I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

[EvilEyeFleegle]

As I've surmised for years. Nobody is born gay. John's Hopkins Research has vindicated me. No! Weak minded people let themselves be seduced by Satan and then become his disciples living out perverted dangerous homosexual lifestyles putting young kids lives in danger, especially when same sex married couples adopt them for their sexual pleasure. Homosexuality is not inate, it is learned. Science has spoken! Now President Trump should sign an executive order making it mandatory for gays to have conversion therapy so they can return to normal and find God.

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay Or Transgender

I agree. It is 100% personal choice, not an inheritance. Most other folly also is not inherited but is the personal choice of the person engaging in it.

If it's 100% a choice, when did you choose your sexual orientation? What age were you? What do you recall leading to that choice?

I look at it different, bode.

We all start off as Normative- that's our nature, so no decision is needed except if you decide to become a she-male or some other kind of non-binary choice. Back in the day, when Sodomy was a crime, it was euphemistically described as a "crime against nature".

The first city when homosexuality was really gloried was Sodom. They loved sodomy so much, they name their city after the act. Imagine if San Francisco decided to get rid of the religious moniker, and changed their name to "Bumphuck". That's basically what the people of Sodom did.

ROTFLMAO! Or...the act was named for the city..rather than the reverse--of course, for those of us that study history..homosexuality was around long before Sodom...it might surprise you to learn the homosexuality has not always been a crime...in the history of the world....which is far, far longer than the history of Judaism, Christianity or any of the cultural roots of our currant culture.
BTW..Fellatio--between opposite sexes was deemed as a 'crime against nature' as well. While beating and raping your wife was considered not only a man's right..but his Christian prerogative!

Crimes Against Nature Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

The point is it's against God's laws. When it's all cut and dried that's what matters

Which God/ Whose God?

Your beliefs are cool..for you...however---part of what makes this country great..IMO--is that you do not get to foist them off on me.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Fear? Just an eye roll.

It's good along...it could get ugly lol

Tears, not fear. It would be terribly funny if someone actually feared queers getting married.

No tears here. Be "married", be happy and content. It's your life...but I know how it ends

I was married long before it become legal, but I know how it ends too...in Halls of Valhalla.

Lol..no. God is pretty clear on this

Indeed he is.

The rules! The rules!!

 

[bendog]

As I've surmised for years. Nobody is born gay. John's Hopkins Research has vindicated me. No! Weak minded people let themselves be seduced by Satan and then become his disciples living out perverted dangerous homosexual lifestyles putting young kids lives in danger, especially when same sex married couples adopt them for their sexual pleasure. Homosexuality is not inate, it is learned. Science has spoken! Now President Trump should sign an executive order making it mandatory for gays to have conversion therapy so they can return to normal and find God.

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay Or Transgender

You didn't even read the summary. LOL

 

[martybegan]

All these tears over fags getting married are simply delicious. I lap them up like a fine bourbon.

When have I complained about them getting married?

My argument has always been about free exercise in the case of the whole cake thing, and the fact that Obergfell is terrible SC precedent.

Obergfell should have allowed the rednecks to continue to not issue SSM licenses, but to accept licenses from out of State under full faith and credit.

I was happy when NY passed SSM legislatively, that was the right way to do it.

Did I say you did, Marty? Nope. I sure didn't.

See, that's what happens when you don't reference people or quote them directly, assumptions are made.

This isn't a NJ rest area, where you can glory hole your way though without actually having to pick and choose an actual person.

Or you could just not make assumptions and jump to conclusions. Crazy, I know.

Nah, just another chance to get my nuanced viewpoint across.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I agree. It is 100% personal choice, not an inheritance. Most other folly also is not inherited but is the personal choice of the person engaging in it.

If it's 100% a choice, when did you choose your sexual orientation? What age were you? What do you recall leading to that choice?

I look at it different, bode.

We all start off as Normative- that's our nature, so no decision is needed except if you decide to become a she-male or some other kind of non-binary choice. Back in the day, when Sodomy was a crime, it was euphemistically described as a "crime against nature".

The first city when homosexuality was really gloried was Sodom. They loved sodomy so much, they name their city after the act. Imagine if San Francisco decided to get rid of the religious moniker, and changed their name to "Bumphuck". That's basically what the people of Sodom did.

ROTFLMAO! Or...the act was named for the city..rather than the reverse--of course, for those of us that study history..homosexuality was around long before Sodom...it might surprise you to learn the homosexuality has not always been a crime...in the history of the world....which is far, far longer than the history of Judaism, Christianity or any of the cultural roots of our currant culture.
BTW..Fellatio--between opposite sexes was deemed as a 'crime against nature' as well. While beating and raping your wife was considered not only a man's right..but his Christian prerogative!

Crimes Against Nature Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

The point is it's against God's laws. When it's all cut and dried that's what matters

Which God/ Whose God?

Your beliefs are cool..for you...however---part of what makes this country great..IMO--is that you do not get to foist them off on me.

Well go suck some junk and hope for the best

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

If it's 100% a choice, when did you choose your sexual orientation? What age were you? What do you recall leading to that choice?

I look at it different, bode.

We all start off as Normative- that's our nature, so no decision is needed except if you decide to become a she-male or some other kind of non-binary choice. Back in the day, when Sodomy was a crime, it was euphemistically described as a "crime against nature".

The first city when homosexuality was really gloried was Sodom. They loved sodomy so much, they name their city after the act. Imagine if San Francisco decided to get rid of the religious moniker, and changed their name to "Bumphuck". That's basically what the people of Sodom did.

ROTFLMAO! Or...the act was named for the city..rather than the reverse--of course, for those of us that study history..homosexuality was around long before Sodom...it might surprise you to learn the homosexuality has not always been a crime...in the history of the world....which is far, far longer than the history of Judaism, Christianity or any of the cultural roots of our currant culture.
BTW..Fellatio--between opposite sexes was deemed as a 'crime against nature' as well. While beating and raping your wife was considered not only a man's right..but his Christian prerogative!

Crimes Against Nature Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

The point is it's against God's laws. When it's all cut and dried that's what matters

Which God/ Whose God?

Your beliefs are cool..for you...however---part of what makes this country great..IMO--is that you do not get to foist them off on me.

Well go suck some junk and hope for the best

Now..I'll leave the junk sucking to you..Sassy Lassy--Assuming you can find someone so very foolish..and/or drunk.

Times are against your point of view..the whole 'gay' thing is losing relevance as the younger folks recognize it for the non-issue that it is.

 

[Lysistrata]

The baker wasn't "punished," the gay couple were. The baker punished them for their beliefs by refusing to do business with them because he personally does not agree with their lifestyle.
Well la dee dah. No one cares what your personal opinion is when you are doing business with the public. In this country, we're EQUAL.
I feel bad for him, because he has been consistent in his beliefs for years and it isn't just gay cakes he won't make. But I don't see another solution but stepping in and forcing him to follow the rules of equality.

Wrong, he doesn't just disagree, the work violated his deeply held religious convictions. That's also in the Constitution and the gov't should not be able to FORCE you to do that, not even to do business.

I think the baker has an excellent chance with this Supreme Court.

See Employment Division,Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

Employment Division v. Smith

All persons, no matter of what their beliefs are, must obey generally applicable laws.

Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind."
​

Justice Antonin Scalia

Your theory would create social chaos, with the adult population among 320+ people each going his or her own way, each guided only by a personal belief.

Personally, I don't want to see horse-drawn buggies on the beltway.

Because you are a progressive asshole who thinks everyone should live, think and act like you do.

You are the one how thinks that everyone should live, think, and act like you do. Your comments usually bespeak of wanting to impose your will on others, and cause chaos in the process. You don't seem to realize that not everyone chooses your lifestyle. You think only of yourself.

BTW: there is nothing wrong with being a "progressive." Progress is a good thing.

How is my will being imposed? The couple in the cake situation can still easily get a cake, they can still have a wedding. The baker on the other hand is faced with either going against their moral code or going out of business.

If I owned a bake shop I wouldn't decline gay weddings. My issue is you trying to force others to work against their will over a trivial matter.

Progress isn't by default a good thing, if you want an example try progressing over a cliff.

He wasn't "forced to work" or "forced to go out of business." All he needed to do was to pay the fine and correct his business practices to conform to the law. His business could not be lost by the lose of one cake order. If he lost business, it seems like other people decided not to patronize him.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I look at it different, bode.

We all start off as Normative- that's our nature, so no decision is needed except if you decide to become a she-male or some other kind of non-binary choice. Back in the day, when Sodomy was a crime, it was euphemistically described as a "crime against nature".

The first city when homosexuality was really gloried was Sodom. They loved sodomy so much, they name their city after the act. Imagine if San Francisco decided to get rid of the religious moniker, and changed their name to "Bumphuck". That's basically what the people of Sodom did.

ROTFLMAO! Or...the act was named for the city..rather than the reverse--of course, for those of us that study history..homosexuality was around long before Sodom...it might surprise you to learn the homosexuality has not always been a crime...in the history of the world....which is far, far longer than the history of Judaism, Christianity or any of the cultural roots of our currant culture.
BTW..Fellatio--between opposite sexes was deemed as a 'crime against nature' as well. While beating and raping your wife was considered not only a man's right..but his Christian prerogative!

Crimes Against Nature Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

The point is it's against God's laws. When it's all cut and dried that's what matters

Which God/ Whose God?

Your beliefs are cool..for you...however---part of what makes this country great..IMO--is that you do not get to foist them off on me.

Well go suck some junk and hope for the best

Now..I'll leave the junk sucking to you..Sassy Lassy--Assuming you can find someone so very foolish..and/or drunk.

Times are against your point of view..the whole 'gay' thing is losing relevance as the younger folks recognize it for the non-issue that it is.

Married 16 years this July to a great husband and father.

You have failed yet again....fag

 

[mdk]

All these tears over fags getting married are simply delicious. I lap them up like a fine bourbon.

When have I complained about them getting married?

My argument has always been about free exercise in the case of the whole cake thing, and the fact that Obergfell is terrible SC precedent.

Obergfell should have allowed the rednecks to continue to not issue SSM licenses, but to accept licenses from out of State under full faith and credit.

I was happy when NY passed SSM legislatively, that was the right way to do it.

Did I say you did, Marty? Nope. I sure didn't.

See, that's what happens when you don't reference people or quote them directly, assumptions are made.

This isn't a NJ rest area, where you can glory hole your way though without actually having to pick and choose an actual person.

Or you could just not make assumptions and jump to conclusions. Crazy, I know.

Nah, just another chance to get my nuanced viewpoint across.

The thing is, I agree with you’re legal reasoning 100% concerning Obergefell. I feel that would been the better ruling for Loving as well, but that wasn’t the way it was decided.

 

[OldLady]

See Employment Division,Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

Employment Division v. Smith

All persons, no matter of what their beliefs are, must obey generally applicable laws.

Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind."
​

Justice Antonin Scalia

Your theory would create social chaos, with the adult population among 320+ people each going his or her own way, each guided only by a personal belief.

Personally, I don't want to see horse-drawn buggies on the beltway.

So would you be in favor of forcing Islamonazi butchers to sell bacon and pork?

Sure, its against their religion, but tough shit, eh?

The government isn't forcing the baker to sell anything. It says IF YOU ALREADY MAKE WEDDING CAKES, you must sell them to EVERYONE. Period. What is so hard about that?

They don't want to participate in SSM wedding ceremonies. Where is the government benefit in forcing them to do so or ruining them?

The government simply enforces the law; if they didn't, we would have anarchy. Being religious doesn't make you special. You cannot break the law because of it.

So Southern States were just enforcing Plessey and Jim Crow?

Sorry, but allowing a Religious exemption for a non-critical, non-timely, contracted service will not result in anarchy. Forcing them to bake or else, however is a pretty good step towards tyranny.

The whole point is they SHOULDN'T have to break the law, because the law in questions shouldn't be applied to them.

Cripes, you are just as tone deaf as body when it comes to running behind the law's skirt.

I have no problem with the P.A. laws. I have no problem with homosexuality. I have no problem with strict Christians. I do have a problem with saying "the law shouldn't be applied to them." Now that has a very unfair ring to it.

 

[martybegan]

Wrong, he doesn't just disagree, the work violated his deeply held religious convictions. That's also in the Constitution and the gov't should not be able to FORCE you to do that, not even to do business.

I think the baker has an excellent chance with this Supreme Court.

See Employment Division,Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)

Employment Division v. Smith

All persons, no matter of what their beliefs are, must obey generally applicable laws.

Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind."
​

Justice Antonin Scalia

Your theory would create social chaos, with the adult population among 320+ people each going his or her own way, each guided only by a personal belief.

Personally, I don't want to see horse-drawn buggies on the beltway.

Because you are a progressive asshole who thinks everyone should live, think and act like you do.

You are the one how thinks that everyone should live, think, and act like you do. Your comments usually bespeak of wanting to impose your will on others, and cause chaos in the process. You don't seem to realize that not everyone chooses your lifestyle. You think only of yourself.

BTW: there is nothing wrong with being a "progressive." Progress is a good thing.

How is my will being imposed? The couple in the cake situation can still easily get a cake, they can still have a wedding. The baker on the other hand is faced with either going against their moral code or going out of business.

If I owned a bake shop I wouldn't decline gay weddings. My issue is you trying to force others to work against their will over a trivial matter.

Progress isn't by default a good thing, if you want an example try progressing over a cliff.

He wasn't "forced to work" or "forced to go out of business." All he needed to do was to pay the fine and correct his business practices to conform to the law. His business could not be lost by the lose of one cake order. If he lost business, it seems like other people decided not to patronize him.

He didn't want to bake the cake.

He either has to bake the cakes or continue getting fines that will put him out of business.

You know others will go there just looking for a payout.

Stop trying to hide your hatred of this man and people like him. Be honest to yourself.

It's like with abortion, your side has to come up with all these mental exercises to ignore the main point made by the other side. here it's forced compliance over a trivial matter, with abortion it's the fact that a separate life is dying.

 

[Andylusion]

As I've surmised for years. Nobody is born gay. John's Hopkins Research has vindicated me. No! Weak minded people let themselves be seduced by Satan and then become his disciples living out perverted dangerous homosexual lifestyles putting young kids lives in danger, especially when same sex married couples adopt them for their sexual pleasure. Homosexuality is not inate, it is learned. Science has spoken!

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay Or Transgender

If an identical twin is gay, why is their twin also gay in 40% of the cases....not to be seen with fraternal twins or other siblings?

Actually that isn't evidence of much, if both were raised in the same environment. It still asks the whole "nature vs nurture" question.

A better study would be split identical twins, but considering how few instances of that occur, you don't have enough of a sample size to reach any conclusions.

Actually, in the studies, the 40% still applies for those separated at birth.

Doesn't address the sample size, and 40% to me doesn't seem like preponderance of the evidence.

Of course it could also be due to the fact that there is not always one easy answer to questions like this, or no one reason for a given behavior.

40% if identical dna compared to about 5% for all others? Nothing to see here, folks.

So less than a 50/50 chance of both being gay, with 100% identical DNA. When there is evidence that both would have been raised in identical environments?

What do the statistics show if you have them raised in entirely different environments?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

ROTFLMAO! Or...the act was named for the city..rather than the reverse--of course, for those of us that study history..homosexuality was around long before Sodom...it might surprise you to learn the homosexuality has not always been a crime...in the history of the world....which is far, far longer than the history of Judaism, Christianity or any of the cultural roots of our currant culture.
BTW..Fellatio--between opposite sexes was deemed as a 'crime against nature' as well. While beating and raping your wife was considered not only a man's right..but his Christian prerogative!

Crimes Against Nature Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

The point is it's against God's laws. When it's all cut and dried that's what matters

Which God/ Whose God?

Your beliefs are cool..for you...however---part of what makes this country great..IMO--is that you do not get to foist them off on me.

Well go suck some junk and hope for the best

Now..I'll leave the junk sucking to you..Sassy Lassy--Assuming you can find someone so very foolish..and/or drunk.

Times are against your point of view..the whole 'gay' thing is losing relevance as the younger folks recognize it for the non-issue that it is.

Married 16 years this July to a great husband and father.

You have failed yet again....fag

Which still begs the question..how many 'crimes against nature' have YOU committed?

 

[martybegan]

So would you be in favor of forcing Islamonazi butchers to sell bacon and pork?

Sure, its against their religion, but tough shit, eh?

The government isn't forcing the baker to sell anything. It says IF YOU ALREADY MAKE WEDDING CAKES, you must sell them to EVERYONE. Period. What is so hard about that?

They don't want to participate in SSM wedding ceremonies. Where is the government benefit in forcing them to do so or ruining them?

The government simply enforces the law; if they didn't, we would have anarchy. Being religious doesn't make you special. You cannot break the law because of it.

So Southern States were just enforcing Plessey and Jim Crow?

Sorry, but allowing a Religious exemption for a non-critical, non-timely, contracted service will not result in anarchy. Forcing them to bake or else, however is a pretty good step towards tyranny.

The whole point is they SHOULDN'T have to break the law, because the law in questions shouldn't be applied to them.

Cripes, you are just as tone deaf as body when it comes to running behind the law's skirt.

I have no problem with the P.A. laws. I have no problem with homosexuality. I have no problem with strict Christians. I do have a problem with saying "the law shouldn't be applied to them." Now that has a very unfair ring to it.

Yes, because not being able to bake for a living because of a few specific, non essential, non nessasary contracted transactions is totally fucking fair.

The law should be made to impact what is a compelling government interest, not trivial shit like this.

And I notice you danced around my reference to Plessey.

 

[Dick Foster]

Whether homosexuality manifests as a consequence of nature or choice is legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

The right to make that choice is protected by the Constitution.

BULKSHIT! You seem forget the basis for having law and religious tenets in the first place. Apparently you simply lack the ability to apply logic or reason which are the very traits that IQ scires are based on. I can resonably conclude that your score is somewhat low compared to the norm.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The point is it's against God's laws. When it's all cut and dried that's what matters

Which God/ Whose God?

Your beliefs are cool..for you...however---part of what makes this country great..IMO--is that you do not get to foist them off on me.

Well go suck some junk and hope for the best

Now..I'll leave the junk sucking to you..Sassy Lassy--Assuming you can find someone so very foolish..and/or drunk.

Times are against your point of view..the whole 'gay' thing is losing relevance as the younger folks recognize it for the non-issue that it is.

Married 16 years this July to a great husband and father.

You have failed yet again....fag

Which still begs the question..how many 'crimes against nature' have YOU committed?

Unless I demand you accept them it's none of your concern....Twinkie

Actually you'd be wise to take along look in a mirror....then STFU

 

[martybegan]

When have I complained about them getting married?

My argument has always been about free exercise in the case of the whole cake thing, and the fact that Obergfell is terrible SC precedent.

Obergfell should have allowed the rednecks to continue to not issue SSM licenses, but to accept licenses from out of State under full faith and credit.

I was happy when NY passed SSM legislatively, that was the right way to do it.

Did I say you did, Marty? Nope. I sure didn't.

See, that's what happens when you don't reference people or quote them directly, assumptions are made.

This isn't a NJ rest area, where you can glory hole your way though without actually having to pick and choose an actual person.

Or you could just not make assumptions and jump to conclusions. Crazy, I know.

Nah, just another chance to get my nuanced viewpoint across.

The thing is, I agree with you’re legal reasoning 100% concerning Obergefell. I feel that would been the better ruling for Loving as well, but that wasn’t the way it was decided.

To me loving and Obergfell are not related. There has always been inter-racial/tribal/clan marriage going back to antiquity. The Miscegenation laws were a response that limited something that was previously accepted, even if not by all countries or groups.

SSM as a LEGAL concept is really only something we have come up with in the past few decades. For something new, the legislative process was the way to go, not the courts.

The other option would be for gay people to come up with their own contract and name, call it "Blarrige" or something like that.

 

[Nosmo King]

As I've surmised for years. Nobody is born gay. John's Hopkins Research has vindicated me. No! Weak minded people let themselves be seduced by Satan and then become his disciples living out perverted dangerous homosexual lifestyles putting young kids lives in danger, especially when same sex married couples adopt them for their sexual pleasure. Homosexuality is not inate, it is learned. Science has spoken! Now President Trump should sign an executive order making it mandatory for gays to have conversion therapy so they can return to normal and find God.

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay Or Transgender

Why is this issue so important to you?

 

[satrebil]

As I've surmised for years. Nobody is born gay. John's Hopkins Research has vindicated me. No! Weak minded people let themselves be seduced by Satan and then become his disciples living out perverted dangerous homosexual lifestyles putting young kids lives in danger, especially when same sex married couples adopt them for their sexual pleasure. Homosexuality is not inate, it is learned. Science has spoken!

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay Or Transgender

If an identical twin is gay, why is their twin also gay in 40% of the cases....not to be seen with fraternal twins or other siblings?

Do you not realize you defeated your own argument?

If you're "born" gay, then identical twins should match 100% - including sexual orientation. They are literally exact copies of eachother, DNA and all.

The fact that they are not proves it's a learned behavior.

 

[Meister]

As I've surmised for years. Nobody is born gay. John's Hopkins Research has vindicated me. No! Weak minded people let themselves be seduced by Satan and then become his disciples living out perverted dangerous homosexual lifestyles putting young kids lives in danger, especially when same sex married couples adopt them for their sexual pleasure. Homosexuality is not inate, it is learned. Science has spoken! Now President Trump should sign an executive order making it mandatory for gays to have conversion therapy so they can return to normal and find God.

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay Or Transgender

Why is this issue so important to you?

Well, it's kinda been a political issue for at least the last 10 years....there's that.