Government Laws on Marriage

[senojekips]

Which gives out the majority you are so in love with.

"The majority of a minority", is that like an average of averages? Of course we who know our math will tell you that is not a valid assumption.

 

[Chukpike]

When I asked for proof I acknowledge that a percentage could be born gay. I had done research. You contended that Gay's and Lesbians are all born homosexual. None of your sources prove your contention.

33 out of 40 sets of gay brothers were linked to genetic influence. This would translate into about 75% of gays being born gay. Meaning 25% of gays being gay by choice.

The sources you use that mentions Lesbians, makes no conclusion of determination being before birth.

Which gives out the majority you are so in love with.

Majority of what? You did not include homosexual women at 0% born gay.
Since you lifted this out of context from my post, maybe you would like to prove mmarsh's contention that all homosexuals are born gay? Since I believe you have made the same contention previously.

Your a smart guy maybe you can do a better job than he did.

Yeah, I didn't think so.

 

[Chukpike]

As TOG already said... All the given sources give you that precious majority that seems to be your golden calf of worship.

Are you illiterate? mmarsh contended that all homosexuals were born that way. Posts like this are considered flaming I believe.

Since you wish to add something and you have made the same contention it is your turn to provide your sources.

Oh! I feel a rant coming on.

 

[Rob Henderson]

I've already given you the sources. And mmarsh gave you 5 more. If you're too blind or too proud to read them or understand them, that's your own burden to bear.

mmarsh contended that all homosexuals were born that way.

Really? Where?

 

[mmarsh]

Chukpike

As I suspected, Its pretty clear that you are really are not interested in acknowledging an opposing view no matter what the evidence is. You have already made your mind up. Unfortunately for you, science would seem to disagree with you.

All you did was nitpick the studies done by people a lot more knowledgeable in the field than you think you are, especially because you didn't providing any evidence to support another hypothesis. You focused on trivial facts in order to avoid the MAJORITY conclusion; which is homosexuality is genetic.

Unless you have a doctorate in the field of genetics, You would have a hard time credibly arguing against a single one of these studies but to argue against all 5 plus those provided by Henderson all of which come pretty close to the same conclusion is just being ignorant. I am going to take the expert's opinion on this over yours.

 

[Chukpike]

All the sources quoted below came from mmarsh

Source 1.

The National Cancer Institute study lead by Hamer, a Harvard trained geneticist, looked at 40 families with two gay brothers. Hamer and his team found evidence in 33 of the pairs for a genetically maternal influence in the determination of male homosexuality."

Source 4

"The next step for the researchers is to locate the precise gene or genes involved and attempt to determine their biochemical effects. Will finding such "gay genes" rule out the idea that social and psychological influences can have a significant effect on a man's sexual preference? "Absolutely not," declares molecular biologist Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute, who headed both the 1993 investigation and the new one. "From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors, not to negate the psychosocial factors."

Source 5
"Women may have more fluidity of sexual expression than men, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have a specific sexual orientation, said Lisa Diamond, a professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah who studies female sexual orientation.
One explanation is that women’s sexual behavior is driven more by relationships."

I've already given you the sources. And mmarsh gave you 5 more. If you're too blind or too proud to read them or understand them, that's your own burden to bear.

Please direct me to your post that supplied sources in support of homosexuals being born that way. I will read them.

Chukpike
As I suspected, Its pretty clear that you are really are not interested in acknowledging an opposing view no matter what the evidence is. You have already made your mind up. Unfortunately for you, science would seem to disagree with you.

It is more clear from my posts that I would consider that some homosexuals could be born gay. After reading your sources my belief that all homosexuals are not born gay has been reaffirmed.

All you did was nitpick the studies done by people a lot more knowledgeable in the field than you think you are, especially because you didn't providing any evidence to support another hypothesis. You focused on trivial facts in order to avoid the MAJORITY conclusion; which is homosexuality is genetic.

Nitpick? These statements were taken directly from your sources.
Your first source included a 1993 study by Dean Hamer. Your fourth source was another study by the same man in which he states," "From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited".

It is you and Rob who are blind to the conclusions draw from your own sources.
The sources that concluded women did not support female homosexual-ism being caused by "being born that way".

Unless you have a doctorate in the field of genetics, You would have a hard time credibly arguing against a single one of these studies but to argue against all 5 plus those provided by Henderson all of which come pretty close to the same conclusion is just being ignorant. I am going to take the expert's opinion on this over yours.

I do not need to argue against your sources, I agree with them. None of them stated anywhere that all homosexuals were born gay. I relied on you to prove your statement, you were not able to do that from the sources you supplied.

As far as Henderson goes, please direct me to his post where he gave sources for the homosexuals being born that way.

 

[Rob Henderson]

All the sources quoted below came from mmarsh




Please direct me to your post that supplied sources in support of homosexuals being born that way. I will read them.


It is more clear from my posts that I would consider that some homosexuals could be born gay. After reading your sources my belief that all homosexuals are not born gay has been reaffirmed.


Nitpick? These statements were taken directly from your sources.
Your first source included a 1993 study by Dean Hamer. Your fourth source was another study by the same man in which he states," "From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited".

It is you and Rob who are blind to the conclusions draw from your own sources.
The sources that concluded women did not support female homosexual-ism being caused by "being born that way".



I do not need to argue against your sources, I agree with them. None of them stated anywhere that all homosexuals were born gay. I relied on you to prove your statement, you were not able to do that from the sources you supplied.

As far as Henderson goes, please direct me to his post where he gave sources for the homosexuals being born that way.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3008-homosexuality-is-biological-suggests-gay-sheep-study.html

Terribly sorry it took so long, it was in the previous thread on this topic. And in regards to YOU, you have yet to show me where mmarsh stated that ALL homosexuals are born gay.

 

[Chukpike]

Chupike

Thats where you are wrong. It is a civil right. One doesn't choose to be gay one is born gay in the same manner one is born black, asian, or with blue eyes and blond hair. If being gay were really a 'choice' who want to choose it? Nobody. Because nobody would volunteraly put themselves to be ostracized by the rest of society.

Science has proven time and again being gay is genetic. And as long as someone is born in a particular way you cannot deny them any right that is enjoyed by other members of society, no matter what your personal or religious views are.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3008-homosexuality-is-biological-suggests-gay-sheep-study.html

Terribly sorry it took so long, it was in the previous thread on this topic. And in regards to YOU, you have yet to show me where mmarsh stated that ALL homosexuals are born gay.

Ah, yes Rob! Your proof that homosexuals are born gay. I hope everyone goes to your link to see positive proof there are gay sheep.

I will a wait your pronouncement on why mmarsh did not mean ALL homosexuals where born gay as implied in his quote. (Really should be mmarsh point to make, as it was his post).

Then you can explain why as you also posted, it is not a choice they are born that way. I do not believe you used ALL either.

Saying "they are born that way" does seem to indicate the group as a whole.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Chukpike, did you actually read the article, or just the header... Because if all you did was skim it, then you might have missed this DIRECT QUOTE:"
The differences are almost identical to those identified by the neuroscientist Simon LeVay in his studies of the brains of gay men. His work has always been considered controversial, partly because the brains he studied were mostly from men who had died of AIDS. So it was not clear whether the differences were related to the disease or to sexual preferences."


I don't understand how you can say that it's only gay sheep...


Now, I'm defending mmarsh just like you and senojekips defend each other. It's called people with the same opinion.


I challenge you to find someone who is "self-proclaimed" gay, and ask them how they came to that conclusion.

 

[Chukpike]

Chukpike, did you actually read the article, or just the header... Because if all you did was skim it, then you might have missed this DIRECT QUOTE:"
The differences are almost identical to those identified by the neuroscientist Simon LeVay in his studies of the brains of gay men. His work has always been considered controversial, partly because the brains he studied were mostly from men who had died of AIDS. So it was not clear whether the differences were related to the disease or to sexual preferences."


I don't understand how you can say that it's only gay sheep...

Yes I read it, but I was laughing so hard that the tears where blurring my vision!:lol:
You produced one study of sheep, marginally connecting homosexual human males who died of AIDS and gay rams to possibly being born homosexual. This was your proof that gays do not have a choice they are born that way. You offered no proof at all that female gays were "born that way"

From your quote above it says, "So it was not clear whether the differences were related to the disease or to sexual preferences."

Now, I'm defending mmarsh just like you and senojekips defend each other. It's called people with the same opinion.

Noble of you but probably not necessary. You need to worry about better defending your own statements of "homosexuals being born that way".

I challenge you to find someone who is "self-proclaimed" gay, and ask them how they came to that conclusion.

What conclusion? That they are gay? I would guess by the sexual choices they make.

It might be hard to get them to have their brain dissected to either prove or disprove it was choice or by birth.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Yes I read it, but I was laughing so hard that the tears where blurring my vision!:lol:
You produced one study of sheep, marginally connecting homosexual human males who died of AIDS and gay rams to possibly being born homosexual. This was your proof that gays do not have a choice they are born that way. You offered no proof at all that female gays were "born that way"

I'm sorry... Tell me where I said anything about all gays being born that way... I produced a study that shows that the same part of the brain that controls sexual preference in rams also controls the sexual preference of those gay men who's brains he studied. Is it NOT proof enough? Or should I go back and show you more?

From your quote above it says, "So it was not clear whether the differences were related to the disease or to sexual preferences."

There are plenty of other articles on that same site that reiterate my point that homosexuality isn't always a choice.

Noble of you but probably not necessary. You need to worry about better defending your own statements of "homosexuals being born that way".

So you don't believe the study/studies?

What conclusion? That they are gay? I would guess by the sexual choices they make.

It might be hard to get them to have their brain dissected to either prove or disprove it was choice or by birth.

You're right, but according to the brains of those who have already passed on, it IS genetics.

 

[Chukpike]

I'm sorry... Tell me where I said anything about all gays being born that way...

Right here?

You're right, but according to the brains of those who have already passed on, it IS genetics.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Yes, but not every gay is dead...

 

[The Other Guy]

Has anyone ever considered that perhaps homosexuality is god's way of solving overpopulation problems in the world? I've had that going through my head for days now...

 

[AB_Shorts_Momma]

Has anyone ever considered that perhaps homosexuality is god's way of solving overpopulation problems in the world? I've had that going through my head for days now...

That is a good one! I never thought of it, but perhaps now that you've mentioned it some big brain will study that for a while!

 

[A Can of Man]

I'm starting to lean on "I don't care. I'll sit back and watch the world burn."

 

[AeolusDallas]

Wow what a thread to stop my lurking and post...
I just want to point out to those who keep comparing gays getting married to people marrying animals. Marriage is a legal contract. Only consenting adults can sign legally binding contracts. Animals CANNOT sign legally binding contracts. Neither can minors, just in case someone wants to toss that into the discussion.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Don't worry about it, brother. These guys can take anything you say and SOMEHOW twist it in their heads to make it fit their narrow, closed-minded arguments.


Though you make a perfectly valid point, I just think this thread has just about died.

 

[AB_Shorts_Momma]

It is amazing how easily words can be twisted!

 

[The Other Guy]

Wow what a thread to stop my lurking and post...
I just want to point out to those who keep comparing gays getting married to people marrying animals. Marriage is a legal contract. Only consenting adults can sign legally binding contracts. Animals CANNOT sign legally binding contracts. Neither can minors, just in case someone wants to toss that into the discussion.

Excellent point.