Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh good grief. Do you realise who NARTH are? They are a small anti-gay fringe group with conservative religious views of homosexuality. They believe in "pray away the gay" and have 100 year old outdated views of homosexuality. That's why they attack the APA- who have thoroughly debunked their bigoted views.
Using NARTH for information about gay people is like using a KKK site for information about blacks.
As for your FOX news article, did you even read it?
Do you want your views to be taken seriously? Then do some honest research.
People use that argument all the time. They see a link and they say, "Oh gosh! That doesn't count." If a link has credible references then why does it matter? That's an easy way out.
But anyway, I just did a Yahoo! search read the text (that's what I'm supposed to do, right?) and posted the link for others to read. In fact, it was regardless of if it supported my thoughts or not. I felt it was an interesting read. Also, those links were the first two links.
Let's not deduce ourselves to forum-posting etiquette debates.
What soure would you like? Why are you so quick to discredit people's very easy, accessible observation? Are you familiar with psychological studies? Often that is all that they do. Of course, there are interviews that could happen, but for those who may have studied psychology or sociology, it is very easy to make a hypothesis based on interaction and experience.
If you want a scientific study, how about researching to see what has already been done. But until then, I think that many have the ability to post their hypothesis based on common knowledge and their interactions. And that is all it is: an opinion.
A lot of proponents of homosexuality and feminism always demand sources. If you don't present it to them, you're a troll to them. The truth hurts, so they demand sources.
What source would you like? Why are you so quick to discredit people's very easy, accessible observation? Are you familiar with psychological studies? Often that is all that they do. Of course, there are interviews that could happen, but for those who may have studied psychology or sociology, it is very easy to make a hypothesis based on interaction and experience.
If you want a scientific study, how about researching to see what has already been done. But until then, I think that many have the ability to post their hypothesis based on common knowledge and their interactions. And that is all it is: an opinion.
If it's a generally accepted thing, there's generally sources behind it.
General rules of debate:
If you make a claim, you need to back said claim with a source or your claim is worthless.
Oh good grief. Do you realise who NARTH are? They are a small anti-gay fringe group with conservative religious views of homosexuality. They believe in "pray away the gay" and have 100 year old outdated views of homosexuality. That's why they attack the APA- who have thoroughly debunked their bigoted views.
Using NARTH for information about gay people is like using a KKK site for information about blacks.
As for your FOX news article, did you even read it?
Do you want your views to be taken seriously? Then do some honest research.
Oh and exactly how much "honest" research would you like me to do for a message board thread? People usually end up posting links because someone wants to challenge them to "find something." All we ever hear on this site is "source please," blah blah blah and people act like we are supposed to come up with a 300 page study. Where am I gonna find that in reasonable time for this thread? Plus, you want me to research when I've already developed my opinion based on personal experience? The original topic of this thread wasn't what it became.
Basically, research was not needed for people to respond to this article. It only became a debate about other things when people started talking about whether homosexuality is a disorder.
Why are you presenting those scenarios of household issues to me? Duh, I would want those children to be free of those manipulations as well. The same for a household such as the one seen in the article. You ask me, "What should we do," LOL, duh, we would treat it the same as this.
No, a child is not only in danger in the situations that you describe. The relevant authorities show concern for children who are in situations where they may be manipulated and not realize it; all sorts of other situations.
I thought you KNEW that this was a discussion to hopefully discuss ideas about this topic. So, wouldn't it make sense that there would be some hypotheses? No one is saying that this is the be-all-end-all, but questions deserve to be asked.
I said that those who deliberately choose to ignore the fact that transgendered individuals have traditionally come out of heterosexual households (and most still do by a large margin) and make it an issue of this particular case being a lesbian household, were homophobic. If they're not, their argument is still homophobic and fallacious.
Of course, you're free to come up with your hypotheses and be very creative and all. But since you said I was being blind to the truth, I wanted you to tell me what truth you were referring to... Forgive my curiosity.
If it's a generally accepted thing, there's generally sources behind it.
General rules of debate:
If you make a claim, you need to back said claim with a source or your claim is worthless.
You are debating, I consider these discussions. I said that from the beginning. So many people want to "debat." If we truly cared about the things that we talk about here, they would be discussions. Discussions intended to hear other viewpoints. You also have the nerve to say that we need sources, when you have made "claims" without any.
I said that those who deliberately choose to ignore the fact that transgendered individuals have traditionally come out of heterosexual households (and most still do by a large margin) and make it an issue of this particular case being a lesbian household, were homophobic. If they're not, their argument is still homophobic and fallacious.
Of course, you're free to come up with your hypotheses and be very creative and all. But since you said I was being blind to the truth, I wanted you to tell me what truth you were referring to... Forgive my curiosity.
I already told you the truth I was referring to and that truth is that there are people who are same-sex couples that force their ideas on their children. They manipulate them and foster an environment that makes the child sexually curious.
How I can provide a source for this, I do not know. This IS a message board. Would you like to fly out to my hometown and I will introduce you to some people? Let you observe them, see how they talk to their children, listen to what they talk about, hear the zany things that come out of their mouths? You all are very naive.
That was my point. That you all are denying that this happens and therefore, how do we know that this isn't another one of those households or situations?
I agree with this as well. How is there not something mental going on when a little boy starts calling himself "Tammy?" Yeah, kids have imaginary friends and stuff growing up, but that is considered to be the result of development at certain ages. However, you are an 11 year old boy and you have a new name for yourself because it makes you feel more feminine? Come on now ... wtf? People are really ignorant when they can't see things for what they really are. Houston we have a problem.
The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb.
However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain.
There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.
You are debating, I consider these discussions. I said that from the beginning. So many people want to "debat." If we truly cared about the things that we talk about here, they would be discussions. Discussions intended to hear other viewpoints. You also have the nerve to say that we need sources, when you have made "claims" without any.
If you want a source for any claim I made, I'll gladly provide one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
