but your personal opinion.


i'm not one to stop you from petitioning the state to marry your sister, but the state might care about the genetics of the possible offspring.[/QUOTE]

Chris
12-12-2013, 08:25 AM
If you can't even admit science has proven procreation over it being a theory then I can't help you.

Not arguing the facts of procreation, arguing that science isn't in the business of proving facts or anything else for that matter. Science is about making predictive and explanatory models, and either verifying or falsifying them. Proof is for mathematics and logic.

texmaster
12-12-2013, 08:26 AM
Animals and minors cannot consent to sexual activity. Adults can. It's quite simple.

age limitation is never mentioned in the 14th amendment. Its quite simple.

You want to dishonestly set up legal limitations to the 14th amendment while at the same time want to expand its meaning to only include sexual preferences you like.

texmaster
12-12-2013, 08:29 AM
So in other words, More studies have to be done before we can say for sure. Hardly debunks anything.


Do try and keep up.

When someone claims these studies prove homosexuality is natural or genetic it is a lie so knowing it hasn't been proven to be genetic or natural there is no basis in comparing it to the real civil rights movement which is based on race and gender.

texmaster
12-12-2013, 08:30 AM
Just like the lack of proof that God exists proves he doesn't exist?

No one is forcing others to believe God exists. Try again


I wonder how those gay animals in the wild became gay? Nurture. :rolleyes:

LOL By that moronic logic cannibalism and incest are natural as well.

Another liberal who didn't think through their argument. Gotta love it.

texmaster
12-12-2013, 08:31 AM
Not arguing the facts of procreation,

You have been for 2 pages.


arguing that science isn't in the business of proving facts or anything else for that matter. Science is about making predictive and explanatory models, and either verifying or falsifying them. Proof is for mathematics and logic.

To pretend science cannot prove something factual is to deny basic reality. If you can't understand this I can't help you.

Ravi
12-12-2013, 08:33 AM
No one is forcing others to believe God exists. Try again



LOL By that moronic logic cannibalism and incest are natural as well.

Another liberal who didn't think through their argument. Gotta love it.
As a matter of fact, cannibalism and incest are natural. There are reasons to outlaw them, however. You don't really give your responses much thought.

Chris
12-12-2013, 08:33 AM
You have been for 2 pages.



To pretend science cannot prove something factual is to deny basic reality. If you can't understand this I can't help you.



Then tell us one thing science has proven and provide the proof.

Recall, we've been here before and you've failed each time. But here's another chance....

Ravi
12-12-2013, 08:57 AM
btw, here is Slavic's actual conclusion from the study:


The present study shows sex-atypical cerebral asymmetry and functional connections in homosexual subjects. The results cannot be primarily ascribed to learned effects, and they suggest a linkage to neurobiological entities.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/06/13/0801566105.abstract

Anyone with half a brain, pardon the pun, can make the argument that these brain differences are because of homosexuality instead of that homosexuality is the result of brain differences.

The OP seems to think that a world nut daily article has made some point. It hasn't. The AP article WND is having a hissy fit over doesn't appear at the link they give.

Chris
12-12-2013, 09:10 AM
btw, here is Slavic's actual conclusion from the study:


http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/06/13/0801566105.abstract

Anyone with half a brain, pardon the pun, can make the argument that these brain differences are because of homosexuality instead of that homosexuality is the result of brain differences.

The OP seems to think that a world nut daily article has made some point. It hasn't. The AP article WND is having a hissy fit over doesn't appear at the link they give.



Except that is not what "The results cannot be primarily ascribed to learned effects, and they suggest a linkage to neurobiological entities" says.

It does not say anything about causation, as implied by your "these brain differences are because of homosexuality instead of that homosexuality is the result of brain differences." It claims only a link, a correlation.

It does not say it is absolutely so, as the use of "are" in your claim. It says it suggests, iow, a possible or probable correlation.


These are the same mistakes in understanding how science works that tex makes. Science doesn't prove things, it makes predictions, tries to verify or falsify them. It is tentative, incomplete and probabilistic.

Ravi
12-12-2013, 09:24 AM
Except that is not what "The results cannot be primarily ascribed to learned effects, and they suggest a linkage to neurobiological entities" says.

It does not say anything about causation, as implied by your "these brain differences are because of homosexuality instead of that homosexuality is the result of brain differences." It claims only a link, a correlation.

It does not say it is absolutely so, as the use of "are" in your claim. It says it suggests, iow, a possible or probable correlation.


These are the same mistakes in understanding how science works that tex makes. Science doesn't prove things, it makes predictions, tries to verify or falsify them. It is tentative, incomplete and probabilistic.

I said one could make that argument. Calm down. It is a study that the authors of the study claim suggests something. Just because someone suggests some result is possible doesn't make it possible, correct, nor does it prove or disprove the result.

Chris
12-12-2013, 09:27 AM
I said one could make that argument. Calm down. It is a study that the authors of the study claim suggests something. Just because someone suggests some result is possible doesn't make it possible, correct, nor does it prove or disprove the result.

Thank you for confirming what I said.

Ravi
12-12-2013, 09:36 AM
Thank you for confirming what I said.
All you really did was restate what I said.

sky dancer
12-12-2013, 03:16 PM
Homosexuality may or may not be genetic. It sometimes runs in families, however.

The Xl
12-12-2013, 03:20 PM
I like basketball and Hispanic women, but I doubt science can prove that.

Who cares whether or not science can definitively prove it? It's not like it can prove it the other way, either.

But the fact that their are genetic cases is common sense when you look at the drastic way some people cope with it and whatnot, along with 95%+ of the testimonies from gay people.

Ravens Fan
12-12-2013, 03:54 PM
age limitation is never mentioned in the 14th amendment. Its quite simple.

I never said it was. Age of consent laws are addressed by State Governments. Your argument suggested that any and all sexual preferences would be considered legal for marriage. I was pointing out two situations that wouldn't be.


You want to dishonestly set up legal limitations to the 14th amendment while at the same time want to expand its meaning to only include sexual preferences you like.

Nope, I just feel that the 14th amendment clearly protects any two consenting of age US Citizen's regardless of their genders.?

Ravens Fan
12-12-2013, 04:10 PM
Do try and keep up.

When someone claims these studies prove homosexuality is natural or genetic it is a lie so knowing it hasn't been proven to be genetic or natural there is no basis in comparing it to the real civil rights movement which is based on race and gender.

You have only shown one study, which boils down to an inconclusive study at best. Why don't you try your own study? Go out and talk to some gay guys, some lesbians. They are all over the place. Be honest, genuine and not condescending and listen to their stories. Then come tell me how its a choice. How anyone would possibly make that choice if it was truly that way.

Once you get to that point, or you find out that someone you know and love is one of those people, maybe you will come to understand why they so strongly compare it to the plight of the blacks and of women to be protected equally under the law.

killianr1
12-12-2013, 04:24 PM
Homosexuality may or may not be genetic. It sometimes runs in families, however.

I live in Fort Lauderdale and see it running on Wilton Drive all the time.
:cool2:

del
12-12-2013, 04:27 PM
I live in Fort Lauderdale and see it running on Wilton Drive all the time.
:cool2:

keep your day job

The Sage of Main Street
12-12-2013, 05:03 PM
Sexual preference is not a choice.

Try it if you don't believe it.

Is incest or pedophilia a choice? Not by the definition used in the Fairyphiles' queer-reviewed psychology.

Just like homosexuals, those who wantonly give in to incest and eventually get addicted to it can form a pressure group to get rights. Then slick leaders of this cult can find reasons why it does no harm to society. With abortion, sterilization, and birth control, they can avoid having children if that is the only problem with their perversion.

The Sage of Main Street
12-12-2013, 05:08 PM
We don't kow why people are gay. The end.

That said, "far left" regimes were traditionally moralisitic. Homosexuals were marginalized in the Eastern Bloc, for example, and among western Marxists as well. In fact, they sounded a lot like the family values conservatives we see today in the US. Things began to change only after the great compromise (i.e. when central planning was abandoned and a limited market accepted in return for a robust welfare state). The left has abandoned its original base (i.e. the western working classes).

In Plato's Symposium, a manifesto for pedophilia, the aristocrats come right out and say that heterosexuality is for the lower classes.

The Sage of Main Street
12-12-2013, 05:22 PM
I like basketball and Hispanic women, but I doubt science can prove that.

Who cares whether or not science can definitively prove it? It's not like it can prove it the other way, either.

But the fact that their are genetic cases is common sense when you look at the drastic way some people cope with it and whatnot, along with 95%+ of the testimonies from gay people.

It should be re-inforced as a forbidden taboo from an early age, even before the child has any sexual identity at all. That is the way we prevent incest, which is probably a natural desire but so suppressed that it doesn't become much of a problem for the individual or society. As Nobel Prize winner Pearl Buck said about homosexuality in China, "If people are brought up right, behavior like that doesn't happen."

The Sage of Main Street
12-12-2013, 05:29 PM
You have only shown one study, which boils down to an inconclusive study at best. Why don't you try your own study? Go out and talk to some gay guys, some lesbians. They are all over the place. Be honest, genuine and not condescending and listen to their stories. Then come tell me how its a choice. How anyone would possibly make that choice if it was truly that way.

Once you get to that point, or you find out that someone you know and love is one of those people, maybe you will come to understand why they so strongly compare it to the plight of the blacks and of women to be protected equally under the law.

Why should we take the word of some hopelessly addicted sexual neurotics? They live under the delusion that there is nothing psychologically wrong with them, so they claim they were merely born with different tastes. Would they be honest if I asked them questions to fit my understanding of it, such as, "Did your mother dominate your father?" I wouldn't even add, "causing you to want to be a woman," but they would wonder at what I was getting at and start throwing a hissy fit.

Ravens Fan
12-12-2013, 06:06 PM
Why should we take the word of some hopelessly addicted sexual neurotics? They live under the delusion that there is nothing psychologically wrong with them, so they claim they were merely born with different tastes. Would they be honest if I asked them questions to fit my understanding of it, such as, "Did your mother dominate your father?" I wouldn't even add, "causing you to want to be a woman," but they would wonder at what I was getting at and start throwing a hissy fit.

Wow... The ignorance on this thread.

You do realize that not all gay guys are the stereotype that you have combined them into, right? Many, you would never have a clue about their sexuality. Many are in monotonous relationships. I would think that several that I know would send you to the nearest hospital with such a snyde remark directed at them.

del
12-12-2013, 06:09 PM
Wow... The ignorance on this thread.

You do realize that not all gay guys are the stereotype that you have combined them into, right? Many, you would never have a clue about their sexuality. Many are in monotonous relationships. I would think that several that I know would send you to the nearest hospital with such a snyde remark directed at them.

i think you meant monogamous, but i like this better. :laugh:

Ravens Fan
12-12-2013, 06:13 PM
i think you meant monogamous, but i like this better. :laugh:

lol, yup. got typing too fast. Thanks.:laugh:

Mr Happy
12-12-2013, 06:15 PM
Science doesn't prove things to begin with..

You wanna expand on this little nugget..

Codename Section
12-12-2013, 06:19 PM
You wanna expand on this little nugget..

You can only prove things in math. Science you can make observations and damn good theories.

Mr Happy
12-12-2013, 06:19 PM
It matters because it goes to the heart of the arguments used for gay marriage which they claim is a "right" falsely equating it to the true civil rights movement which was based on race and gender. Since they cannot prove it to be anything more than a choice there is no reason to change the law and set up special privilege for their specific lifestyle over all other lifestyles that we ban from being married.

What a load of bigotted tosh. So all those really good-looking gay guys could bang women but they choose not to? So if you love your wife, you choose to, right? You aren't wired that way, it's just a choice you make? Do you even read the crap you write? There is no 'special' privilege about gays being able to marry. That's just a normal service that all consensual adults should be allowed to do. Why do you care if gays get married? How does it affect you life one iota? (rhetorical question because it doesn't).

del
12-12-2013, 06:19 PM
lol, yup. got typing too fast. Thanks.:laugh:

after thirty years of marriage sometimes it's hard to tell the difference

Mr Happy
12-12-2013, 06:23 PM
You can only prove things in math. Science you can make observations and damn good theories.

I call Bullshit. Fleming used science to discover penicillin. Rutherford''s team used science to split the atom. I could go on.

You know one of my pet hates? People who think they are 'in the know' when it comes to shit like this. "Oh, it's not really science, it's maths!" Or people like Chris who made the initial statement to get a reaction so he could 'educate' us on how uninformed we have been all our lives. Unless Chris sits to the right of Einstein, his is just an opinion. Science doesn't prove anything my arse...

del
12-12-2013, 06:54 PM
What a load of bigotted tosh. So all those really good-looking gay guys could bang women but they choose not to? So if you love your wife, you choose to, right? You aren't wired that way, it's just a choice you make? Do you even read the crap you write? There is no 'special' privilege about gays being able to marry. That's just a normal service that all consensual adults should be allowed to do. Why do you care if gays get married? How does it affect you life one iota? (rhetorical question because it doesn't).


i was talking with my brother about whether or not being gay was a choice. he's a hetero, as am i.

he said that most of the gay men he knew were very successful, had lots of money, fast cars, nice homes, took great vacations and gave their boyfriends lots of nice gifts etc etc


but he still can't bring himself to fuck one. that pretty much sums it up for me.

Codename Section
12-12-2013, 07:00 PM
I call Bullshit. Fleming used science to discover penicillin. Rutherford''s team used science to split the atom. I could go on.

You know one of my pet hates? People who think they are 'in the know' when it comes to shit like this. "Oh, it's not really science, it's maths!" Or people like Chris who made the initial statement to get a reaction so he could 'educate' us on how uninformed we have been all our lives. Unless Chris sits to the right of Einstein, his is just an opinion. Science doesn't prove anything my arse...

Take it up with my college professors. I'll watch. I thought they were arrogant shits anyway.

sky dancer
12-12-2013, 07:43 PM
Sexuality is on a continuum. Some people are completely heterosexual and never have desire toward someone of the same sex. Some are completely homosexual and never have desire toward someone of the opposite sex. Some are bi-sexual and have sexual attraction toward same and opposite sex partners. What causes that? Who knows? It's just the way things are.

We don't know why some people are left handed, most right handed and some ambidextrous.

Mister D
12-12-2013, 07:58 PM
I call Bullshit. Fleming used science to discover penicillin. Rutherford''s team used science to split the atom. I could go on.

You know one of my pet hates? People who think they are 'in the know' when it comes to shit like this. "Oh, it's not really science, it's maths!" Or people like Chris who made the initial statement to get a reaction so he could 'educate' us on how uninformed we have been all our lives. Unless Chris sits to the right of Einstein, his is just an opinion. Science doesn't prove anything my arse...

Actually, that's true. This explains it well.

Pro
ofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.



http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

You may think Chris is being pedantic but what he says is true in this case.

Mr Happy
12-12-2013, 08:15 PM
Actually, that's true. This explains it well.

Pro

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

You may think Chris is being pedantic but what he says is true in this case.

Totally disagree. Either gravity exists or it doesn't. Either I can fly into the sun and survive or a I can't. Either I can breath underwater unaided or I can't. There are so many proven things in science it is ridiculous. I think the person who wrote your explanation is having a dollar each way...

Chris
12-12-2013, 08:16 PM
Science doesn't prove things to begin with.


You wanna expand on this little nugget..

At one time science used to work by authority, then that was abandoned for proof by induction. Then David Hume introduced the problem of induction, that you can't with certainty predict the next observation. He used swans as example: Up till then all swans had been observed to be white, thus, by induction, science said it is proven all swans are white, then someone discovered black swans in Australia. Since then it's been acknowledged in science that science doesn't prove things.

I recently posted similar in Seven Deadly Sins of Science Reporting (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/19768-Seven-Deadly-Sins-of-Science-Reporting).

Chris
12-12-2013, 08:24 PM
I call Bullshit. Fleming used science to discover penicillin. Rutherford''s team used science to split the atom. I could go on.

You know one of my pet hates? People who think they are 'in the know' when it comes to shit like this. "Oh, it's not really science, it's maths!" Or people like Chris who made the initial statement to get a reaction so he could 'educate' us on how uninformed we have been all our lives. Unless Chris sits to the right of Einstein, his is just an opinion. Science doesn't prove anything my arse...


Your examples are technological. They are based on scientific predictions, models, not proofs.

And, no, I don't sit next to Einstein.

Chris
12-12-2013, 08:30 PM
Totally disagree. Either gravity exists or it doesn't. Either I can fly into the sun and survive or a I can't. Either I can breath underwater unaided or I can't. There are so many proven things in science it is ridiculous. I think the person who wrote your explanation is having a dollar each way...

"Either gravity exists or it doesn't" is not science, that's just logic. Now you can measure gravity, but that's technology. Science is concerned with discovering or explaining what gravity is--and to date science really has no clue, see, for example, The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking.

Chris
12-12-2013, 08:35 PM
Mr Happy , the best explanation of this is Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery. He is generally credited with solving Hume's Problem of Induction with the concept of falsifiability.

A brief version can be found @ Science as Falsification (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html).

Mister D
12-12-2013, 08:37 PM
Totally disagree. Either gravity exists or it doesn't. Either I can fly into the sun and survive or a I can't. Either I can breath underwater unaided or I can't. There are so many proven things in science it is ridiculous. I think the person who wrote your explanation is having a dollar each way...

OK.

Mister D
12-12-2013, 08:39 PM
@Mr Happy (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=720) , the best explanation of this is Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery. He is generally credited with solving Hume's Problem of Induction with the concept of falsifiability.

A brief version can be found @ Science as Falsification (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html).

The problem is that most of the people who base their worldview on science don't under the philosophy thereof.

Chris
12-12-2013, 08:43 PM
The problem is that most of the people who base their worldview on science don't under the philosophy thereof.

I think most people want certainty in their lives. Uncertainty undermines their worldview. So they seek politifacts and snopes and law and authority and etc.

Mister D
12-12-2013, 08:49 PM
I think most people want certainty in their lives. Uncertainty undermines their worldview. So they seek politifacts and snopes and law and authority and etc.

Hmmm interesting observation. I like the way you put that.

Mister D
12-12-2013, 08:50 PM
That helps explain the religious zeal I sometimes encouter.

KC
12-12-2013, 08:54 PM
That helps explain the religious zeal I sometimes encouter.

IMO a lot of times Athiests, Angostics and other non believers are more zealous because they think their position is backed by scientific "proof." It isn't.

Chris
12-12-2013, 08:56 PM
Science is informed by skepticism, doubt, and so, too, I think, faith. Either, without doubt, is zealotry. Same in politics.

Mister D
12-12-2013, 08:59 PM
IMO a lot of times Athiests, Angostics and other non believers are more zealous because they think their position is backed by scientific "proof." It isn't.

Even in light of our rationalist culture it's still weird for me to hear people say they "believe in science" or something like that.

Mister D
12-12-2013, 09:01 PM
Science is informed by skepticism, doubt, and so, too, I think, faith. Either, without doubt, is zealotry. Same in politics.

True. Honestly, I have never doubted the existence of God. I have doubted that He gives a crap about me or other people.

Chris
12-12-2013, 09:04 PM
IMO a lot of times Athiests, Angostics and other non believers are more zealous because they think their position is backed by scientific "proof." It isn't.

True, though by definition agnosticism implies the truth of certain things cannot be known.

KC
12-12-2013, 09:04 PM
Even in light of our rationalist culture it's still weird for me to hear people say they "believe in science" or something like that.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but doesn't all science require belief?

Mister D
12-12-2013, 09:06 PM
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but doesn't all science require belief?

Of course at some level. What I mean is science in terms of a worldview. As if one could derive meaning from it.

Chris
12-12-2013, 09:06 PM
True. Honestly, I have never doubted the existence of God. I have doubted that He gives a crap about me or other people.

I guess to me to doubt and still believe would be a stronger faith than one without doubt.

Mister D
12-12-2013, 09:10 PM
I guess to me to doubt and still believe would be a stronger faith than one without doubt.

It could indicate a lack of reflection. A faith that's not very serious.

Chris
12-12-2013, 09:10 PM
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but doesn't all science require belief?


In a sense, yes, but I think the belief is more in the method than the discoveries, which keep changing. I mean Einstein refined Newton's theory of gravity and predicted someone would do the same with his.

KC
12-12-2013, 09:12 PM
Of course at some level. What I mean is science in terms of a worldview. As if one could derive meaning from it.

Ok, now I understand what you mean. I agree.

Dr. Who
12-12-2013, 09:24 PM
Its the LACK of proof that being gay is genetic or natural that is the point because it goes to the heart of the arguments for gay marriage which rely on false comparisons to race and gender.

We lacked proof that microbes existed until we invented the microscope, and Galileo challenged conventional thinking when he had the temerity to suggest that the Earth revolved around the Sun and not vice versa. The fact that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom should suggest that it is not chosen behavior as animals can only be what they are and we are not that genetically different from mice or horses or pigs.

Mr Happy
12-12-2013, 11:23 PM
So are you saying the laws of physics aren't science? is that what you are saying? Really?

KC
12-12-2013, 11:35 PM
So are you saying the laws of physics aren't science? is that what you are saying? Really?

Who are you talking to?

jillian
12-12-2013, 11:35 PM
We lacked proof that microbes existed until we invented the microscope, and Galileo challenged conventional thinking when he had the temerity to suggest that the Earth revolved around the Sun and not vice versa. The fact that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom should suggest that it is not chosen behavior as animals can only be what they are and we are not that genetically different from mice or horses or pigs.

ten to one he has no problem believing in G-d (which is fine, i don't care about that) which relies no no proof at all… just faith. interesting science appears beyond creduilty to him.

Ravi
12-13-2013, 05:11 AM
I live in Fort Lauderdale and see it running on Wilton Drive all the time.
:cool2:
Is that why you spend so much time in wilton manors?

Chris
12-13-2013, 08:26 AM
So are you saying the laws of physics aren't science? is that what you are saying? Really?

I just gave an example of how the laws of physics change, from Newton to Einstein, who predicted it would happen again.

Chris
12-13-2013, 08:28 AM
ten to one he has no problem believing in G-d (which is fine, i don't care about that) which relies no no proof at all… just faith. interesting science appears beyond creduilty to him.



Belief and knowledge are two different things.

jillian
12-13-2013, 08:30 AM
I just gave an example of how the laws of physics change, from Newton to Einstein, who predicted it would happen again.

the laws are immutable. we just learn more about them. that does not negate the value of science as the *ahem* science deniers seem to think.

jillian
12-13-2013, 08:32 AM
Belief and knowledge are two different things.


yes, science is knowledge. faith is unprovable. yet the same people often have difficulty accepting the first, yet decry the infallability of the second... which is pretty much butt backwards.

Chris
12-13-2013, 08:34 AM
the laws are immutable. we just learn more about them. that does not negate the value of science as the *ahem* science deniers seem to think.

But they are not immutable, as Einstein demonstrated with Newtonian physics.

No one has argued science isn't valuable. Where'd you get that?

Chris
12-13-2013, 08:35 AM
yes, science is knowledge. faith is unprovable. yet the same people often have difficulty accepting the first, yet decry the infallability of the second... which is pretty much butt backwards.



Science too is not provable. See discussion above.

And again no one has decried one for the other.

Ravi
12-13-2013, 08:38 AM
At one time science used to work by authority, then that was abandoned for proof by induction. Then David Hume introduced the problem of induction, that you can't with certainty predict the next observation. He used swans as example: Up till then all swans had been observed to be white, thus, by induction, science said it is proven all swans are white, then someone discovered black swans in Australia. Since then it's been acknowledged in science that science doesn't prove things.

I recently posted similar in Seven Deadly Sins of Science Reporting (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/19768-Seven-Deadly-Sins-of-Science-Reporting).

It proved that all swans aren't white.

Chris
12-13-2013, 08:39 AM
It proved that all swans aren't white.

Not a proof but an observation. The point of science is to make explanatory predictions. That all swans are not white predicts nothing.

jillian
12-13-2013, 08:40 AM
At one time science used to work by authority, then that was abandoned for proof by induction. Then David Hume introduced the problem of induction, that you can't with certainty predict the next observation. He used swans as example: Up till then all swans had been observed to be white, thus, by induction, science said it is proven all swans are white, then someone discovered black swans in Australia. Since then it's been acknowledged in science that science doesn't prove things.

I recently posted similar in Seven Deadly Sins of Science Reporting (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/19768-Seven-Deadly-Sins-of-Science-Reporting).

hume was a philosopher.... not a scientist. learn philosophy from philosophers; law from legal scholars; and science from scientists. life is better that way.

otherwise, you may as well just keep quoting nitsche about how nothing matters and what if it did?

(i think john mellancamp said that, too... ah well... same factual value as the musings of philosophers)

Ravi
12-13-2013, 08:42 AM
Not a proof but an observation. The point of science is to make explanatory predictions. That all swans are not white predicts nothing.

Let's go with the dictionary definition of science:

: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation

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

Your own example about the swans proved that science proves things through facts learned through observation.

jillian
12-13-2013, 08:44 AM
Let's go with the dictionary definition of science:

: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation

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

Your own example about the swans proved that science proves things through facts learned through observation.

he does seem to ignore the scientific method and the fact that in order for scientific theorum to be accepted, data has to be able to be replicated.

Chris
12-13-2013, 08:45 AM
hume was a philosopher.... not a scientist. learn philosophy from philosophers; law from legal scholars; and science from scientists. life is better that way.

otherwise, you may as well just keep quoting nitsche about how nothing matters and what if it did?

(i think john mellancamp said that, too... ah well... same factual value as the musings of philosophers)



Nice ad hom. That was the old way of doing science, appealing to authority. Try addressing his argument about the problem of induction. It changed science forever.

Ravi
12-13-2013, 08:45 AM
he does seem to ignore the scientific method and the fact that in order for scientific theorum to be accepted, data has to be able to be replicated.

It's almost like his claim that the teapees have no leaders. :)

Chris
12-13-2013, 08:48 AM
Let's go with the dictionary definition of science:

: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation

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

Your own example about the swans proved that science proves things through facts learned through observation.


It was, as jillian just pointed out, a conclusion about the philosophy of science, not itself a scientific proof. Where in your common dictionary definition does it say anything about proof? It doesn't. A body of knowledge, yes, study of the world based on those facts, yes, proof, no. If you don't understand this about modern science you're living in the dark ages scientifically.

Chris
12-13-2013, 08:50 AM
In a sense, yes, but I think the belief is more in the method than the discoveries, which keep changing. I mean Einstein refined Newton's theory of gravity and predicted someone would do the same with his.


he does seem to ignore the scientific method and the fact that in order for scientific theorum to be accepted, data has to be able to be replicated.


Wrong, we discussed method last night.

Replication would prove things by induction except for Hume's Problem of Induction, you cannot know the future--that next swan might be black.

Science is tentative, incomplete, and probabilistic.

Ravi
12-13-2013, 08:54 AM
It was, as jillian just pointed out, a conclusion about the philosophy of science, not itself a scientific proof. Where in your common dictionary definition does it say anything about proof? It doesn't. A body of knowledge, yes, study of the world based on those facts, yes, proof, no. If you don't understand this about modern science you're living in the dark ages scientifically.Do black swans exist?

Codename Section
12-13-2013, 08:58 AM
It proved that all swans aren't white.

"Science" is a method. It didn't prove anything. Scientists provide evidence to people of their theories and people can accept them. There are two parts to that dialogue.

For example, I can provide evidence that I'm the most physically fit person on this forum and best looking and most fun and most endearing and all that and while it's pretty much indisputable to most people you may not accept it for some reason. :D

Hi Ravi.

Codename Section
12-13-2013, 08:59 AM
Do black swans exist?

Only in movies.

Ravi
12-13-2013, 09:02 AM
"Science" is a method. It didn't prove anything. Scientists provide evidence to people of their theories and people can accept them. There are two parts to that dialogue.

For example, I can provide evidence that I'm the most physically fit person on this forum and best looking and most fun and most endearing and all that and while it's pretty much indisputable to most people you may not accept it for some reason. :D

Hi Ravi.

It isn't a theory that black swans exist.

Chris
12-13-2013, 09:07 AM
Do black swans exist?

Knowledge of that is not proof. It's not what science does. Even by your common dictionary definition, science is the study of that knowledge.

Codename Section
12-13-2013, 09:08 AM
It isn't a theory that black swans exist.

Or a theory that I'm the most handsome, athletic, fun, and debonair dude on this forum, but...someone may try to dispute the calibrations.

Chris
12-13-2013, 09:10 AM
"Science" is a method. It didn't prove anything. Scientists provide evidence to people of their theories and people can accept them. There are two parts to that dialogue.

For example, I can provide evidence that I'm the most physically fit person on this forum and best looking and most fun and most endearing and all that and while it's pretty much indisputable to most people you may not accept it for some reason. :D

Hi Ravi.


Science might predict, all other things being equal, based on those facts, you might get the girl 56% of the time. :P

Chris
12-13-2013, 09:11 AM
It isn't a theory that black swans exist.

Precisely, not a theory, not even a hypothesis, no model, no prediction, no proof, just a fact.

Chris
12-13-2013, 09:15 AM
Or a theory that I'm the most handsome, athletic, fun, and debonair dude on this forum, but...someone may try to dispute the calibrations.

To be scientific a theory must be falsifiable. You must be able to state the null hypothesis, state how to falsify it. So all we need is a test that anyone can repeat.

This is why beliefs are not scientific, because they are not falsifiable.

This was Popper's great contribution to science. It was the solution to Hume's problem of induction.

Mister D
12-13-2013, 09:43 AM
the laws are immutable. we just learn more about them. that does not negate the value of science as the *ahem* science deniers seem to think.

lol Science deniers. What does that even mean?

The Sage of Main Street
12-13-2013, 09:47 AM
Wow... The ignorance on this thread.

I would think that several that I know would send you to the nearest hospital with such a snide remark directed at them.

Proves my point that they are in denial and will throw a fit if anyone questioned the background that made them choose to reject growing up normal. Having a wimp for a father is no excuse. On a related self-created disability, my cousin's father was a drunk who beat up my aunt on a daily basis. Instead of choosing to follow the same path, he chose to never drink at all.

The Sage of Main Street
12-13-2013, 09:54 AM
You wanna expand on this little nugget..Scientists prove facts but force in their own conclusions. If 5% of people are homosexual, the queer-reviewed scientists claim that the human genome will randomly make 5% of the people that way. In other words, agenda-driven scientists can't connect the dots; they can only collect the dots.

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 09:56 AM
Proves my point that they are in denial and will throw a fit if anyone questioned the background that made them choose to reject growing up normal. Having a wimp for a father is no excuse. On a related self-created disability, my cousin's father was a drunk who beat up my aunt on a daily basis. Instead of choosing to follow the same path, he chose to never drink at all.

Hmm, you seem to lack any empathy for someone who may be different from you. My dad was gay, and he married my mother to try and reform. Unsuccessfully, I might add.

You try and make alcoholism the equivalent of BEING gay. Even if your relative stayed sober the rest of his life, he would still be considered an alcoholic, a recovering one.

Science has a lot of catching up to do. Now that the genome is mapped, we learn new things about what causes human beings to act differently than the cultural norm.

What some call character, is turning out to be wired in the brain. We can look at families and see some things occurring over and over. It is behavioral or genetic? That's an open question.

My father wasn't raised to be gay, and neither was I. We just turned out that way.

The Sage of Main Street
12-13-2013, 09:59 AM
What a load of bigotted tosh. So all those really good-looking gay guys could bang women but they choose not to? So if you love your wife, you choose to, right? You aren't wired that way, it's just a choice you make? Do you even read the crap you write? There is no 'special' privilege about gays being able to marry. That's just a normal service that all consensual adults should be allowed to do. Why do you care if gays get married? How does it affect you life one iota? (rhetorical question because it doesn't).

Because being "married" makes it easier for them to adopt. Then they can recruit boytoys or at least indoctrinate fairyphiles for their cause.

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 10:01 AM
Because being "married" makes it easier for them to adopt. Then they can recruit boytoys or at least indoctrinate fairyphiles for their cause.

Gay and lesbian parents are adopting children and providing foster care for other children. And we're doing a great job of it.

"The best study so far, Siegel tells BU Today, is the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (http://www.nllfs.org/), begun in 1986. The study has followed 154 lesbian mothers and recently checked in on 78 adolescent children, comparing the mothers’ and kids’ self-reported status against national standardized samples.

The lesbian mothers’ reports of their children “indicated that they had high levels of social, school/academic, and total competence and fewer social problems, rule-breaking, and aggressive and externalizing behavior compared with their age-matched counterparts,” Siegel and Perrin write. If you might expect parents to say that, consider their kids’ testimony: “The self-reported quality of life of the adolescents in this sample was similar to that reported by a comparable sample of adolescents with heterosexual parents.”

Siegel and Perrin’s report also cites three studies done in the United States and Europe—two involving lesbian mothers and the third one involving men and women whose adult children reported they’d had a parent involved in a same-sex relationship. Those studies similarly found no difference in outcomes for the children as compared with children of heterosexual parents.

http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/

The Sage of Main Street
12-13-2013, 10:13 AM
So are you saying the laws of physics aren't science? is that what you are saying? Really?

You are stuck on avoiding the real issue. Suppose someone says that when we drop something, angels carry it to the ground. Then he drops something, it falls to the ground, and he says that proves angels carried it to the ground. That's what I mean when I say that demonstrations don't provide explanations. Even Newton refused to speculate on what causes gravity; he just came up with the formula for it.

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 10:15 AM
http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html

The Sage of Main Street
12-13-2013, 10:17 AM
lol Science deniers. What does that even mean?

It means you are not in their cult of Infallible Truth. The facts are so clear in their hallucination that anyone who can't see them must be refusing to look.

Alyosha
12-13-2013, 10:17 AM
I really don't care if science ever proves it. What does it matter? Why is it my business? I shouldn't know, write laws to, interpret laws to, or give fucks about what someone does with their body or their private property.

Maybe gays are under a magic spell? Maybe they ate too many Lucky Charms as a kid? Maybe it's all the hormones in milk? Don't care.

People have natural rights. Leave them be.

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 10:19 AM
Arguments look weak when you must rely on an insult to use with them.

Alyosha
12-13-2013, 10:25 AM
Arguments look weak when you must rely on an insult to use with them.

Speaking of science...there is a lot of evidence for people insulting others simply because it feels good. I don't think they care whether or not it makes their argument look weak, for them it's the high of eating a piece of cheesecake.

The Sage of Main Street
12-13-2013, 10:25 AM
Hmm, you seem to lack any empathy for someone who may be different from you. My dad was gay, and he married my mother to try and reform. Unsuccessfully, I might add.

You try and make alcoholism the equivalent of BEING gay. Even if your relative stayed sober the rest of his life, he would still be considered an alcoholic, a recovering one.

Science has a lot of catching up to do. Now that the genome is mapped, we learn new things about what causes human beings to act differently than the cultural norm.

What some call character, is turning out to be wired in the brain. We can look at families and see some things occurring over and over. It is behavioral or genetic? That's an open question.

My father wasn't raised to be gay, and neither was I. We just turned out that way.

It is convenient for some scientists to think that humans are inanimate objects pre-determined by their programming. Bitterscientists of that ilk desire to escape into a delusion of superiority over normal people who treated them like freaks and losers before they had the power to get even.

The Sage of Main Street
12-13-2013, 10:33 AM
Gay and lesbian parents are adopting children and providing foster care for other children. And we're doing a great job of it.

"The best study so far, Siegel tells BU Today, is the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (http://www.nllfs.org/), begun in 1986. The study has followed 154 lesbian mothers and recently checked in on 78 adolescent children, comparing the mothers’ and kids’ self-reported status against national standardized samples.

The lesbian mothers’ reports of their children “indicated that they had high levels of social, school/academic, and total competence and fewer social problems, rule-breaking, and aggressive and externalizing behavior compared with their age-matched counterparts,” Siegel and Perrin write. If you might expect parents to say that, consider their kids’ testimony: “The self-reported quality of life of the adolescents in this sample was similar to that reported by a comparable sample of adolescents with heterosexual parents.”

Siegel and Perrin’s report also cites three studies done in the United States and Europe—two involving lesbian mothers and the third one involving men and women whose adult children reported they’d had a parent involved in a same-sex relationship. Those studies similarly found no difference in outcomes for the children as compared with children of heterosexual parents.

http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/

These model children are the equivalent of women who are called "Stepford Wives." But it makes a good recruiting slogan for the Gay Agenda. You should be proud of scoring points for your team.

Alyosha
12-13-2013, 10:35 AM
It is convenient for some scientists to think that humans are inanimate objects pre-determined by their programming. Bitterscientists of that ilk desire to escape into a delusion of superiority over normal people who treated them like freaks and losers before they had the power to get even.

When I feel like this, I often ask the doctor to lower the dosage.

Chris
12-13-2013, 10:36 AM
It is convenient for some scientists to think that humans are inanimate objects pre-determined by their programming. Bitterscientists of that ilk desire to escape into a delusion of superiority over normal people who treated them like freaks and losers before they had the power to get even.



Interesting, like tex you're all for science but if science disagrees it's lying or bitter. Confirmation bias much?

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 10:43 AM
These model children are the equivalent of women who are called "Stepford Wives." But it makes a good recruiting slogan for the Gay Agenda. You should be proud of scoring points for your team.

Our children are heterosexual, so they aren't scoring points for your team of fantasy LGBT Stepford Wives.

It's been awhile since I encountered such a hostile position toward LGBT as yours. Good luck with that.

Mister D
12-13-2013, 10:46 AM
Don't take it opersonally, Sage. She says that to everyone who disagrees with her. :laugh:

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 10:50 AM
It is convenient for some scientists to think that humans are inanimate objects pre-determined by their programming. Bitterscientists of that ilk desire to escape into a delusion of superiority over normal people who treated them like freaks and losers before they had the power to get even.

What scientists think that human beings are pre-determined inanimate objects? What are their names?

Codename Section
12-13-2013, 10:52 AM
sky dancer

not playing dumb but actually dumb--I never understand this, how does someone gay have sex with a woman and create kids. You have to get wood to have sex.

If you guys are like us, just the opposite, then the sight of a female body would make a gay dude feel like I feel if I see a guy, right?

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 10:56 AM
@sky dancer (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=841)

not playing dumb but actually dumb--I never understand this, how does someone gay have sex with a woman and create kids. You have to get wood to have sex.

If you guys are like us, just the opposite, then the sight of a female body would make a gay dude feel like I feel if I see a guy, right?

Just because men are capable of maintain an erection long enough to have sexual interecourse with a woman doesn't mean the man prefers to have sex with a woman.

If you were blind folded and some man performed oral sex on you without you knowing it was a man I'm sure you'd have some sexual satisfaction inspite of later learning that it was a man you just had oral sex with.

Codename Section
12-13-2013, 10:58 AM
Just because men are capable of maintain an erection long enough to have sexual interecourse with a woman doesn't mean the man prefers to have sex with a woman.

If you were blind folded and some man performed oral sex on you without you knowing it was a man I'm sure you'd have some sexual satisfaction inspite of later learning that it was a man you just had oral sex with.

That's not what I'm asking. There's no way I could get wood with a dude. Men are pretty fucking ugly, I mean...not me, but everyone else.

I'm guessing he didn't stay blindfolded with his wife for however long, so I don't know how the sex happens. We're visual creatures (men). It's what makes us more shallow than you guys are. Women will have sex with any old kind of ugly dude. Unhot chicks I can't get it up for either.

I'm asking you because a lot of people I know don't understand this one. It's why a lot of people think they can "change" or switch or whatever.

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 10:58 AM
Several peer-reviewed (http://classes.biology.ucsd.edu/bisp194-1.FA09/Blanchard_2001.pdf) studies (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1626369/) have shown that men with older biological brothers are likelier to be gay than men with older sisters or no older siblings. The likelihood of being gay increases by about 33 percent with each additional older brother. From these statistics, researchers calculate that about 15 to 30 percent of gay men have the fraternal birth order effect to thank for their homosexuality.



The fraternal birth order effect is a little perverse. It means that a disproportionate number of gay men are born into disproportionately homophobic households. Couples with large numbers of children tend to be religious and belong to denominations that are conservative and more homophobic. Consider the numbers (http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/table-children-by-tradition.pdf): 1 percent of Unitarians have four or more children, while 3 percent of evangelical Protestants, 4 percent of Catholics, 6 percent of Muslims, and 9 percent of Mormons have families that large. At the same time, 64 percent of Evangelicals, 30 percent of Catholics, 61 percent of Muslims, and 68 percent of Mormons believe homosexuality should be “discouraged by society.” (http://religions.pewforum.org/portraits) (Compare that with 15 percent of Jews.) Big families that disapprove of gay people are likely to have gay people in their own clan.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/06/biological_basis_for_homosexuality_the_fraternal_b irth_order_explanation.html

Common
12-13-2013, 11:03 AM
Know what only 3% of the population is gay, you would think its 97% with all the time and effort they spend trying to make us believe that its the rest of us thats all screwed up and being gay is normal.

Codename Section
12-13-2013, 11:03 AM
Behavioral studies are like opinion polls, the protocol writes the outcome.

I think it doesn't matter. If you're gay and happy that's the whole point.

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 11:04 AM
That's not what I'm asking. There's no way I could get wood with a dude. Men are pretty fucking ugly, I mean...not me, but everyone else.

I'm guessing he didn't stay blindfolded with his wife for however long, so I don't know how the sex happens. We're visual creatures (men). It's what makes us more shallow than you guys are. Women will have sex with any old kind of ugly dude. Unhot chicks I can't get it up for either.

I'm asking you because a lot of people I know don't understand this one. It's why a lot of people think they can "change" or switch or whatever.

Considering that sexuality is on a continuum, I would guess that some gay men would not be able to have sex with women because they wouldn't be aroused enough to perform. Some men can have sex with women, but they feel nothing emotionally. In my own case, I had male lovers but I didn't enjoy the sex with them.

My guess is that my father and I may be more on the bi-sexual continuum, meaning that we are capable of opposite sex activity, we just choose not to, because it isn't pleasurable.

I hope that helps you understand it a bit.

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 11:07 AM
Know what only 3% of the population is gay, you would think its 97% with all the time and effort they spend trying to make us believe that its the rest of us thats all screwed up and being gay is normal.
It's like being left handed. I'm left handed. It's as normal for me to write with my left hand as it is for a right handed person to write with their right hand.

There used to be considerable prejudice toward left handed people. The left hand was considered the hand of the devil and the right the hand of God. I have a few left handed relatives in my grandmother's generation and they were forced to write with their right hands. Then they became ambidextrous.

Being gay is similar to handedness. We don't say it's "abnormal" to be left handed. It's normal but less common, that's all.

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 11:09 AM
Behavioral studies are like opinion polls, the protocol writes the outcome.

I think it doesn't matter. If you're gay and happy that's the whole point.

I don't think it's necessary to blow off the results of studies just because you are skeptical of all scientific research. Frankly, I don't care what the science says one way or another.

People who hate LGBT will fund their own junk science to back up their bias. The Family Research Council, a RW Christian extremist group, is one such creator of junk science.

Mister D
12-13-2013, 11:11 AM
People missing limbs are also "less common".

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 11:11 AM
Know what only 3% of the population is gay, you would think its 97% with all the time and effort they spend trying to make us believe that its the rest of us thats all screwed up and being gay is normal.

Ten percent of the population is left handed. When you have a portion of the population trying to convince everyone else that being left handed is abnormal;, perverse and so on, you would find a counter argument from left handed people.

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 11:11 AM
People missing limbs are also "less common".

Or in your case, missing a brain and heart.

Mister D
12-13-2013, 11:12 AM
Sexual attraction to young children is also "less common".

Mister D
12-13-2013, 11:12 AM
Blindness is "less common".

Codename Section
12-13-2013, 11:13 AM
Considering that sexuality is on a continuum, I would guess that some gay men would not be able to have sex with women because they wouldn't be aroused enough to perform. Some men can have sex with women, but they feel nothing emotionally. In my own case, I had male lovers but I didn't enjoy the sex with them.

My guess is that my father and I may be more on the bi-sexual continuum, meaning that we are capable of opposite sex activity, we just choose not to, because it isn't pleasurable.

I hope that helps you understand it a bit.

I think women are different because you guys are all a bit touchy huggy and place emphasis on qualities that are nonsuperficial. Men are shallow bastards, so he might have been a little bi or something.

I have this FM (female marine) friend who's gay and she's never had sex with a dude but her partner has and says it was not as worthwhile but that she's a little bi or whatever.

I was talking to them about it and they have a couple friend whose late in life lesbians where one is a lesbian by choice, meaning she likes dudes sexually but feels emotional attraction to her partner.

I think women are more capable of this because there is something in your nature that makes you more inclined towards feelings than sex--not that sex isn't important to you. I don't mean that, but..

Men just aren't that way. I'm also wondering if gay men are really like straight guys at all because I used to go to a gym where I would be hit on all the time. I'd say, "Dude, I'm straight" and they'd say what you said about closing your eyes. I think that because they can close their eyes and do it, they think we can.

I'd rather bang the fattest woman on earth than bang a dude even if he looked like Brad Pitt or whatever. Why? Because when I see men I don't think "sex" I think, am I faster, stronger, smarter, etc. I'm in competition from the break. That is my gut reaction to men. You can't change the gut reaction as a man. When I see a hot chick I begin the calculations of how to sleep with her.

Codename Section
12-13-2013, 11:13 AM
I don't think it's necessary to blow off the results of studies just because you are skeptical of all scientific research. Frankly, I don't care what the science says one way or another.

People who hate LGBT will fund their own junk science to back up their bias. The Family Research Council, a RW Christian extremist group, is one such creator of junk science.

You have to be skeptical of all research until you read it yourself.

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 11:15 AM
You have to be skeptical of all research until you read it yourself.

Skeptical is one thing. Knee jerk dismissive is another.

Codename Section
12-13-2013, 11:16 AM
Skeptical is one thing. Knee jerk dismissive is another.

Who is knee jerk dismissive? I'm saying I don't care because it doesn't change my politics. If someone is happy let them stay that way.

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 11:17 AM
I think women are different because you guys are all a bit touchy huggy and place emphasis on qualities that are nonsuperficial. Men are shallow bastards, so he might have been a little bi or something.

I have this FM (female marine) friend who's gay and she's never had sex with a dude but her partner has and says it was not as worthwhile but that she's a little bi or whatever.

I was talking to them about it and they have a couple friend whose late in life lesbians where one is a lesbian by choice, meaning she likes dudes sexually but feels emotional attraction to her partner.

I think women are more capable of this because there is something in your nature that makes you more inclined towards feelings than sex--not that sex isn't important to you. I don't mean that, but..

Men just aren't that way. I'm also wondering if gay men are really like straight guys at all because I used to go to a gym where I would be hit on all the time. I'd say, "Dude, I'm straight" and they'd say what you said about closing your eyes. I think that because they can close their eyes and do it, they think we can.

I'd rather bang the fattest woman on earth than bang a dude even if he looked like Brad Pitt or whatever. Why? Because when I see men I don't think "sex" I think, am I faster, stronger, smarter, etc. I'm in competition from the break. That is my gut reaction to men. You can't change the gut reaction as a man. When I see a hot chick I begin the calculations of how to sleep with her.

I don't care if you have a gut reaction of aversion to a man making a pass at you. Women deal with unwanted passes all the time and we don't punch a guy out for it.

Chris
12-13-2013, 11:17 AM
sky dancer

not playing dumb but actually dumb--I never understand this, how does someone gay have sex with a woman and create kids. You have to get wood to have sex.

If you guys are like us, just the opposite, then the sight of a female body would make a gay dude feel like I feel if I see a guy, right?


Adoption.

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 11:18 AM
Who is knee jerk dismissive? I'm saying I don't care because it doesn't change my politics. If someone is happy let them stay that way.

Knee jerk dismissive is when you don't even bother to read the research but reject it just because you don't like the results they got. I'm not saying YOU personally do this, but some do.

I disagree with you that all men are shallow bastards. Maybe you are, but I know many men, even hetero men who are not.

Codename Section
12-13-2013, 11:20 AM
I don't care if you have a gut reaction of aversion to a man making a pass at you. Women deal with unwanted passes all the time and we don't punch a guy out for it.

Who did I say I punched out? sky dancer

You know that's assault, right?

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 11:22 AM
Who did I say I punched out? @sky dancer (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=841)

You know that's assault, right?

I didn't mean you personally. I know of men who over react to a man making a pass at them. I would guess some of them post on this forum.

What I think is very sad, are the super religious gay men who cannot accept themselves. I'm thinking of a man who is Mormon and he would get drunk and have sex with men and then move his entire family out of town because of it.

I'm remembering a neighbor I had when I lived in Portland. He was married, and in his past, he and another man had been pilots together. They were close friends, worked together, played together. They were like brothers. This neighbor guy even changed his last name, to his pilot friend's last name. (Now, his wife doesn't know that her married name, "Martin" came from her husbands "friend").

One drunk night, these two were in the same bed in a motel room, and one made a pass at my neighbor, and he beat the crap out of the guy and never spoke to him again, but kept his last name.

Now, tell me the gay guy was in the wrong for making a pass at his friend.

Codename Section
12-13-2013, 11:26 AM
I didn't mean you personally. I know of men who over react to a man making a pass at them. I would guess some of them post on this forum.

What I think is very sad, are the super religious gay men who cannot accept themselves. I'm thinking of a man who is Mormon and he would get drunk and have sex with men and then move his entire family out of town because of it.

It gets annoying so I switch gyms. I'd only punch someone who put their hands on me. I don't play that with anyone. Everyone's rights end at my nose.

Men who would punch someone just for making a verbal pass are undisciplined. The reaction is weird. Like I don't like it at all, but I'm not going to punch someone because they think I'm attractive. I am attractive. They have good taste.

:D

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 11:33 AM
I think there is some kind of dominance thing that goes on with men. They think it's fine to make passes at someone but object if another man makes a pass at them.

I think it's too bad that you switch gyms just to avoid saying no.

Codename Section
12-13-2013, 11:36 AM
I think there is some kind of dominance thing that goes on with men. They think it's fine to make passes at someone but object if another man makes a pass at them.

I think it's too bad that you switch gyms just to avoid saying no.

If it were just one time I wouldn't. If I have to deal with it constantly when my sole purpose is not to get a date but work out...then I don't want to bother with it.

Why can't people respect my "no"? How mean do I need to get with my "no" before people stfu and let me work out in peace?

Mister D
12-13-2013, 11:37 AM
That's how some gyms become predominantly gay. They chase all the straight men out.

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 11:37 AM
If it were just one time I wouldn't. If I have to deal with it constantly when my sole purpose is not to get a date but work out...then I don't want to bother with it.

Why can't people respect my "no"? How mean do I need to get with my "no" before people stfu and let me work out in peace?

Plenty of women wonder the same thing, including lesbian women.

Codename Section
12-13-2013, 11:40 AM
Plenty of women wonder the same thing, including lesbian women.


I'm sure that's true. I'd hate to be female. I've said before the problem with men is that we're governed by our sex drives, so we're persistent. It's why I don't accumulate gay male friends. They don't respect boundaries like straight guys won't for women they're attracted to.

You're obviously the better gender in this respect.

Mister D
12-13-2013, 11:41 AM
It gets annoying so I switch gyms. I'd only punch someone who put their hands on me. I don't play that with anyone. Everyone's rights end at my nose.

Men who would punch someone just for making a verbal pass are undisciplined. The reaction is weird. Like I don't like it at all, but I'm not going to punch someone because they think I'm attractive. I am attractive. They have good taste.

:D

I wouldn't wouldn't and haven't reacted that way but that is undoubtedly how a great deal of "gay bashing" takes place. Men will sometiems react that way. Moan about it all you want but you're taking a risk hitting on guys you don't know. When you take an ass whooping or worse it's largely your own fault.

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 11:41 AM
I'm sure that's true. I'd hate to be female. I've said before the problem with men is that we're governed by our sex drives, so we're persistent. It's why I don't accumulate gay male friends. They don't respect boundaries like straight guys won't for women they're attracted to.

You're obviously the better gender in this respect.
Too bad that you can't make friends with any gay men. I think you're meeting single gay men. That's common at your age, and it sounds like you're single too.

Codename Section
12-13-2013, 11:42 AM
That's how some gyms become predominantly gay. They chase all the straight men out.


Yeh, but it would be no different if you let a man discover a gym with 98% females who work out. He'd be in heaven and then slowly tell his buddies until he ruined a good thing for the women.

Codename Section
12-13-2013, 11:43 AM
Too bad that you can't make friends with any gay men. I think you're meeting single gay men. That's common at your age, and it sounds like you're single too.

I have a bisexual friend Green Arrow

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 11:44 AM
I wouldn't wouldn't and haven't reacted that way but that is undoubtedly how a great deal of "gay bashing" takes place. Men will sometiems react that way. Moan about it all you want but you're taking a risk hitting on guys you don't know. When you take an ass whooping or worse it's largely your own fault.

No, it's the fault of men like you who don't know how to use words to say no. There is absolutely no reason to resort to violence when someone makes a pass at you.

Most of the men in prison who rape other men, claim to be heterosexual. Rape is an expression of dominance in that setting.

Mister D
12-13-2013, 11:44 AM
Yeh, but it would be no different if you let a man discover a gym with 98% females who work out. He'd be in heaven and then slowly tell his buddies until he ruined a good thing for the women.

Men are a lot more freaked out by homosexual advances than women are when they are hit on by men. Sorry, that's just the way it is. We both know that.

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 11:47 AM
Speak for men, if you're a man, but don't presume to speak for women if you're a man.

Mister D
12-13-2013, 11:48 AM
No, it's the fault of men like you who don't know how to use words to say no. There is absolutely no reason to resort to violence when someone makes a pass at you.

It's likely to happen and you know it's likely to happen. If I were to leave my car windows down in a shitty neighborhood and some kids ransack my car wuld I garner much sympathy? Of course not. It will be more along the lines of "what was he thinking?"

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 11:49 AM
It's likely to happen and you know it's likely to happen. If I were to leave my car windows down in a shitty neighborhood and some kids ransack my car wuld I garner much sympathy? Of course not. It will be more along the lines of "what was he thinking?"

You're excusing violence. That's wrong. I believe it that you don't give a shit if a gay man is beat to death for making a pass.

A confident heterosexual man just says no.

Codename Section
12-13-2013, 11:49 AM
Men are a lot more freaked out by homosexual advances than women are when they are hit on by men. Sorry, that's just the way it is. We both know that.

It's true. It's weird. Your first reaction is WTF? That's the gut. I'm still disciplined tho. I'm too big to go around punching people that come on to me.

Touching me is a different story. I don't go around touching other people. I have two older sisters which taught me what its like to be female and have men all up in your business. I respect boundaries. They should respect mine.

Mister D
12-13-2013, 11:52 AM
Speak for men, if you're a man, but don't presume to speak for women if you're a man.

I'll do as I please. You'll like it.

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 11:53 AM
Yet, you think nothing of touching women while you're making a pass. Pretty hypocritical IMO.

Mister D
12-13-2013, 11:53 AM
It's true. It's weird. Your first reaction is WTF? That's the gut. I'm still disciplined tho. I'm too big to go around punching people that come on to me.

Touching me is a different story. I don't go around touching other people. I have two older sisters which taught me what its like to be female and have men all up in your business. I respect boundaries. They should respect mine.

It's very weird and, especially if it's not a younger guy, creepy as fucking hell.

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 11:53 AM
I'll do as I please. You'll like it.

I'll like it? WTF are you talking about?

Mister D
12-13-2013, 11:54 AM
Yet, you think nothing of touching women while you're making a pass. Pretty hypocritical IMO.

Never done such a thing in my life. try again.

Codename Section
12-13-2013, 11:55 AM
Yet, you think nothing of touching women while you're making a pass. Pretty hypocritical IMO.

Uhhh, no. If you touch women you're a loser who's desperate. You have to remain aloof and have them come to you.

Ravi
12-13-2013, 11:55 AM
Maybe there's something to this gay brain theory after all. You guys are sounding gayer by the minute.

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 11:55 AM
Never done such a thing in my life. try again.

I'm not referring to you at all.

Mister D
12-13-2013, 11:55 AM
Uhhh, no. If you touch women you're a loser who's desperate. You have to remain aloof and have them come to you.

You're also likely to get a verbal thrashing or a drink in your face.

Mister D
12-13-2013, 11:56 AM
Maybe there's something to this gay brain theory after all. You guys are sounding gayer by the minute.

Probably because we're surrounded by ugly old bags.

Codename Section
12-13-2013, 11:56 AM
It's very weird and, especially if it's not a younger guy, creepy as fucking hell.

Yeh. In the military a lot of officers are gay dudes and it could be weird because they have power over your life and trying to pretend like you don't know that they're hitting on you was weird. If you tell them to stop you can get yourself into trouble.

Fuck I hated that shit. FUCK YOU MILITARY!

Codename Section
12-13-2013, 11:57 AM
Maybe there's something to this gay brain theory after all. You guys are sounding gayer by the minute.

That's kind of homophobic, don't you think?

Mister D
12-13-2013, 11:57 AM
Yeh. In the military a lot of officers are gay dudes and it could be weird because they have power over your life and trying to pretend like you don't know that they're hitting on you was weird. If you tell them to stop you can get yourself into trouble.

Fuck I hated that shit. FUCK YOU MILITARY!

Dang that would be awkward.

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 11:57 AM
Uhhh, no. If you touch women you're a loser who's desperate. You have to remain aloof and have them come to you.
I'm saying that even when a woman is touched inappropriately, we don't beat the crap out of the guy.

Codename Section
12-13-2013, 11:57 AM
You're also likely to get a verbal thrashing or a drink in your face.

I had a drink poured in my crotch by a girl I was trying to date once. She was pretty sweet.

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 11:58 AM
That's kind of homophobic, don't you think?
Some men who react violently to other men who make passes at them do so because they are homophobic, afraid of being gay themselves.

Codename Section
12-13-2013, 11:58 AM
I'm saying that even when a woman is touched inappropriately, we don't beat the crap out of the guy.

You should. No one, no one has a right to touch you if you don't want to be touched. You have every right to fight back, sky. Don't accept that shit from men ever.

Mister D
12-13-2013, 11:58 AM
I had a drink poured in my crotch by a girl I was trying to date once. She was pretty sweet.

Hope it wasn't good whiskey. :angry:

kilgram
12-13-2013, 12:00 PM
We don't kow why people are gay. The end.

That said, "far left" regimes were traditionally moralisitic. Homosexuals were marginalized in the Eastern Bloc, for example, and among western Marxists as well. In fact, they sounded a lot like the family values conservatives we see today in the US. Things began to change only after the great compromise (i.e. when central planning was abandoned and a limited market accepted in return for a robust welfare state). The left has abandoned its original base (i.e. the western working classes).
It was for Stalin. Because before him, Marxism was as it behaves today. It was much more open in sex topics. And if we talk about the other lefts, like the Anarchist one, they were even much more open.

Codename Section
12-13-2013, 12:01 PM
Some men who react violently to other men who make passes at them do so because they are homophobic, afraid of being gay themselves.

Well, isn't homophobia just fear of gays? So I guess if a guy tries to come onto them maybe they're afraid of being raped. Dunno. Verbal passes to me are just shit talking. I can say "no" and move on. Maybe some guys are afraid they'll be raped...I really don't know.

I know some women are overly sensitive about men making passes but its hard for me to say because I've never been the small guy in the room so I don't know what or how that feels. I just know what my sisters told me and it left an impression.

Codename Section
12-13-2013, 12:02 PM
Hope it wasn't good whiskey. :angry:

It was our first "date". I'd bumped into her literally in a parking lot and didn't notice her because I was on the phone. When I kept walking she followed me and called me an asshole so I offered to buy her a drink. I wasn't all that interested at the time because she's a normal and so I checked out this other chick at the bar and she poured a drink in my lap.

What a cutie. :D

kilgram
12-13-2013, 12:03 PM
LOL. You just proved my point.



Their reasoning for killing themselves is pure speculation by you. Why should I change the law when you've admitted there is no evidence being gay is natural or genetic any more than people who make any other life choice?
It is not a life choice. It is a fact. Homosexuality is not something that is only human. Homosexuality is common in almost all the animal kingdom.

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 12:07 PM
Well, isn't homophobia just fear of gays? So I guess if a guy tries to come onto them maybe they're afraid of being raped. Dunno. Verbal passes to me are just shit talking. I can say "no" and move on. Maybe some guys are afraid they'll be raped...I really don't know.

I know some women are overly sensitive about men making passes but its hard for me to say because I've never been the small guy in the room so I don't know what or how that feels. I just know what my sisters told me and it left an impression.

Homophobia is fear of gays, and it is also fear of being gay yourself.

Codename Section
12-13-2013, 12:10 PM
Homophobia is fear of gays, and it is also fear of being gay yourself.

I don't buy that. People know if they're gay or not. It would be like knowing if you like bacon or not. If you've never been attracted to a dude, you're not going to up and start just because one hits on you.

Are you going to suddenly meet a guy and go straight? Naw. You "know".

I do think that the guys that have to be violent first with anyone are just physically afraid. It's why little dogs are more apt to bite than big ones. I'd rather be in a room with a mastiff than a terrier.

Mister D
12-13-2013, 12:15 PM
It was for Stalin. Because before him, Marxism was as it behaves today. It was much more open in sex topics. And if we talk about the other lefts, like the Anarchist one, they were even much more open.

No, it wasn't. The traditional Left was very moralistic. Now they are more concerned about homos, abortion, and replacing you with non-whites.

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 12:19 PM
I don't buy that. People know if they're gay or not. It would be like knowing if you like bacon or not. If you've never been attracted to a dude, you're not going to up and start just because one hits on you.

Are you going to suddenly meet a guy and go straight? Naw. You "know".

I do think that the guys that have to be violent first with anyone are just physically afraid. It's why little dogs are more apt to bite than big ones. I'd rather be in a room with a mastiff than a terrier.
People don't automatically know they're gay. People may have some thought and then immediately dismiss it. There are people, like the Mormon man I mentioned who refuses to accept he's gay, and he hates gay people, yet gets drunk and has sex with men when he's inebriated.

It's not always as simple as you think.

Codename Section
12-13-2013, 12:24 PM
People don't automatically know they're gay. People may have some thought and then immediately dismiss it. There are people, like the Mormon man I mentioned who refuses to accept he's gay, and he hates gay people, yet gets drunk and has sex with men when he's inebriated.

It's not always as simple as you think.


He knows he's attracted to men but is in denial of what that means. That's different than not knowing you're gay or being afraid you can catch the gay.

You know you are attracted to women. You know that Brad Pitt can't change your mind. He can't mine, either. We know we like chicks because we have gut reactions to women.

Dudes that are hiding their attraction to men still know they have that attraction. When they pretend they're not gay, they open up the people around them to a lot of hurt and pain and that's serious bullshit.

Part of why I will support dudes who come out is because they're saying that not only are they going to live their life and be happy but they won't drag others into the suffering. It's wrong to marry a guy if you like chicks, marry a chick if you like guys. Period. The other person married in good faith.

The mormon church is making a lot of women unhappy by pushing for men to marry women who like dudes, IMO.

kilgram
12-13-2013, 12:25 PM
No, it wasn't. The traditional Left was very moralistic. Now they are more concerned about homos, abortion, and replacing you with non-whites.
Are you sure? Because all the "classic" or traditional left that I know were very open and advanced of their time concerning all these topics.

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 12:29 PM
He knows he's attracted to men but is in denial of what that means. That's different than not knowing you're gay or being afraid you can catch the gay.

You know you are attracted to women. You know that Brad Pitt can't change your mind. He can't mine, either. We know we like chicks because we have gut reactions to women.

Dudes that are hiding their attraction to men still know they have that attraction. When they pretend they're not gay, they open up the people around them to a lot of hurt and pain and that's serious bullshit.

Part of why I will support dudes who come out is because they're saying that not only are they going to live their life and be happy but they won't drag others into the suffering. It's wrong to marry a guy if you like chicks, marry a chick if you like guys. Period. The other person married in good faith.

The mormon church is making a lot of women unhappy by pushing for men to marry women who like dudes, IMO.

This man does not consciously acknowledge being attracted to men, yet he has sex with them. Plenty of men who have anonymous sex with other men do not consider themselves gay.

What you have to thank for this level of suppression is a society that won't allow gays and lesbians to exist. In this fellow's case, it is the Mormon Church.

Some women and men marry not because they're in love but they marry to cover each other's true interests sexually. Countries where that is common practice are the most oppressive to gays, such as in the Middle East.

My mother did not know about my father's sexuality until she caught him with another man. As a Catholic, and a naïve one, at that. She didn't even know what she was seeing.

My father spent ten years in a mental hospital after they split up. I don't know if it was because he really did have mental illness or if he was committed for being gay.

It's possible to love someone but not have interest in them sexually.

Mister D
12-13-2013, 12:35 PM
Are you sure? Because all the "classic" or traditional left that I know were very open and advanced of their time concerning all these topics.

Very sure. The left used to care about the native working class, their families, moral etc.

Codename Section
12-13-2013, 12:36 PM
This man does not consciously acknowledge being attracted to men, yet he has sex with them. Plenty of men who have anonymous sex with other men do not consider themselves gay.

What you have to thank for this level of suppression is a society that won't allow gays and lesbians to exist. In this fellow's case, it is the Mormon Church.

Some women and men marry not because they're in love but they marry to cover each other's true interests sexually. Countries where that is common practice are the most oppressive to gays, such as in the Middle East.

My mother did not know about my father's sexuality until she caught him with another man. As a Catholic, and a naïve one, at that. She didn't even know what she was seeing.

My father spent ten years in a mental hospital after they split up. I don't know if it was because he really did have mental illness or if he was committed for being gay.

It's possible to love someone but not have interest in them sexually.

Then he's mentally ill because there's no way you cannot know who you are attracted to. Unless maybe he's bi or something. I dunno.

I think it's wrong to invite people into your own personal hell whatever that hell may be. It's wrong for gay dudes to marry straight women and it would be wrong for a PTSD vet or alcoholic to date someone (relationship) when they know they have issues to work through.

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 12:40 PM
Then he's mentally ill because there's no way you cannot know who you are attracted to. Unless maybe he's bi or something. I dunno.

I think it's wrong to invite people into your own personal hell whatever that hell may be. It's wrong for gay dudes to marry straight women and it would be wrong for a PTSD vet or alcoholic to date someone (relationship) when they know they have issues to work through.

I agree that it was wrong for my father to not disclose his attraction to men. But consider the fifties. Not exactly a reknown time for open communication between women and men about anything like that.

Things are different now and for the better.

Mister D
12-13-2013, 12:41 PM
kilgram I now have points of agreement with the left...the way the left used to be.

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 12:47 PM
@kilgram (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=867) I now have points of agreement with the left...the way the left used to be.

Really? What points of agreement do you have with the left. This I gotta see.

kilgram
12-13-2013, 01:05 PM
Very sure. The left used to care about the native working class, their families, moral etc.
Ok, can you name traditional leftists?

Just to know about what we are talking. Left is too generic.

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 01:10 PM
The moral left: anti-war, anti-death penalty, pro-equal civil rights.

Mister D
12-13-2013, 02:42 PM
Ok, can you name traditional leftists?

Just to know about what we are talking. Left is too generic.

Every Eastern bloc state, China, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea, and every western Marxist party up until the 1970s. Gays were generally marginalized. I'm not sure why you are taking this so hard.

Mister D
12-13-2013, 02:48 PM
Really? What points of agreement do you have with the left. This I gotta see.

Economically, I side more with the left than what we have come to call the right.

Max Rockatansky
12-13-2013, 03:04 PM
The moral left: anti-war, anti-death penalty, pro-equal civil rights.

A noble goal, but if you think that is the truth, the actuality, then I have some very bad news for you.

kilgram
12-13-2013, 03:37 PM
Every Eastern bloc state, China, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea, and every western Marxist party up until the 1970s. Gays were generally marginalized. I'm not sure why you are taking this so hard.
Ok, I am not takint this so hard. But I mean that you are generalizating, saying the traditional left, and I tell you, it depends. Because many leftists, pre-Stalin didn't have this kind of view.

Mister D
12-13-2013, 03:45 PM
Ok, I am not takint this so hard. But I mean that you are generalizating, saying the traditional left, and I tell you, it depends. Because many leftists, pre-Stalin didn't have this kind of view.

Perhaps individual intelletuals but every party and movement was in practice one that supported traditional values. Homosexuality was almost always frowned upon and often criminalized. Things changed a few decades ago when the left abandoned the white working class that constituted its original base.

Mister D
12-13-2013, 03:46 PM
kilgram the western left has probably been friendly toward homosexuals in your lifetime. Mine too. It wasn't always that way.

kilgram
12-13-2013, 04:42 PM
@kilgram (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=867) the western left has probably been friendly toward homosexuals in your lifetime. Mine too. It wasn't always that way.
Yes, but as I stated, the left is very wide. I stated that there are two periods or three of the left:

- First International (1860) to USSR: In this period we have two great lines of thinking, the one originated from Marx, Marxism and the other from Bakunin, Anarchism. In the line of Marxism, also there was strong femenism, and tolerance to gays. In the Anarchism, the things are taken to other level, and there are defensors of the gays like Emma Goldman...

In Spain, for example the left had no traditional views of the family, they considered patriarchal and anti-freedom. In Spain until the Civil War the left was pretty Libertarian.

- URSS and his circle of influence: Stalin changed all this, and became the left that we know. Even considering the gays as antirevolutionary in the case of the URSS, but before him, they were accepted, and there was no such prejudices against them

- The vision of today: The left is absolutely defensor of their rights, but they have forgotten many things about the working class and the class struggle. And the left that keeps to the traditional principles to the ones before USSR are a bit fringe.

Codename Section
12-13-2013, 05:33 PM
Yes, but as I stated, the left is very wide. I stated that there are two periods or three of the left:

- First International (1860) to USSR: In this period we have two great lines of thinking, the one originated from Marx, Marxism and the other from Bakunin, Anarchism. In the line of Marxism, also there was strong femenism, and tolerance to gays. In the Anarchism, the things are taken to other level, and there are defensors of the gays like Emma Goldman...

In Spain, for example the left had no traditional views of the family, they considered patriarchal and anti-freedom. In Spain until the Civil War the left was pretty Libertarian.

- URSS and his circle of influence: Stalin changed all this, and became the left that we know. Even considering the gays as antirevolutionary in the case of the URSS, but before him, they were accepted, and there was no such prejudices against them

- The vision of today: The left is absolutely defensor of their rights, but they have forgotten many things about the working class and the class struggle. And the left that keeps to the traditional principles to the ones before USSR are a bit fringe.


He's talking about

Locke
Jefferson
Paine
...

kilgram
12-13-2013, 05:37 PM
He's talking about

Locke
Jefferson
Paine
...
For this I asked for names. Because when it is talked about leftism I think about Socialists, anarchists,...

Ravi
12-13-2013, 07:40 PM
Every Eastern bloc state, China, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea, and every western Marxist party up until the 1970s. Gays were generally marginalized. I'm not sure why you are taking this so hard.funny, you liked what you perceived as the left if they were stalinists

sky dancer
12-13-2013, 08:02 PM
A noble goal, but if you think that is the truth, the actuality, then I have some very bad news for you.

I speak for myself only.

Max Rockatansky
12-13-2013, 08:41 PM
I speak for myself only.

Correction acknowledged.

Mister D
12-13-2013, 09:09 PM
funny, you liked what you perceived as the left if they were stalinists

If every historical manifestation of the left equals Stalinist we can wrap this up. Think your comments through. :grin:

Mister D
12-13-2013, 09:12 PM
Yes, but as I stated, the left is very wide. I stated that there are two periods or three of the left:

- First International (1860) to USSR: In this period we have two great lines of thinking, the one originated from Marx, Marxism and the other from Bakunin, Anarchism. In the line of Marxism, also there was strong femenism, and tolerance to gays. In the Anarchism, the things are taken to other level, and there are defensors of the gays like Emma Goldman...

In Spain, for example the left had no traditional views of the family, they considered patriarchal and anti-freedom. In Spain until the Civil War the left was pretty Libertarian.

- URSS and his circle of influence: Stalin changed all this, and became the left that we know. Even considering the gays as antirevolutionary in the case of the URSS, but before him, they were accepted, and there was no such prejudices against them

- The vision of today: The left is absolutely defensor of their rights, but they have forgotten many things about the working class and the class struggle. And the left that keeps to the traditional principles to the ones before USSR are a bit fringe.

You're a white working class guy, right? The left hates you. You're living in the past.

Cthulhu
12-13-2013, 10:04 PM
The mormon church is making a lot of women unhappy by pushing for men to marry women who like dudes, IMO.

Wrong.

They specifically advise against 'marriage as a cure'. Probably the worst idea ever actually.

Mr Happy
12-13-2013, 10:59 PM
Science too is not provable.

100 percent disagree...

Mr Happy
12-13-2013, 11:02 PM
Science is tentative, incomplete, and probabilistic.

It is not in some cases. There is nothing tentative or incomplete about humans needing oxygen to breathe. That was discovered via science.

And don't mistake me for somebody who doesn't understand what you are trying to say. I do. I just disagree. And I disagree with your source, who at the end of the day had an opinion. You seem to believe his opinion. Doesn''t mean he was/is right...

Dr. Who
12-13-2013, 11:14 PM
Precisely, not a theory, not even a hypothesis, no model, no prediction, no proof, just a fact.

Science does have proven facts. All of science is a quest for discovery. Theories lead to the answers to questions asked a certain way, and if the question is always asked the same way, the theory is always true. It may not be true if the question is asked differently. That does not make the original question and answer wrong or unproven, but just one part of an ongoing dialogue with the universe.

Codename Section
12-13-2013, 11:57 PM
Science is a methodology. Facts are the conclusions of the methodology.

Mr Happy
12-14-2013, 04:18 AM
Science is a methodology. Facts are the conclusions of the methodology.

sci·ence [sahy-uhhttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnghttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngns] [/URL] Show IPA
noun1.a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged andshowing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2.systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation andexperimentation.

3.any of the branches of natural or [URL="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/physical%20science"]physical science (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html).

4.systematized knowledge in general.

5.knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.




I disagree...still...

kilgram
12-14-2013, 05:39 AM
You're a white working class guy, right? The left hates you. You're living in the past.
If you are saying the left like Democrats, PSOE, Labour Party... then yes.

If we are talking about the left that I've met, like the CUP in Catalonia, like Bildu in Basque Country, they don't. They are as the left of the past. Working class, unemployed, all that is what they represent plus strong defense of assambleary democracy...

I am not living in the past.

Max Rockatansky
12-14-2013, 10:27 AM
100 percent disagree...

I agree 100% with your disagreement.

FWIW, I don't argue with people who insist the world is flat or that the Moon Landing is a hoax.

I will, OTOH, discuss those topics with people who have questions about such topics.

Contrails
12-14-2013, 10:57 AM
Proof is for mathematics and logic.
Don't forget alcohol.

Chris
12-14-2013, 11:08 AM
Science too is not provable. See discussion above....


100 percent disagree...


And what reasons do you have?

Chris
12-14-2013, 11:10 AM
Science too is not provable. See discussion above.

And again no one has decried one for the other.


It is not in some cases. There is nothing tentative or incomplete about humans needing oxygen to breathe. That was discovered via science.

And don't mistake me for somebody who doesn't understand what you are trying to say. I do. I just disagree. And I disagree with your source, who at the end of the day had an opinion. You seem to believe his opinion. Doesn''t mean he was/is right...



Humans needing oxygen is a fact discovered, I agree, by science, but it is not a scientific prediction, it is not itself science.

So again, why do you disagree? Explain how science proves things. By authoroty? No. By induction? No. So how?

Chris
12-14-2013, 11:13 AM
Science too is not provable. See discussion above.

And again no one has decried one for the other.


sci·ence [sahy-uhhttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnghttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngns] [/URL] Show IPA
noun1.a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged andshowing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2.systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation andexperimentation.

3.any of the branches of natural or [URL="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/physical%20science"]physical science (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html).

4.systematized knowledge in general.

5.knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.




I disagree...still...



Give us a single scientific proof, not of facts, but, as your common dictionary states, the study of those facts.

Recall we already looked at Newtonian Laws that were refined by Einstein.

Chris
12-14-2013, 11:14 AM
I agree 100% with your disagreement.

FWIW, I don't argue with people who insist the world is flat or that the Moon Landing is a hoax.

I will, OTOH, discuss those topics with people who have questions about such topics.


In what way do you disagree?

No one here is arguing the world is flat or that the Moon Landing is a hoax. We're arguing the fundamental nature of science. If you believe it proves things, explain how. Mere disagreement is nothing.

Codename Section
12-14-2013, 11:24 AM
sci·ence

[sahy-uhhttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnghttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngns] Show IPA
noun1.a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged andshowing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2.systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation andexperimentation.

3.any of the branches of natural or physical science (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/physical science).

4.systematized knowledge in general.

5.knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.




I disagree...still...


What of that disputes methodology?

Describe in your OWN words "science". People use "science" like they used to use religious words. There are a gazillion scientists and they all disagree for research cash.

Chris
12-14-2013, 11:56 AM
If science and its theories are settled and proven what's to be made of Kun's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions? Einstein's theory of relativity revolutionized then accepted science.

Contrails
12-14-2013, 12:25 PM
Science is a methodology. Facts are the conclusions of the methodology.
Facts are the basis of that methodology. Theories are the conclusions and are always subject to change. Hence science never "proves" anything.

Contrails
12-14-2013, 12:30 PM
There is nothing tentative or incomplete about humans needing oxygen to breathe. That was discovered via science.

That humans need oxygen to breathe was discovered through simple observation. Through science we theorize that it because our cells derive the energy to function through cellular respiration. How this process works is subject to further study and possibly a new theory that explains things better.

Mr. Freeze
12-14-2013, 12:33 PM
Facts are the basis of that methodology. Theories are the conclusions and are always subject to change. Hence science never "proves" anything.

Theories are based on hypothesis and observation and are always subject to change as new observations occur. Facts are the conclusions of theoretical research over time and are in many cases subjective, but not always.

Science can prove things to a point.

None of this has anything to do with the OP which is an attempt to make gay people feel like if they only tried harder they could be straight, or that they shouldn't have marriage rights because it is a choice.

In my opinion, at least, given this is just an observation.

Chris
12-14-2013, 12:41 PM
Facts are the basis of that methodology. Theories are the conclusions and are always subject to change. Hence science never "proves" anything.

I would only change facts are the knowledge the methodology studies.

The basis of the methodology itself is the belief it, the methodology, works.

The methodology:

http://i.snag.gy/XeRLM.jpg

(Image source: http://www.tomatosphere.org/teacher-resources/teachers-guide/principal-investigation/scientific-method.cfm)


The theories, the models, the laws, are ever changing.

Evolution is a fact, evolutionary theory, according to Pigliucci and Müller, Evolution - the Extended Synthesis, is now in its thrid phase of, well, evolution itself:

http://i.snag.gy/LeGpf.jpg

(Image source: http://the-operator-theory.wikispaces.com/Darwin+and+beyond)

Chris
12-14-2013, 12:43 PM
Theories are based on hypothesis and observation and are always subject to change as new observations occur. Facts are the conclusions of theoretical research over time and are in many cases subjective, but not always.

Science can prove things to a point.

None of this has anything to do with the OP which is an attempt to make gay people feel like if they only tried harder they could be straight, or that they shouldn't have marriage rights because it is a choice.

In my opinion, at least, given this is just an observation.



That is correct, this discussion of science is really unrelated to the unscientific opinion of the OP.

Contrails
12-14-2013, 12:54 PM
That is correct, this discussion of science is really unrelated to the unscientific opinion of the OP.

Regardless of any scientific theories about what causes homosexuality, it's an observable fact that our sexuality is not a choice, so our laws should focus on how that sexuality affects other people. And there is no evidence whatsoever that allowing two people of the same sex to marry causes anyone harm.

Mr. Freeze
12-14-2013, 12:57 PM
Regardless of any scientific theories about what causes homosexuality, it's an observable fact that our sexuality is not a choice, so our laws should focus on how that sexuality affects other people. And there is no evidence whatsoever that allowing two people of the same sex to marry causes anyone harm.

Sexuality is always a choice, our visceral reaction to stimuli is not.

Regardless, why is it the goal of other people to stifle the non-violent behaviors of others or dictate what others freely choose to do with their lives? Why is their happiness and joy not respected?

Codename Section
12-14-2013, 01:02 PM
Mr. Freeze sky dancer

meet each other. You're both Buddhists who like Thich Nat Hanh and me. :D

Chris
12-14-2013, 01:04 PM
I guess the way I'd put it is it's nature and nurture--which nurture can select for nature. Acting upon it is a choice, ie, having sex is a choice unless you're raped or otherwise forced.