The Homosexual Agenda, The aclu, And Your Children...

[Shogun]

There's NO EVIDENCE, Larkinn. That's what all this mumbo jumbo says. It says, "although we want to be able to say homosexuality is caused by genetics, or biology, there's really nothing to prove it. Despite the millions spent on studies attempting to prove it. We THINK there might be a connection, but if there is, it's tiny and we just can't put our finger on it."

I tellya.. it makes total sense how you could fuck up the first line of an eye exam with that kind of selective logic.

 

[Shogun]

Did you miss the "seems to" and the other language that says if it plays any part (which they can't prove) it's a SMALL part.

It's a choice, padre. You're letting the ambiguous language of the left befuddle you. This is the crux of the matter:
"no scientific consensus exists as to how biology influences sexual orientation."

Believe me, it's not for want of trying.

so.. NO consensus means that there IS a consensus that it's a choice? You didn't read that whole article, did you?

Here's to your education.

 

[Shogun]

Yeah. In other words, there's no EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT the statement it's caused by genetics or biology.

Gee, isn't that what I've been saying? Why yes, so it is! It's like, you're arguing with the fact that I'm saying it...but at the same time, agreeing with what I'm saying.

Crazy.

Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors.


it's the VERY FIRST line of your own evidence.

 

[doniston]

I agree, why all the tight buttocked mincing, limp wrists and lispy high pitched voices?It's as if they are trying to create a gender, the trouble is, most gays aren't stereotypical and can't stand the flamboyant gays that give them a bad name.On the other hand some may say they are glad to be able to differentiate.

No, unfortunately, I don't think we DO agree. you are speaking of the wispy, lispy, efeminine, fairy type of gay person commonly referred to as a "Queer". I think those are the ones who can't help it and homosexuality is an intrical part of them.

I was referring to those who act out homosexually during the sex acts themselves. That is where choice comes in.

 

[Larkinn]

Yeah. In other words, there's no EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT the statement it's caused by genetics or biology.

Gee, isn't that what I've been saying? Why yes, so it is! It's like, you're arguing with the fact that I'm saying it...but at the same time, agreeing with what I'm saying.

Crazy.

That they think that it is somewhat caused by genetics means that there is, at minimum, SOME evidence to support the statement it's caused by genetics or biology. Please explain to me how one could come to the conclusion that homosexuality is partially caused by genetics if there is NO evidence that supports the conclusion that its caused by genetics?

Forget your logic skills...learn to fucking read first.

 

[AllieBaba]

That they think that it is somewhat caused by genetics means that there is, at minimum, SOME evidence to support the statement it's caused by genetics or biology. Please explain to me how one could come to the conclusion that homosexuality is partially caused by genetics if there is NO evidence that supports the conclusion that its caused by genetics?

Forget your logic skills...learn to fucking read first.

Really? WHAT EVIDENCE? They haven't found any, you flipping moron. That's what they keep saying. "Despite the fact that we THINK there must be a connection, we just can't find a consistent one, darn it all!"

There's no evidence. You learn to read. That's what every single one of the studies says.

 

[Shogun]

Really? WHAT EVIDENCE? They haven't found any, you flipping moron. That's what they keep saying. "Despite the fact that we THINK there must be a connection, we just can't find a consistent one, darn it all!"

There's no evidence. You learn to read. That's what every single one of the studies says.

Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!

 

[Doug]

I think that there is actually a sense in which both sides in this debate are right:

For some people, homosexuality is not a choice. They have strong, exclusively-homosexual attractions to their own sex as soon as the sex hormones cut in. The powerful and exclusive nature of their attaction, coupled with our inability, after a century or so of study, to find an obvious environmental cause, strongly suggests that their sexual orientation is has biological roots. (Maybe genetic, maybe something else.)

But for almost all other people, homosexuality is, in a sense, a choice.

Men, or women, put together in groups and deprived for a long time of any possibility of contact with the opposite sex, will turn to each other.

Not all will, perhaps. And thus here we can speak of "choice".

Note that this is not "true" homosexuality, but rather homosexual behavior. Homosexual behavior was not uncommon in the ancient world, but "true", exclusive homosexuality was not even recognized as a phenomenon. The concept of someone "being" a homosexual stems from the 19th Century.

Men in this situation will instinctively seek out those other men who look, and/or act, the closest to women. Even where female-deprivation is not an issue, some men may find themselves tempted by young just-post-pubescent boys, who in many respects have female characteristics: hairlessness, innocence. This explains the occasional Boy Scout leader of otherwise impeccable heterosexual provenance who gets caught "interfering with" his charges. He probably has a dessicated domestic sexual life, and is also inhibited from seeking the usual consolations of men in that position.

So: for some people homosexuality is not a choice, and for some, it is.

If you think it isn't, then you are in the category of "possibly will behave in a homosexual manner given the right situation".

 

[doniston]

Really? WHAT EVIDENCE? They haven't found any, you flipping moron. That's what they keep saying. "Despite the fact that we THINK there must be a connection, we just can't find a consistent one, darn it all!"

There's no evidence. You learn to read. That's what every single one of the studies says.

LOOK ALLI"BABEL" YOU said it. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE (either pro or con) this means there is a concensus of "DOUBT" about it. Actually. I happen to think there is reasonable evidence that there IS something genetic that causes some people to be profoundly gay.(but that is strictly my own opinion)

 

[Shogun]

Come on, Doug.. homosexuality was not caused by lonely gay cowboys or navy seamen on barrel duty. Homosexual activity in prison does not make one homosexual out of prison. The only CHOICE that could be relevant is teh CHOICE to remain celibate while in denial. Hardly the same as CHOOSING to be gay. None of us CHOSE our sexuality.

 

[Larkinn]

Really? WHAT EVIDENCE? They haven't found any, you flipping moron. That's what they keep saying. "Despite the fact that we THINK there must be a connection, we just can't find a consistent one, darn it all!"

There's no evidence. You learn to read. That's what every single one of the studies says.

So your claim is that these scientists who state (from your own link) have no evidence that homosexuality is linked to genetics, but claim that there is a link (hence the partially caused by genetics), because they want it to be true, although there is no evidence for it?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So your claim is that these scientists who state (from your own link) have no evidence that homosexuality is linked to genetics, but claim that there is a link (hence the partially caused by genetics), because they want it to be true, although there is no evidence for it?

Provide the evidence. If these scientists have any, how hard can it be to list it?

 

[mattskramer]

Provide the evidence. If these scientists have any, how hard can it be to list it?

I think that it is a matter of choice – a choice that can be changed. I don’t understand why people consider it to be a big deal whether it is genetic or not. We allow people to make dangerous choices. We allow people to smoke and to drink. We allow people to use their left hands.

Speaking of the left-hand comparison, we don’t have laws prohibiting its use in unusual activity. If we did, there might be uproar by people who, for one reason or another, prefer to use their left hand.

We draw the line on different things for different reasons. We shift lines from time to time. I think that we should shift the line when it comes to civil unions to allow for gay unions. The notion that we should not give gays civil union status because they have a tendency to put on outlandish costumes and parade down the street is silly.

 

[AllieBaba]

So your claim is that these scientists who state (from your own link) have no evidence that homosexuality is linked to genetics, but claim that there is a link (hence the partially caused by genetics), because they want it to be true, although there is no evidence for it?

Since you've provided no evidence, I will assume you are agreeing that there is none to support the theory that homosexuality is anything but choice.

Thank you.

And, btw, the above comment is poorly structured and actually makes no sense at all, Mr. Intelligence.

 

[Shogun]

Since you've provided no evidence, I will assume you are agreeing that there is none to support the theory that homosexuality is anything but choice.

Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors.





indeed, biological factors SCREAMS choice, doesn't it?

 

[AllieBaba]

"Most likely".

That's not evidence, retard. If it is, it's evidence that there is no evidence.

 

[Shogun]

it IS the consensus though, is it not?

it IS the standard by which smarter people than you have concluded that it's not just "it's nothing more than a choice", eh?


and, the kicker, it WAS from your own evidence, right?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[AllieBaba]

The consensus of whom? Wickipedia?

And regardless of whether or not it's the consensus, it's STILL NOT EVIDENCE of anything except people believing it.

The consensus is that we were planted on earth by aliens, in some quarters. That's not evidence that it's true.

Are you just pretending to be this stupid, or is this for real?

 

[Larkinn]

Provide the evidence. If these scientists have any, how hard can it be to list it?

The evidence exists, exists in studies that Allie somehow thinks proves her point.

 

[Larkinn]

Since you've provided no evidence, I will assume you are agreeing that there is none to support the theory that homosexuality is anything but choice.

Actually I have provided evidence...you just aren't intelligent enough to see that it is.

And, btw, the above comment is poorly structured and actually makes no sense at all, Mr. Intelligence.

View Post
So your claim is that these scientists who state (from your own link) have no evidence that homosexuality is linked to genetics, but claim that there is a link (hence the partially caused by genetics), because they want it to be true, although there is no evidence for it?

Then I will rephrase it. So your claim is that those scientists who state that homosexuality is partially caused by genetics have NO evidence that its the case? Instead they claim that solely because of a desire for it(it being the link between homosexuality and genetics) to be the case, although there is no evidence for it?