What are your attitudes about Homosexuals?

[CorvusRexus]

Bravo ! Excellent article Derideo - well written and full of hope and wishful thinking. It deals with "Epi-Marks" . Epi-marks are eliminated and recreated with each suceeding generation, and were never considered to have been inherited

The study theorizes and suggests that what they term "sexually antagonistic" epi-marks can, at times, pass from generation to generation - if this is true it is extremely , I repeat extremely rare - although not impossible. The study is inconclusive allthough the theory is sound and plausible it is just that a THEORY - not proof positive .

Although I doapplaud your attempt - I believe youhave failed to debunk Lockejaws statement "there is Zero concrete evidence of genetic causes of homosexuality," allthough the study you cited is promising it is not concrete evidence - just a theory.

The mere existence of a highly plausible genetic theory completely debunks the erroneous allegation by LJ that there is "Zero concrete evidence of genetic causes of homosexuality". Obviously there is now plausible "evidence" regarding the genetic cause and it will take further research to confirm the findings. It is highly likely that the further research will turn up evidence of other genetic factors that are currently not known. That is how science works. They develop a hypothesis and then run a series of tests to determine whether it proves or disproves the theory. The results can often lead to further findings.

So the concrete evidence of epigenetic markers is irrefutable. How they behave in determining gender is irrefutable. The fact that genes don't always behave predictably is irrefutable. The mathematical modeling is irrefutable. The existence of the LBGT children born to straight parents is irrefutable. So it is a highly plausible theory to believe that an epigenetic marker could misbehave and the end result would be someone who is born as a member of the LBGT community. That evidence is way more than "zero" by any measure.

Derideo - I believe we've had this conversation before , allthough It may have been someone else - I'm not sure.

You do Understand the difference between Fact and Theory - do you not ?

In addition - the keyword in LJs statement is "Concrete" concrete evidence implies factual evidence - not - Theoretical or even hypothetical but FACTUAL. So although the study yopu cited does lend weight to your side of the debate - it most certainly does not debunk LJs statement.

Sorry Derideo, but I must agree with GreenBean on this one. LJ did say concrete. Like GreenBean said, your evidence is good, but it is not concrete.

 

[LockeJaw]

Last response to deliaro... I am not disputing that epigenetic causes are said to be promising & I take the epigenetisists at their word on that. You think claiming that factual evidence that they have found in other studies not pertaining to the gay study makes my claims fallacious, go tell that to the researchers.... They are the ones saying they have no concrete evidence, not me. I'm just the messenger.

 

[LockeJaw]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF_yybULkwQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player]The Gay Gene Hoax: History & Lies of the Homosexual Movement - YouTube[/ame]

Man who was president of the APA tells the truth:



Soak up some reality, liberal liars!

 

[Derideo_Te]

When I used the term "concrete evidence" it comes directly from a medical journal article I posted days before you even entered this thread...it came from EPIGENETIC SCIENTIST'S own words, not mine. So now you are calling the researchers themselves ignorant of their own field.

Quit trying.

You're nothing but F-A-I-L.

In which case you won't have any problem providing the link for that article, will you, LJ?

Because your word alone just doesn't cut it anymore.

Produce the link or deal with the consequences to your own tattered credibility.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Last response to deliaro... I am not disputing that epigenetic causes are said to be promising & I take the epigenetisists at their word on that. You think claiming that factual evidence that they have found in other studies not pertaining to the gay study makes my claims fallacious, go tell that to the researchers.... They are the ones saying they have no concrete evidence, not me. I'm just the messenger.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The Gay Gene Hoax: History & Lies of the Homosexual Movement - YouTube

Man who was president of the APA tells the truth:
Gay science is all fake, how gays control psychology - YouTube


Soak up some reality, liberal liars!

Your extremist sources lack credibility, LJ!

PS So do you!

 

[Derideo_Te]

The mere existence of a highly plausible genetic theory completely debunks the erroneous allegation by LJ that there is "Zero concrete evidence of genetic causes of homosexuality". Obviously there is now plausible "evidence" regarding the genetic cause and it will take further research to confirm the findings. It is highly likely that the further research will turn up evidence of other genetic factors that are currently not known. That is how science works. They develop a hypothesis and then run a series of tests to determine whether it proves or disproves the theory. The results can often lead to further findings.

So the concrete evidence of epigenetic markers is irrefutable. How they behave in determining gender is irrefutable. The fact that genes don't always behave predictably is irrefutable. The mathematical modeling is irrefutable. The existence of the LBGT children born to straight parents is irrefutable. So it is a highly plausible theory to believe that an epigenetic marker could misbehave and the end result would be someone who is born as a member of the LBGT community. That evidence is way more than "zero" by any measure.

Derideo - I believe we've had this conversation before , allthough It may have been someone else - I'm not sure.

You do Understand the difference between Fact and Theory - do you not ?

In addition - the keyword in LJs statement is "Concrete" concrete evidence implies factual evidence - not - Theoretical or even hypothetical but FACTUAL. So although the study yopu cited does lend weight to your side of the debate - it most certainly does not debunk LJs statement.

Sorry Derideo, but I must agree with GreenBean on this one. LJ did say concrete. Like GreenBean said, your evidence is good, but it is not concrete.

Science doesn't deal in "concrete", CR. It deals in knowledge. The scientific knowledge to date leans heavily in favor of genetics. The mythical "environmental factors" and fables about "choice" have never successfully withstood scientific scrutiny. The irony of demanding "concrete" when they believe myths and fables is nothing short of absurd in my opinion. So those in the "environmental factors" glass houses are in no position to be throwing "concrete" at anyone!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Follow the bouncing ball Starkey & Deliaro, if you can:
"No-smoking-gun-has-been-found-so-far. In-spite-of-massive-research-efforts, no-gene-or -group-of-genes-has-been-definitively-proven-to-cause-homosexuality."


Nothing you or anyone else can say or do at this point in time changes that FACT of REALITY, okay Starkey?

Yup, the evidence leans strongly against your opinion, and if you deny it, you are lying.

As we would say in Lake Charles, "Awite."

How's the bid to rent the Board going. You have been told I get a share, have you?

 

[Ibentoken]

Follow the bouncing ball Starkey & Deliaro, if you can:
"No-smoking-gun-has-been-found-so-far. In-spite-of-massive-research-efforts, no-gene-or -group-of-genes-has-been-definitively-proven-to-cause-homosexuality."

E
Nothing you or anyone else can say or do at this point in time changes that FACT of REALITY, okay Starkey?

Yup, the evidence leans strongly against your opinion, and if you deny it, you are lying.

As we would say in Lake Charles, "Awite."

How's the bid to rent the Board going. You have been told I get a share, have you?

Where in the bible is homosexuality condoned?

 

[Slyhunter]

Follow the bouncing ball Starkey & Deliaro, if you can:
"No-smoking-gun-has-been-found-so-far. In-spite-of-massive-research-efforts, no-gene-or -group-of-genes-has-been-definitively-proven-to-cause-homosexuality."


Nothing you or anyone else can say or do at this point in time changes that FACT of REALITY, okay Starkey?

Post 270, for the fourth time, proves that there is a group of men loving genes that can cause men to be gay.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Actually I know orientation is not a choice. That you think you can choose leads to only one conclusion, bisexuality. You believe you could choose to be with a woman. That must mean there is an underlying attraction, yes? See, there is no way I could choose to be emotionally and sexually attracted to a man. I wasn't born that way. I can't make myself want to be attracted to men, but since you think you could make yourself attracted to women, the only logical explanation is that you are bisexual or gay.

You just love being wrong, don't you?

To me, it is all about capability. I believe that we are all capable of going with whoever we want to, just like we are all capable of lying, stealing, cheating, etc., but it doesn't mean that we will actually do such things. I believe that you are capable of going with someone opposite your gender. You are just convinced that you do not have it in you to do such a thing.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. To me, it will always be a choice and if you or anyone else don't like anyone having such a belief, it is your problem and no one else's.

So, if you wanted to, you could be homosexual.

I couldn't.

I cannot say that I really understand homosexuality but I accept that it exists. Having had good friends who are gay, I've read a bit and - bottom line is, with the single condition that it be between consenting adults, its none of my business.

Just as what YOU do in your personal and sexual life is none of my business and -

Just as what I do in my personal and sexual life is none of your business.

Your PS is true though - its her problem just as your personal and sexual life is your problem and just as my personal and sexual life is MY problem.

MYOB.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Follow the bouncing ball Starkey & Deliaro, if you can:
"No-smoking-gun-has-been-found-so-far. In-spite-of-massive-research-efforts, no-gene-or -group-of-genes-has-been-definitively-proven-to-cause-homosexuality."

E
Nothing you or anyone else can say or do at this point in time changes that FACT of REALITY, okay Starkey?

Yup, the evidence leans strongly against your opinion, and if you deny it, you are lying.

As we would say in Lake Charles, "Awite."

How's the bid to rent the Board going. You have been told I get a share, have you?

Where in the bible is homosexuality condoned?

Who cares?

If you care, then that is your business.

If I don't care, that is not your business.

These days, so-called christians are really into Peeping Tom-ism.

MYOB

 

[Ibentoken]

Actually I know orientation is not a choice. That you think you can choose leads to only one conclusion, bisexuality. You believe you could choose to be with a woman. That must mean there is an underlying attraction, yes? See, there is no way I could choose to be emotionally and sexually attracted to a man. I wasn't born that way. I can't make myself want to be attracted to men, but since you think you could make yourself attracted to women, the only logical explanation is that you are bisexual or gay.

You just love being wrong, don't you?

To me, it is all about capability. I believe that we are all capable of going with whoever we want to, just like we are all capable of lying, stealing, cheating, etc., but it doesn't mean that we will actually do such things. I believe that you are capable of going with someone opposite your gender. You are just convinced that you do not have it in you to do such a thing.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. To me, it will always be a choice and if you or anyone else don't like anyone having such a belief, it is your problem and no one else's.

So, if you wanted to, you could be homosexual.

I couldn't.

I cannot say that I really understand homosexuality but I accept that it exists. Having had good friends who are gay, I've read a bit and - bottom line is, with the single condition that it be between consenting adults, its none of my business.

Just as what YOU do in your personal and sexual life is none of my business and -

Just as what I do in my personal and sexual life is none of your business.

Your PS is true though - its her problem just as your personal and sexual life is your problem and just as my personal and sexual life is MY problem.

MYOB.

I agree, it's none of my business. When the gay mafia starts targeting Christian businesses and promoting the gay agenda in my schools then it is my business.

 

[GreenBean]

Holding an opinion different than mine is fine...speaking it out loud makes it available for public censure.

I see, so those who fail to conform to your beliefs must remain silent.

Not mine, societies. It used to be okay to be openly racist...now it isn't. It used to be okay to be openly anti gay...now it isn't. I'm glad of both.









Defamation? who was "defamed"? If you are publicly anti gay, you're as uncool as people who are openly racist. Yeah, I'm okay with that, sue me.

You toss about "discrimination" as an epithet, highlighting your own stupidity. I find your openly anti-Christian bigotry more of a problem than I do anti-gay bigotry.

I state, factually, that discrimination is the same regardless of your target. Name an instance of this anti Christian bigotry you allege. I don't want to keep Christians from marrying and I can't, by law, deny them Public Accommodation even if I wanted to (which I don't)

Personally, I don't give a fuck what you do. You want to eat dog turds? Have at. But you demand that I celebrate your behavior, to which I tell you to fuck off.

Nobody has asked you to celebrate anything. You can cry yourself to sleep for all I care. Gays are marrying whether you "give a fuck" or not and it's not okay to be anti gay publicly. I'm glad.

It used to be okay to be openly anti gay...now it isn't.

Really ?Well somebodies been buy ing a lot of Tee Shirts - thousands in fact

 

[JakeStarkey]

Follow the bouncing ball Starkey & Deliaro, if you can:
"No-smoking-gun-has-been-found-so-far. In-spite-of-massive-research-efforts, no-gene-or -group-of-genes-has-been-definitively-proven-to-cause-homosexuality."

E
Nothing you or anyone else can say or do at this point in time changes that FACT of REALITY, okay Starkey?

Yup, the evidence leans strongly against your opinion, and if you deny it, you are lying.

As we would say in Lake Charles, "Awite."

How's the bid to rent the Board going. You have been told I get a share, have you?

Where in the bible is homosexuality condoned?

Christian churches don't rule America and the Constitution is secular.

Go start a Christian Republic in South Carolina.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Far right reactionary social cons, cry all you want.

 

[Ibentoken]

Yup, the evidence leans strongly against your opinion, and if you deny it, you are lying.

As we would say in Lake Charles, "Awite."

How's the bid to rent the Board going. You have been told I get a share, have you?

Where in the bible is homosexuality condoned?

Christian churches don't rule America and the Constitution is secular.

Go start a Christian Republic in South Carolina.

That wasn't what I asked. You appear defensive.

 

[Ibentoken]

Far right reactionary social cons, cry all you want.

Do you believe Jesus was pro life or pro choice?

 

[GISMYS]

The demons use you as much as they can, getting you to commit all ungodliness before they can cause the death of your body and soul. Their primary goal is spiritual death. They want you to die in your sins, but before you do, they want to live inside of you long enough to influence others to agree with your sinful lifestyle, so that they can possess them also. These demons are the creators of Homosexuality". Its not gay, its sin, evil and surely demonic! and biblically called "sodomite

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where in the bible is homosexuality condoned?

Christian churches don't rule America and the Constitution is secular.

Go start a Christian Republic in South Carolina.

That wasn't what I asked. You appear defensive.

You are defensive that your question means nothing to the discussion. I was merely pointing that out. Really, Ibentoken, no one is mad at you.