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

[bodecea]

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

No...only against so-called laws that people said their gods declared.

 

[Lysistrata]

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?

A "Gay Wedding" is not a wedding. A wedding is between a man and a broad.

Gay weddings are a bird of a different kind

A wedding is a wedding if the paperwork is in order. What is a "broad"? Heterosexual marriages are between a man and a WOMAN.

But that's where you are wrong. Almighty God put Adam and Eve into the Garden, not Adam and Steve- that's a fact pointed out by the late Christian theologian, Jerry Falwell.

A wedding is a sacred event, the Catholic Church labels it a sacrament.

On the other hand, two guys saying they are getting married is a sin.

Basically, Gay Marriage is the opposite of Marriage- just like sacramental is the opposite of sin- capiche?

Only if you are in one of these religions. Since when was Falwell a "Christian theologian"? He was a jerk associated with the southern baptists. The Catholics? Forget it. A bunch of old males in dresses trying to tell everyone else what to do. They are all incompetents. Why anyone would take them seriously, I don't know. Bet you are one of those biblical infallibility folks who actually thinks that the Adam and Eve story was real.

 

[bodecea]

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

And....as I was saying before......it always seems to go to talking about sex acts with straights in these gay discussion threads.

 

[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

No...just people who think they talk for the gods.

Read God's word ya stupid sob.

Good grief...do you ever tire of getting slapped around like a faux sailor?

 

[bodecea]

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.

The Irony of a group crying about gays getting "special rights"......getting special rights.

 

[bodecea]

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?

The link I had put down yesterday of the 1991 study also included identical twins separated at birth....the 40% still stood.

 

[martybegan]

Well the gay couple are, and technically the baker is as well. On one hand the gay couple has to do extra work and probably had their feelings hurt.

On the other forcing the baker to bake the cake is making them choose between their livelihood and their morals.

Only one of these scenarios has a major life impact, i.e. the choice between your morals and your living.

One really has to marvel at that whiny dog shit of an argument.

The requirement to put two male figures on a wedding cake would make the baker choose "between their livelihood and their morals". And these two male figures on the cake would have a "major life impact".

The mendacity is just as breath-taking as the bigotry. What a hoax this all is. The requirement everyone be treated with equal respect, from lunch counters to wedding cakes, is just too high a burden on their tiny egos. Thus they field the "religion of love" in order to discriminate, just as in the olden days, and they sure disfigure their beloved religion in the process, also as it was back then. The Christer bigots have no shame, and also not a shred of self-respect, and no reason for any.

The real whiny part is people asking government to take their side to "win' the situation.

Try to think outside your own biases and viewpoints, and see what another person might think of the situation.

of course you can't, you are a miserable progressive twat that wants government to do your dirty work because you don't have the balls yourself.

 

[bodecea]

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.

That would be so if I'd made a claim that it's 100% genetic....I AND the authors of the study never made such a claim. There is a genetic component but it is not the end all and be all.......just like lefthandedness.

 

[bodecea]

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

Twinkie? You repping for Hostess now?

Looked in mirror...no epiphanies. Oh wait!! Yes...definitely need a haircut.

When the argument is lost idiots post Twinkie pics.

Get lost

Actually, when the argument is lost....call someone a twinkie and then demand they STFU. Let's be accurate here.

 

[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.

lol
Ok, How about people have the decency not to try and force their views on other people through business? Why force someone to To do something they obviously object to? But then again you are a control freak... It’s a control freak thing I do not understand

"Decency" has nothing to do with it. Nobody tried to force any view on anyone. He has/had a business license. He had quite an elaborate website. Even on it, he did not indicate that the service that he was offering was restricted to certain members of the public. It was a general invitation to patronize his business. He did not do anything at all to warn the public of his religious proclivities. All that happened was that his violation of anti-discrimination laws was reported through the established procedure.

The couple did nothing wrong, and they are blameless in this matter. I notice that the anti-LGBT types always try to flip the blame onto LGBTs, which is BS. This guy failed in his responsibilities.

Again, just because you sell something doesn't mean you lose your Right to Free Exercise.

Sorry, but just going to another baker is the right move here, unless you have an axe to grind.

We know YOU have an axe to grind, a tiny, little useless axe to grind.

The "go another baker" thing doesn't fly. It puts the onus on the customer when it is the proprietor whose decision it was and who is totally responsible. It is not the responsibility of discrimination victims to go off quietly with their tails tucked between their legs.

If I want a ham sandwich, I know i can't go to a jewish deli. Moreover, I don't expect to get one at a Jewish deli.

So instead of the person having to find another baker for a non-timely, non-essential, contracted service, the solution is to fine into oblivion the offender, because he/she violated Lysistrata's "religion" of FUCK RELIGIOUS PEOPLE BECAUSE I HATE THEM.

We all know who the real hater is here.....

 

[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.

It is always fascinating how CRC type arguments having anything to do with gay people always ends up boiling down to talking about the gay sex act......waaaaaaay more than any gay people talk about it.

Figures you can't get the running jokes between me and MDK.

How do people like you go through life without a sense of humor?

MDK, are you offended?

 

[martybegan]

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.

The Irony of a group crying about gays getting "special rights"......getting special rights.

How is the gay person's wedding stopped in any way by having to go somewhere else for a cake?

You want protection from having your feeewwwings hurt by hurting the feewwings (or fining them thousands of dollars) of someone else.

Government doesn't have this job. Stand up for yourself, you gutless hack.

 

[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.

It is always fascinating how CRC type arguments having anything to do with gay people always ends up boiling down to talking about the gay sex act......waaaaaaay more than any gay people talk about it.

Figures you can't get the running jokes between me and MDK.

How do people like you go through life without a sense of humor?

MDK, are you offended?

Of course not, this an old joke between you and I. My god, I can't believe I've stayed here this many years.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

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

Twinkie? You repping for Hostess now?

Looked in mirror...no epiphanies. Oh wait!! Yes...definitely need a haircut.

When the argument is lost idiots post Twinkie pics.

Get lost

Uh..you were the one who brought up Twinkies..not really sure why---but i was just going with the flow!

 

[Polishprince]

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.

It is always fascinating how CRC type arguments having anything to do with gay people always ends up boiling down to talking about the gay sex act......waaaaaaay more than any gay people talk about it.

I don't see what's so "fascinating" about it.

Homosexuality is based the proposition that men should be taking it in the ass from other men. That's it.

If you eliminate Sodomy from the equation, you eliminate the very reason why people decide to become gay in the first place.

 

[OldLady]

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.

It IS a compelling government interest that minorities in this country are not discriminated against. It is discrimination, pure and simple, no matter how much lipstick you want to put on that pig.
There is nothing trivial about discrimination. There is nothing trivial about a religious group requesting to break the law because they're so special.
No.

 

[bodecea]

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.

I disagree and I think the aforementioned legal ruling should have been applied the same in both cases. You don't and that's cool. At the end of the day, queers can marry queers and honkies can marry darkies.

The real fun is going to be when a State legalizes plural marriage.

Ironically, the ones pushing that are doing it for religious reasons.....how long before they declare that to refuse plural marriage is against the 1st Amendment?

 

[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.

It is always fascinating how CRC type arguments having anything to do with gay people always ends up boiling down to talking about the gay sex act......waaaaaaay more than any gay people talk about it.

Figures you can't get the running jokes between me and MDK.

How do people like you go through life without a sense of humor?

MDK, are you offended?

Of course not, this an old joke between you and I. My god, I can't believe I've stayed here this many years.

Personally this is how I get stress out so I don't slam my car into people who don't follow the rules of the road.

Three simple things:

1.Cycles have to stop for red lights too
2. the median isn't so you can get ahead of me when I am stuck in traffic
3. the "Don't walk" sign when I have a green "turn" signal is not a suggestion.

 

[bodecea]

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

Na, my boss is queer as fuck and has two strong kids and 6 grand kids. Don’t know if they are fags yet, but they act like normal kids.

Two kids and six grandkids betrays "queer as F"

Jus sayin

Not at all.

 

[martybegan]

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.

It IS a compelling government interest that minorities in this country are not discriminated against. It is discrimination, pure and simple, no matter how much lipstick you want to put on that pig.
There is nothing trivial about discrimination. There is nothing trivial about a religious group requesting to break the law because they're so special.
No.

So why not force Churches to host Same Sex Weddings?

Discrimination has to have some harm to it to be a compelling government interest. and when it comes to Rights, "correcting" the harm has to be done as gently as possible.

The correct solution would be to make them State their policies up front, via a sign, or on their website.