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

[bodecea]

Actually that isn't evidence of much, if both were raised in the same environment

He very specifically mentioned that this trend does NOT appear in fraternal twins, who are also raised in the same environment. Try reading a post before responding to it, dude. Thanks.

Or they just didn't really look for it.

Sorry, but studies like this are usually full of errors, which is why I don't see the 40% thing as conclusive when body brings it up.

Of course you don't. It's just a study...that's been around since the 90s and has yet to be refuted. But nothing to see here, folks.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

And Religious Freedom isn't?

Religious freedom is fine....but religious freedom doesn't mean that a religion can control others thru our secular laws.

How is having to spend 5 minutes going to another baker "controlling"?

It goes back to the argument of tolerance vs. acceptance.

And we are back to bakers.....imo, if a business cannot follow the business laws they acknowledge by receiving a license, just take the license away. Easy peasy. Same applies if they have "an excuse" for not following safety or health laws.

Unfortunately for you SCOTUS doesn't see it that way. Ask Colorado how that garbage turned out

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Either way, who cares?! To me it’s pretty damn obvious that many people do not choose it as evidenced by the many that struggle with it and hide it for as long as they do. But if you want to be ignorant and believe they are just choosing to torture themselves then go right ahead. I still go back to my question... why does it matter?

 

[mdk]

The gay lion thread was pretty funny.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Yeah, but if it's by choice, they can strong arm and torture the homosexual into giving up his evil ways.

Kind of like forcing someone to bake a cake, take a picture, or make a floral arrangement OR ELSE!

Just like forcing Facebook and Twitter to give you a social media account OR ELSE. Hell, Congressman Devin Nunes has filed a lawsuit over it and b/c two satire accounts hurt his feels.

Social media is a new concept that may need to be regulated. If most people get their info from social media, being able to control who gets to post is being able to control civil discussion.

And not just control it, deny it to people deemed unworthy.

I can see the concept of a digital commons being applied to sites like facebook and twitter, unless they take responsibility for everything posted on their sites as their content, and can thus be liable for it.

You don't a have right to a social media account or a wedding cake, Marty. No one does. It's amazing how property and association rights differ when folks feel it's their ox being gored. If you find Facebook's business practices unacceptable than go to another platform that fits your views. I bet it takes less than five minuets to set up an account on Gab.

The problem is another platform isn't the same commons as the one everyone else is on.

And not getting your cake is not the same as your opinion being voided out in our national debate.

IF facebook wants the right to ban, then they need to claim ownership of everything posted on their site, and have responsibility for it. If they want to continue to claim to be an open site for everyone, they need to be forced to hold to that.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The gay lion thread was pretty funny.

Freakin priceless....who knew there are maned female lions

 

[martybegan]

Bake or die.

So fucking retarded...you are embarrassing yourself....

Nice. So forcing a person to give up what they want to do for a living over a few cases is less invasive then the customers just finding a willing vendor?

Read slowly....nobody is forcing them to do anything. And all of your argiments are exactly the same arguments arguing for discrimination against black people and women. How embarrassing for you. What's next? Gonna argue that the sun is actuallu a flaming chariot? Gonna argue that diseases are caused by demons?

And sparemethedog and pony show. You foolnobody. Your actual position is that you are a religious goober who finds gays to be icky, therefore people should be allowed to discriminate against them. And that's all. Go peddle your song and dance to someone dumb enough to buy it.

Yes, you are forcing them to follow or rule or go out of business, or not even start it. Please don't pretend force isn't involved, or it wouldn't involve a law to be followed.

I am a lapsed catholic at best, What I believe in is government force only for good reasons, and this isn't a good reason. It's used by weaklings like you to get a hard on forcing others to do your bidding.

also....

 

[martybegan]

Actually that isn't evidence of much, if both were raised in the same environment

He very specifically mentioned that this trend does NOT appear in fraternal twins, who are also raised in the same environment. Try reading a post before responding to it, dude. Thanks.

Or they just didn't really look for it.

Sorry, but studies like this are usually full of errors, which is why I don't see the 40% thing as conclusive when body brings it up.

Of course you don't. It's just a study...that's been around since the 90s and has yet to be refuted. But nothing to see here, folks.

Back in the 90's studies told me oat bran was awesome, now not so much.

 

[mdk]

Yeah, but if it's by choice, they can strong arm and torture the homosexual into giving up his evil ways.

Kind of like forcing someone to bake a cake, take a picture, or make a floral arrangement OR ELSE!

Just like forcing Facebook and Twitter to give you a social media account OR ELSE. Hell, Congressman Devin Nunes has filed a lawsuit over it and b/c two satire accounts hurt his feels.

Social media is a new concept that may need to be regulated. If most people get their info from social media, being able to control who gets to post is being able to control civil discussion.

And not just control it, deny it to people deemed unworthy.

I can see the concept of a digital commons being applied to sites like facebook and twitter, unless they take responsibility for everything posted on their sites as their content, and can thus be liable for it.

You don't a have right to a social media account or a wedding cake, Marty. No one does. It's amazing how property and association rights differ when folks feel it's their ox being gored. If you find Facebook's business practices unacceptable than go to another platform that fits your views. I bet it takes less than five minuets to set up an account on Gab.

The problem is another platform isn't the same commons as the one everyone else is on.

And not getting your cake is not the same as your opinion being voided out in our national debate.

IF facebook wants the right to ban, then they need to claim ownership of everything posted on their site, and have responsibility for it. If they want to continue to claim to be an open site for everyone, they need to be forced to hold to that.

Either businesses have a right to associate or they don’t. You despise the government forcing a business to provide a service against their wishes, but only certain ones. You’re not any different from those that wish to force the baker to make a cake. Thank goodness the gubmint and it’s regulatoions are here to make it all better.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Kind of like forcing someone to bake a cake, take a picture, or make a floral arrangement OR ELSE!

Just like forcing Facebook and Twitter to give you a social media account OR ELSE. Hell, Congressman Devin Nunes has filed a lawsuit over it and b/c two satire accounts hurt his feels.

Social media is a new concept that may need to be regulated. If most people get their info from social media, being able to control who gets to post is being able to control civil discussion.

And not just control it, deny it to people deemed unworthy.

I can see the concept of a digital commons being applied to sites like facebook and twitter, unless they take responsibility for everything posted on their sites as their content, and can thus be liable for it.

You don't a have right to a social media account or a wedding cake, Marty. No one does. It's amazing how property and association rights differ when folks feel it's their ox being gored. If you find Facebook's business practices unacceptable than go to another platform that fits your views. I bet it takes less than five minuets to set up an account on Gab.

The problem is another platform isn't the same commons as the one everyone else is on.

And not getting your cake is not the same as your opinion being voided out in our national debate.

IF facebook wants the right to ban, then they need to claim ownership of everything posted on their site, and have responsibility for it. If they want to continue to claim to be an open site for everyone, they need to be forced to hold to that.

Either businesses have a right to associate or they don’t. You despise the government forcing a business to provide a service against their wishes, but only certain ones. You’re not any different from those that wish to force the baker to make a cake. Thank goodness the gubmint and it’s regulatoions are here to make it all better.

Make it better? Government needs to stay the hell out of it

 

[martybegan]

Kind of like forcing someone to bake a cake, take a picture, or make a floral arrangement OR ELSE!

Just like forcing Facebook and Twitter to give you a social media account OR ELSE. Hell, Congressman Devin Nunes has filed a lawsuit over it and b/c two satire accounts hurt his feels.

Social media is a new concept that may need to be regulated. If most people get their info from social media, being able to control who gets to post is being able to control civil discussion.

And not just control it, deny it to people deemed unworthy.

I can see the concept of a digital commons being applied to sites like facebook and twitter, unless they take responsibility for everything posted on their sites as their content, and can thus be liable for it.

You don't a have right to a social media account or a wedding cake, Marty. No one does. It's amazing how property and association rights differ when folks feel it's their ox being gored. If you find Facebook's business practices unacceptable than go to another platform that fits your views. I bet it takes less than five minuets to set up an account on Gab.

The problem is another platform isn't the same commons as the one everyone else is on.

And not getting your cake is not the same as your opinion being voided out in our national debate.

IF facebook wants the right to ban, then they need to claim ownership of everything posted on their site, and have responsibility for it. If they want to continue to claim to be an open site for everyone, they need to be forced to hold to that.

Either businesses have a right to associate or they don’t. You despise the government forcing a business to provide a service against their wishes, but only certain ones. You’re not any different from those that wish to force the baker to make a cake. Thank goodness the gubmint and it’s regulatoions are here to make it all better.

Can Con Ed decide who they send power to? Utilities have to adhere to rules similar to what I would impose on social media sites that claim they are open forums. They can avoid it by saying they are not open forums.

Have you ever seen me post about utilities being unfairly harmed by regulations?

 

[martybegan]

Kind of like forcing someone to bake a cake, take a picture, or make a floral arrangement OR ELSE!

Just like forcing Facebook and Twitter to give you a social media account OR ELSE. Hell, Congressman Devin Nunes has filed a lawsuit over it and b/c two satire accounts hurt his feels.

Social media is a new concept that may need to be regulated. If most people get their info from social media, being able to control who gets to post is being able to control civil discussion.

And not just control it, deny it to people deemed unworthy.

I can see the concept of a digital commons being applied to sites like facebook and twitter, unless they take responsibility for everything posted on their sites as their content, and can thus be liable for it.

You don't a have right to a social media account or a wedding cake, Marty. No one does. It's amazing how property and association rights differ when folks feel it's their ox being gored. If you find Facebook's business practices unacceptable than go to another platform that fits your views. I bet it takes less than five minuets to set up an account on Gab.

The problem is another platform isn't the same commons as the one everyone else is on.

And not getting your cake is not the same as your opinion being voided out in our national debate.

IF facebook wants the right to ban, then they need to claim ownership of everything posted on their site, and have responsibility for it. If they want to continue to claim to be an open site for everyone, they need to be forced to hold to that.

Either businesses have a right to associate or they don’t. You despise the government forcing a business to provide a service against their wishes, but only certain ones. You’re not any different from those that wish to force the baker to make a cake. Thank goodness the gubmint and it’s regulatoions are here to make it all better.

And as a follow up, the argument isn't "all or nothing". That's the easy way out. I am on record saying actual PA's can be made to follow certain rules, like not being able to deny point of sale goods, or essential goods or services, or timely goods or services.

So stop trying to line me up with the absolutists, on either side.

 

[mdk]

Just like forcing Facebook and Twitter to give you a social media account OR ELSE. Hell, Congressman Devin Nunes has filed a lawsuit over it and b/c two satire accounts hurt his feels.

Social media is a new concept that may need to be regulated. If most people get their info from social media, being able to control who gets to post is being able to control civil discussion.

And not just control it, deny it to people deemed unworthy.

I can see the concept of a digital commons being applied to sites like facebook and twitter, unless they take responsibility for everything posted on their sites as their content, and can thus be liable for it.

You don't a have right to a social media account or a wedding cake, Marty. No one does. It's amazing how property and association rights differ when folks feel it's their ox being gored. If you find Facebook's business practices unacceptable than go to another platform that fits your views. I bet it takes less than five minuets to set up an account on Gab.

The problem is another platform isn't the same commons as the one everyone else is on.

And not getting your cake is not the same as your opinion being voided out in our national debate.

IF facebook wants the right to ban, then they need to claim ownership of everything posted on their site, and have responsibility for it. If they want to continue to claim to be an open site for everyone, they need to be forced to hold to that.

Either businesses have a right to associate or they don’t. You despise the government forcing a business to provide a service against their wishes, but only certain ones. You’re not any different from those that wish to force the baker to make a cake. Thank goodness the gubmint and it’s regulatoions are here to make it all better.

Can Con Ed decide who they send power to? Utilities have to adhere to rules similar to what I would impose on social media sites that claim they are open forums. They can avoid it by saying they are not open forums.

Have you ever seen me post about utilities being unfairly harmed by regulations?

I believe the internet should be classified as a ulitity. Nobody (unless ordered by the court) should denied access to the internet if they have the ability to pay; however, individual sites on the internet should not be classified as such. Not having power or water doesn’t rise to level of being unable to share LoLCatz and recipes with your kin on social media. There is nothing you can say that will conceive me otherwise.

 

[OldLady]

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.

Yeah, but if it's by choice, they can strong arm and torture the homosexual into giving up his evil ways.

Kind of like forcing someone to bake a cake, take a picture, or make a floral arrangement OR ELSE!

It isn't at ALL similar. Think about what you're saying.

 

[martybegan]

Social media is a new concept that may need to be regulated. If most people get their info from social media, being able to control who gets to post is being able to control civil discussion.

And not just control it, deny it to people deemed unworthy.

I can see the concept of a digital commons being applied to sites like facebook and twitter, unless they take responsibility for everything posted on their sites as their content, and can thus be liable for it.

You don't a have right to a social media account or a wedding cake, Marty. No one does. It's amazing how property and association rights differ when folks feel it's their ox being gored. If you find Facebook's business practices unacceptable than go to another platform that fits your views. I bet it takes less than five minuets to set up an account on Gab.

The problem is another platform isn't the same commons as the one everyone else is on.

And not getting your cake is not the same as your opinion being voided out in our national debate.

IF facebook wants the right to ban, then they need to claim ownership of everything posted on their site, and have responsibility for it. If they want to continue to claim to be an open site for everyone, they need to be forced to hold to that.

Either businesses have a right to associate or they don’t. You despise the government forcing a business to provide a service against their wishes, but only certain ones. You’re not any different from those that wish to force the baker to make a cake. Thank goodness the gubmint and it’s regulatoions are here to make it all better.

Can Con Ed decide who they send power to? Utilities have to adhere to rules similar to what I would impose on social media sites that claim they are open forums. They can avoid it by saying they are not open forums.

Have you ever seen me post about utilities being unfairly harmed by regulations?

I believe the internet should be classified as a ulitity. Nobody (unless ordered by the court) should denied access to the internet if they have the ability to pay; however, individual sites on the internet should not be classified as such. Not having power or water doesn’t rise to level of being unable to share LoLCatz and recipes with your kin on social media. There is nothing you can say that will conceive me otherwise.

but when social media takes the place of the commons, denying a person access to that commons, or more importantly, equal access, denies them the ability to join the discussion. Or even worse, it allows people in power to ignore the other side of the discussion, because they can point to a sanitized social media and say "well not many people have that opinion, we don't have to recognize it"

If facebook wants to create an echo chamber, they should have to come out and state that fact. Same as twitter.

If they want to pass themselves off as areas of free expression, they need to be held to that.

If one can make power and water regulated utilities, and thus regulated companies, regulating social media isn't much of a stretch.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Yeah, but if it's by choice, they can strong arm and torture the homosexual into giving up his evil ways.

Kind of like forcing someone to bake a cake, take a picture, or make a floral arrangement OR ELSE!

It isn't at ALL similar. Think about what you're saying.

Actually it's the same. it use of force against something you don't like. In the case of the baker it's worse because you are using government as the weapon of choice.

Force is force.

 

[bodecea]

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.

And Religious Freedom isn't?

Religious freedom is fine....but religious freedom doesn't mean that a religion can control others thru our secular laws.

How is having to spend 5 minutes going to another baker "controlling"?

It goes back to the argument of tolerance vs. acceptance.

And we are back to bakers.....imo, if a business cannot follow the business laws they acknowledge by receiving a license, just take the license away. Easy peasy. Same applies if they have "an excuse" for not following safety or health laws.

Unfortunately for you SCOTUS doesn't see it that way. Ask Colorado how that garbage turned out

It's a sad decision.....should have gone the same way as what Minnesota did to those taxi drivers who refused to carry people with alcohol or with dogs because of their so-called religious beliefs. They pulled their licenses.

 

[bodecea]

Actually that isn't evidence of much, if both were raised in the same environment

He very specifically mentioned that this trend does NOT appear in fraternal twins, who are also raised in the same environment. Try reading a post before responding to it, dude. Thanks.

Or they just didn't really look for it.

Sorry, but studies like this are usually full of errors, which is why I don't see the 40% thing as conclusive when body brings it up.

Of course you don't. It's just a study...that's been around since the 90s and has yet to be refuted. But nothing to see here, folks.

Back in the 90's studies told me oat bran was awesome, now not so much.

How do you know that it's not so much today?

 

[martybegan]

And Religious Freedom isn't?

Religious freedom is fine....but religious freedom doesn't mean that a religion can control others thru our secular laws.

How is having to spend 5 minutes going to another baker "controlling"?

It goes back to the argument of tolerance vs. acceptance.

And we are back to bakers.....imo, if a business cannot follow the business laws they acknowledge by receiving a license, just take the license away. Easy peasy. Same applies if they have "an excuse" for not following safety or health laws.

Unfortunately for you SCOTUS doesn't see it that way. Ask Colorado how that garbage turned out

It's a sad decision.....should have gone the same way as what Minnesota did to those taxi drivers who refused to carry people with alcohol or with dogs because of their so-called religious beliefs. They pulled their licenses.

That had more to do with the curbside nature of the pickup, i.e, timeliness.

I would have no issue with a call based service that applied those rules, as long as it's clearly stated in their advertisements, and the question is asked prior to the pickup.

 

[martybegan]

Actually that isn't evidence of much, if both were raised in the same environment

He very specifically mentioned that this trend does NOT appear in fraternal twins, who are also raised in the same environment. Try reading a post before responding to it, dude. Thanks.

Or they just didn't really look for it.

Sorry, but studies like this are usually full of errors, which is why I don't see the 40% thing as conclusive when body brings it up.

Of course you don't. It's just a study...that's been around since the 90s and has yet to be refuted. But nothing to see here, folks.

Back in the 90's studies told me oat bran was awesome, now not so much.

How do you know that it's not so much today?

because of another study, then another that said it is, and another that said it isn't.