What are your attitudes about Homosexuals?

[LockeJaw]

which is fine, because it is not about genetics being passed down, as a layman's way of putting it. So you're conceding there is no proof of a gay gene passed down at birth.

Good on ya

I have read many summaries of the various studies, none exclude genetics as a factor. What you posted backs up EPIGENETICS, for example:

"[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."{6) More on epigenetics:

Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity.

Basically saying it's not genetic

 

[Peach]

which is fine, because it is not about genetics being passed down, as a layman's way of putting it. So you're conceding there is no proof of a gay gene passed down at birth.

Good on ya

I have read many summaries of the various studies, none exclude genetics as a factor. What you posted backs up EPIGENETICS, for example:

"[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."{6) More on epigenetics:

Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity.

Basically saying it's not genetic

I conceded/altered that yesterday, glad you are catching up. Note, inherited traits are genetic.

 

[LockeJaw]

I have read many summaries of the various studies, none exclude genetics as a factor. What you posted backs up EPIGENETICS, for example:

"[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."{6) More on epigenetics:

Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity.

Epigenics sometimes involves heritability, sometimes not. The scientists are using the latter obviously in their research, hence no gay GENE is handed down at birth....again you lose.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your opinion doesn't count, LJ, just as greenbeanSnow or JimBowie's opinions are equally worthless.

You and those who think like you are out of touch with mainstream America.

All you guys are doing now is mindless screaming in the dark.

Jake, I'm not posting opinion...I'm posting FACTS.

And you're even more of an outcast from mainstream society than gays are, commie bum.

nah...10 years from now you will be nothing, irrelevant. young people dont care and society will change. this issue is dead..

Some like Lockejaw can't get over what they believe is not fact.

Events may help them realize that, maybe not.

LJ and his buds are out of touch with mainstream America.

 

[LockeJaw]

I think looking in the biological field for evidence of a biological cause for sexuality outside of heterosexuality is stupid. We have so many influences that could contribute to all forms of hypersexuality...be it straight or gay. You want to waste time on proving genetic or/and biological causes. It is all about enviroment & social causes... The APA was right before they were pressured to change their stance. We'd probably be having less problems with acceptance of gays....buts that's me.

which is fine, because it is not about genetics being passed down, as a layman's way of putting it. So you're conceding there is no proof of a gay gene passed down at birth.

Good on ya

I have read many summaries of the various studies, none exclude genetics as a factor. What you posted backs up EPIGENETICS, for example:

"[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."{6) More on epigenetics:

EvidenceTheyre for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity.

Basically saying it's not genetic

I conceded/altered that yesterday, glad you are catching up. Note, inherited traits are genetic.

 

[Beachboy]

I am in advertising, and work with a lot of gay creative types. They are bright, amusing, and the same as anyone else. There is really nothing to discuss about this. The issue is settled by the U. S. Constitution and the U. S. Supreme Court.

 

[September]

"Homosexuals" are not born "gay". "Heterosexuals" are not born "straight". Everyone just falls somewhere along the grand scale of bisexuality.

Its like good and evil. One is not born "good" or "evil". We all possess the inherant potential for both. Most people just choose to align themselves with either side of what they perceive to be good or evil, but that inherant potential is still there, however dormant it may be, for them to experience the polar opposite at any time.

Few humans understand how to experience moral balance- and when they do, their inherant moral potential becomes as clear as it can possibly be. The same applies to our inherant bisexual potential. Its like "sexual balance". Our understanding of sexuality becomes as clear as it can possibly be.

 

[Silhouette]

I am in advertising, and work with a lot of gay creative types. They are bright, amusing, and the same as anyone else. There is really nothing to discuss about this. The issue is settled by the U. S. Constitution and the U. S. Supreme Court.

There's actually quite a lot to discuss about this. For starters, Jude 1 of the Bible in the New Testament of Jesus forbidding any and all of the faithful from enabling the spread of the same type of homosexual culture that overtook Sodom; where all its inhabitants, gay or not, were sent to the pit of fire forever.

You cannot force a man to commit a mortal sin of his faith to accomodate a gay wedding and the like.

Secondly, all the legal battles LGBTs have initiated are based on a false premise, that they have lulled, deflected or otherwise bamboozled the opposition into overlooking: that they are a loose and incomplete set of deviant sexual behaviors.....not an identifiable or even permanent "race" of people. Think of Anne Heche for example...

Setting a legal precedent for consideration of deviant behaviors as a race of people is malpractice of the highest sort. Who will come next to make the unsubstantiated-claim-as-fact when trying to get society to legitimize what they do [not what they are]?

I talk a bit about that last point in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html

 

[Asclepias]

I think looking in the biological field for evidence of a biological cause for sexuality outside of heterosexuality is stupid. We have so many influences that could contribute to all forms of hypersexuality...be it straight or gay. You want to waste time on proving genetic or/and biological causes. It is all about enviroment & social causes... The APA was right before they were pressured to change their stance. We'd probably be having less problems with acceptance of gays....buts that's me.

which is fine, because it is not about genetics being passed down, as a layman's way of putting it. So you're conceding there is no proof of a gay gene passed down at birth.

Good on ya



Basically saying it's not genetic

I conceded/altered that yesterday, glad you are catching up. Note, inherited traits are genetic.

You sound like you hate science. Where else would one look for the reason some people are born gay and others are not. If it was only environmental or social everyone experiencing those conditions would be gay. We all know thats not the case as brothers growing up in the same family can be of different sexual orientations. The Collins brothers come to mind. Why is one gay and the other is not? The root of the mystery has to be genetic.

 

[Silhouette]

"Homosexuals" are not born "gay". "Heterosexuals" are not born "straight". Everyone just falls somewhere along the grand scale of bisexuality.

Its like good and evil. One is not born "good" or "evil". We all possess the inherant potential for both. Most people just choose to align themselves with either side of what they perceive to be good or evil, but that inherant potential is still there, however dormant it may be, for them to experience the polar opposite at any time.

Few humans understand how to experience moral balance- and when they do, their inherant moral potential becomes as clear as it can possibly be. The same applies to our inherant bisexual potential. Its like "sexual balance". Our understanding of sexuality becomes as clear as it can possibly be.

Without realizing it, you just made a very potent argument against gay marriage. Because in this concrete world where asexual spirits are tested, the concrete roles of "male" and "female" and "jewish" and "muslim" and "brutal" and "sublime" etc. etc. etc. are all needed to test the mettle of the asexual amorphic spirit.

When you tamper with the very roles, the very matrix of the concrete world created to test, grow and temper the spirit, that's when it pisses off the Great Lab Technician. Sodom was described as destroyed in Jude 1 precisely for that reason. It wasn't destroyed with all its inhabitants gay and straight for the sin of each man individually. It was destroyed for the collective sin of enabling the muddying of the roles of "male" and "female" by promoting homosexuality.

Homosexuality gender blends, as you just described. And when a matrix's colors blend, the details within can no longer be defined, grown within or resisted as each person's individual lesson dictates.

Or to put it in more bucolic terms, promoting a homosexual culture [like through marriage being the worst and most potent example of that] is like walking up to God's painting easel and throwing a big wet cow pie right in the center of it.

 

[September]

Maybe because there is a lot more to life than reproduction, and because the Bible- however epic it may be- was written by men, not God.

If the Lord didn't write the word, why are heterosexual couples the only kind of couple that can naturally reproduce?

I want you to think long and hard before you respond. How the Hell does heterosexuals reproducing support the blatantly retarded idea that God "wrote the word"? You are also wrong when you said "heterosexual couples are the only kind of couples that can naturally reproduce." Couples that understand that they are bisexual can also naturally reproduce provided they are male and female.

But the purpose of romantic love is not reproduction, and the purpose of marriage is not reproduction. So what the fuck does reproduction have to do with anything here?

If same gender relationships were the Lord's intention, homosexual couples would naturally be able to reproduce just like heterosexual couples can.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

How dare you attempt to speak for God. What the fuck do you know of "the Lord's intentions"?

God bless you always bitch.

Ashtara

 

[Peach]

I think looking in the biological field for evidence of a biological cause for sexuality outside of heterosexuality is stupid. We have so many influences that could contribute to all forms of hypersexuality...be it straight or gay. You want to waste time on proving genetic or/and biological causes. It is all about enviroment & social causes... The APA was right before they were pressured to change their stance. We'd probably be having less problems with acceptance of gays....buts that's me.

I conceded/altered that yesterday, glad you are catching up. Note, inherited traits are genetic.

You sound like you hate science. Where else would one look for the reason some people are born gay and others are not. If it was only environmental or social everyone experiencing those conditions would be gay. We all know thats not the case as brothers growing up in the same family can be of different sexual orientations. The Collins brothers come to mind. Why is one gay and the other is not? The root of the mystery has to be genetic.

One more, not "simple" even for FOXNews:

Homosexuality ultimately a result of gene regulation, researchers find | Fox News

 

[Asclepias]

it's not illogical, enviromental & social causes & the choices you made in reaction to those causes is what led you to start thinking you are gay, then you CHOSE to act on that thought. Apparently you likes it because you're willing to spread false information in order to propagate the lifestyle.

You have me on ignore or do you just refuse to acknowledge the asswhooping in logic & reason you're recieving from me?

"Lifestyle", "choices"? Why would anyone CHOOSE discrimination, hatred, and constant battles to be recognized as equal citizens under the law? No one THINKS they are gay, and I have posted more than enough information to show inborn variances as the "cause".

And one can show similar studies that indicate a genetic predisposition to be an alcoholic.

That doesn't mean you or the potential alcoholic do not have a choice.

The urge to mate is a much stronger instinct than the non existent one to drink alcohol. That comparison is a utter failure.

 

[Peach]

"Lifestyle", "choices"? Why would anyone CHOOSE discrimination, hatred, and constant battles to be recognized as equal citizens under the law? No one THINKS they are gay, and I have posted more than enough information to show inborn variances as the "cause".

And one can show similar studies that indicate a genetic predisposition to be an alcoholic.

That doesn't mean you or the potential alcoholic do not have a choice.

The urge to mate is a much stronger instinct than the non existent one to drink alcohol. That comparison is a utter failure.

More science, this from three days ago:

How our genes could make us gay or straight - The Washington Post

 

[Asclepias]

I think looking in the biological field for evidence of a biological cause for sexuality outside of heterosexuality is stupid. We have so many influences that could contribute to all forms of hypersexuality...be it straight or gay. You want to waste time on proving genetic or/and biological causes. It is all about enviroment & social causes... The APA was right before they were pressured to change their stance. We'd probably be having less problems with acceptance of gays....buts that's me.

You sound like you hate science. Where else would one look for the reason some people are born gay and others are not. If it was only environmental or social everyone experiencing those conditions would be gay. We all know thats not the case as brothers growing up in the same family can be of different sexual orientations. The Collins brothers come to mind. Why is one gay and the other is not? The root of the mystery has to be genetic.

One more, not "simple" even for FOXNews:

Homosexuality ultimately a result of gene regulation, researchers find | Fox News

I've always thought it was natures way of population control. This pretty much proves it. I wonder what makes this happen and when does it happen?

 

[Silhouette]

I want you to think long and hard before you respond. How the Hell does heterosexuals reproducing support the blatantly retarded idea that God "wrote the word"? You are also wrong when you said "heterosexual couples are the only kind of couples that can naturally reproduce." Couples that understand that they are bisexual can also naturally reproduce provided they are male and female.

But the purpose of romantic love is not reproduction, and the purpose of marriage is not reproduction. So what the fuck does reproduction have to do with anything here?

The answers to your questions are in the post I wrote just before you wrote this one above. #351

Here, I'll even repost it for you:

Without realizing it, you just made a very potent argument against gay marriage. Because in this concrete world where asexual spirits are tested, the concrete roles of "male" and "female" and "jewish" and "muslim" and "brutal" and "sublime" etc. etc. etc. are all needed to test the mettle of the asexual amorphic spirit.

When you tamper with the very roles, the very matrix of the concrete world created to test, grow and temper the spirit, that's when it pisses off the Great Lab Technician. Sodom was described as destroyed in Jude 1 precisely for that reason. It wasn't destroyed with all its inhabitants gay and straight for the sin of each man individually. It was destroyed for the collective sin of enabling the muddying of the roles of "male" and "female" by promoting homosexuality.

Homosexuality gender blends, as you just described. And when a matrix's colors blend, the details within can no longer be defined, grown within or resisted as each person's individual lesson dictates.

Or to put it in more bucolic terms, promoting a homosexual culture [like through marriage being the worst and most potent example of that] is like walking up to God's painting easel and throwing a big wet cow pie right in the center of it.

Of course if you have made a religion out of being spiritually as weak as a person can be, then there is no test required for you and you want to wallow all day long on a big couch eating physical bon bons of every flavor until you throw up and they have to cut a hole in the side of your house to take you to the gym.

 

[Peach]

You sound like you hate science. Where else would one look for the reason some people are born gay and others are not. If it was only environmental or social everyone experiencing those conditions would be gay. We all know thats not the case as brothers growing up in the same family can be of different sexual orientations. The Collins brothers come to mind. Why is one gay and the other is not? The root of the mystery has to be genetic.

One more, not "simple" even for FOXNews:

Homosexuality ultimately a result of gene regulation, researchers find | Fox News

I've always thought it was natures way of population control. This pretty much proves it. I wonder what makes this happen and when does it happen?

Research continues; rather than population control, almost certainly a natural variance. Two brown eyed people may have a blue eyed child. The anti-genetics crowd never explains why there are gay humans even in societies that kill because iof the trait; i.e., Fascist Germany, early USSR, Uganda, et. al.

 

[Silhouette]

One more, not "simple" even for FOXNews:

Homosexuality ultimately a result of gene regulation, researchers find | Fox News

I've always thought it was natures way of population control. This pretty much proves it. I wonder what makes this happen and when does it happen?

Research continues; rather than population control, almost certainly a natural variance. Two brown eyed people may have a blue eyed child. The anti-genetics crowd never explains why there are gay humans even in societies that kill because iof the trait; i.e., Fascist Germany, early USSR, Uganda, et. al.

Because it's BEHAVIORAL. and therefore, the 14th does not apply to LGBT.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html

 

[Peach]

I've always thought it was natures way of population control. This pretty much proves it. I wonder what makes this happen and when does it happen?

Research continues; rather than population control, almost certainly a natural variance. Two brown eyed people may have a blue eyed child. The anti-genetics crowd never explains why there are gay humans even in societies that kill because of the trait; i.e., Fascist Germany, early USSR, Uganda, et. al.

Because it's BEHAVIORAL. and therefore, the 14th does not apply to LGBT.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html

More SCIENCE:

http://www.matthewckeller.com/Zietsch_HomosexualityEvolution_2008.pdf

And that "minor" Harvey Milk had sex with was sixteen, legal in some states, depending on Milk's age at the time, could even be legal in my state. The age of consent has been as low as 13 within the past 30 years.

 

[Samson]

I look at them the same way I do a cripple or a retard- they are abnormal but it's probably not their fault.

I don't see them as handicapped. They don't need speciapl parking or any special protections under the law.

But they should be protected as much as any normal person. I usually treat them as I would a dwarf; not laughing at them in public, but certainly sympathizing with their afflictions and trying to make them feel as normal as possible outside my home. I've never invited a dwarf into my home, but should I need one for a party as a clown I would not hesitate. Similarly if I ever need an interior decorator I may try to hire a queer.

trying to make them feel as normal as possible outside my home.

Dwarfs can't help the way they are - they were born that way . Queers were not born Gay.

Who really knows? I see no harm in giving them the benefit of the doubt, and assuming they are genetically deviant.