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.
It's not a scientific theory. It's a statistical correlation, which is used as evidence. It shows a physiological component of sexual orientation. In that space it doesn't matter if there's a test for it. I suppose the various genes believed to be involved could be tested, but there's quite a bit of controversy surrounding that issue. If you google the gay gene you will see why. Oh, and you never answered my original question.
there is no gay gene and it's all just speculation and theory there is no hard fact what so ever. there is no medical test that can determine if a person is homosexual and that is a fact.
Maybe but calling me a bigot right off the start set the tone, I'm not going to bicker, I'm talking cold hard facts, I didn't make the claim and I don't really care but i wont sit by when someone claims something is a fact and it's not.
there is no gay gene and it's all just speculation and theory there is no hard fact what so ever. there is no medical test that can determine if a person is homosexual and that is a fact.
How would you really know? You're obviously not educated in the sciences. You don't spend time reading the literature, so for all you know the papers being linked are spot on. Your position in this area doesn't make sense.
That's very naive concept of morality, do you also love rapist and child molesters? Do you also treat them aqual?
Morality doesn't have anything to do with love, in it's most basic, natural form it's a set of values that are conducive to success of human kind as a species.
You're right, I didn't phrase that very well. I was trying to say that loving and kind behavior is moral, and the rest is merely opinion... so as long as they aren't hurting anyone, why do you feel it's okay to be so cruel towards them? Obviously a murderer or rapist wouldn't be a "loving and kind" person, so of course I wouldn't treat them with full respect. They do have equal rights, however, but those kind of things aren't up to me & you.
On that note, most states do allow convicted rapists, child molesters, murderers, etc, to marry while in prison - provided it's somebody of the opposite sex, of course!! So don't give me that BS about "values and morality," when people like them are allowed to marry and have/raise children.
Maybe but calling me a bigot right off the start set the tone, I'm not going to bicker, I'm talking cold hard facts, I didn't make the claim and I don't really care but i wont sit by when someone claims something is a fact and it's not.
What you're saying isn't scientifically rational. For example, it's not a fact that you will get lung cancer if you smoke. But, if you have certain genetic variants vulnerable to that kind of environmental trigger, you'll have a greater chance of developing lung cancer. This is established by statistical correlates. And that's how it works with physiology. Rarely is it as simple as one gene to one outcome. Most things are multifactorial. Anyhow, if you can understand the lung cancer example, which doesn't necessarily have to be about disease, but expression (easiest thing that popped in my head), you should be able to understand the point I'm making IRT homosexuality. Or at least be able to reasonably converse.
How would you really know? You're obviously not educated in the sciences. You don't spend time reading the literature, so for all you know the papers being linked are spot on. Your position in this area doesn't make sense.
Show me medical proof there is a gay gene. simple really, The APA has denounced it. I'm not a scientist and nobody else on this site is either. Show the hard fact proof there is a gay gene if you say there is proof. no theory, proof, no junk science, medical proof. Until then RD.
And what about during the nine months the woman is carrying? The point of my faux suggestion was to expose that this whole claim that "survival of the species" has something to do with the poser's opposition to gays adopting is a lie. The entire theory about "mother nature" is made up, whereas my argument is based on factual evidence. In no way does such an unverifiable theory suggest that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to raise children, but the evidence suggests that they should.
And of course, you can't argue with the facts I've presented to you. We've already seen that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenneth-Kaunda
and let's not forget, that a mother who has a baby inside her for 9 months, is already a mother before the child is born - thus a strong bond has formed.
Apparently not strong enough if the child has been put up for adoption
Someone willing to pay lots of money for that child who has been given away, however? I'd say that surpasses this special "bond" you're talking about.
There are many examples of those vehemently against Homosexuality that are Homosexual themselves when the truth comes out.
Isn't that the ultimate gay dream: all the oponents are actually closeted gays?
Sorry to disappoint you, every normal male is repulsed by a sight af two men kissing. You guys are repulsive to the rest of male population. Lesbians are kind of a grey area, if good looking of course.
Show me medical proof there is a gay gene. simple really, The APA has denounced it. I'm not a scientist and nobody else on this site is either. Show the hard fact proof there is a gay gene if you say there is proof. no theory, proof, no junk science, medical proof. Until then RD.
The APA as in the American psychological association? That association does not cover physical science or medical science for the most part. I wouldn't be concerned about what they're saying IRT medicine. Review the data yourself. (Btw, I am a scientist. I work in early drug discovery via physiochemistry, although I'm not well versed in genetics outside a few classes in college.) The thing is here, tho, is that a theory, a proof, or whatever does not need to be shown to a layman. You can choose to remain ignorant of the science, scientific language, how science works, or you can become informed enough to have an educated opinion on this subject.
Here's another example. You believe you have diabetes. You believe it enough to take medications. That's a big deal. Taking meds always is. There is no one gene test for the gamut of diabetes. You did not take a genetic test to determine that you had diabetes. Rather, your physician came to the conclusion based on symptoms (I think they're called secondary parameters). If you took a glucose tolerance test, your actual cells were not tested to review insulin resistance. And yet, you abide by these tactics, the same measures I'm discussing as it relates to homosexuality, but you ignore the latter. That's hypocritical of you, although it's unlikely you understand it as such.
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.
