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.
Nozzferrahhtoo,
If you call someone a lyer, or accuse them of lying, without backing it up with proof, it is nothing but an attack, like children on a playground running up to call a name & then running away. It suggests you have nothing more logical to add than name-calling.
Address the following and then tell me exactly how you have determined what I have stated are not true...
"Scientific" studies that have attempted to claim that babies are born having sexual fetishes, have been discredited...
"First, in August of 1991, Simon LeVay, a scientist at the Salk Institute in San Diego, reported that a group of neurons in the hypothalamic region of the brain appeared to be twice as large in heterosexual men than in homosexual men. [7] Previous studies had suggested that the hypothalamus is a region of the brain involved in the regulation of sexual behavior in non-human primates. Furthermore, other studies had shown that these neurons are larger in men then in women. Thus, LeVay concluded that sexual orientation had a biological basis.
There are three problems with LeVay's paper. First, LeVay compared the brain structures of 19 homosexual men with the brain structures of 16 men whom he presumed were heterosexual. However, he was unable to confirm the heterosexuality of the men in his control group. Significantly, six of these 16 presumed heterosexual men had died from AIDS, a disease whose transmission is often associated with homosexual behavior! Thus, it would not be surprising if some of LeVay's presumed heterosexual men were in fact, homosexuals, a possibility which would seriously discredit the conclusions of his study. Second, LeVay obtained his brain samples from homosexual men who had all died from AIDS. In contrast, for his control group, he obtained brain samples from men who had died not only from AIDS (6 subjects) but also from a diversity of other causes (10 subjects).
As LeVay himself acknowledged, however, this raises a legitimate scientific question: Could the differences in the sizes of the neurons have been caused not by sexual orientation but by AIDS? This certainly is a possibility that was not definitively ruled out the study. Finally, LeVay concluded that the differences in neuronal size could explain homosexuality. In other words, they could be linked to a biological cause for a homosexual orientation. This, however, is an illegitimate conclusion arising from faulty logic. One alternative explanation for the differences in the sizes of the neurons in the hypothalamus is that homosexual behavior is the cause for rather than the effect of the difference in neuron size. To illustrate this, let us say that a scientist tells you that he has discovered that there is a difference in the size of the bicep muscles between weight lifters and pianists. Furthermore, he concludes that the large muscle mass is the cause for these men becoming muscle builders. What would you say? Would you not respond by pointing out that it is more likely to be the case that the large muscle mass was in fact not the cause for but the effect of muscle training? In the same way, LeVay's study was unable to rule out the possibility that homosexual behavior was not caused by, but rather, caused the differences in neuronal cell size. In sum, in light of these significant problems, it is difficult to conclude with any certainty that homosexual orientation is caused in any way by the neurons of the hypothalamus.
Second, in December of 1991, John M. Bailey and Richard C. Pillard, reported that it was more likely for both identical twins to be homosexual than it is for both fraternal twins or for both adopted brothers. [8] They found that 52% (29 pairs out of 56) of the identical twins were both homosexual; 22% (12 pairs out of 54) of the fraternal twins were both homosexual; and 11% (6 of 57) of the adoptive brothers where both homosexual. Thus, Bailey and Pillard concluded that there is a genetic cause for homosexuality.
Again, there were significant problems with the study. First, if homosexuality is genetically determined, why did only 52% of the identical twins share the same sexual orientation? How about the other 48% of the twins who differed in their sexual orientation? How do we account for them? Second and more importantly, the study was based upon a sample of twins which was not random. As critics have pointed out, Bailey and Pillard did not rule out the possibility that they had preferentially recruited twins were both brothers were gay by advertising in homosexual newspapers and magazines rather than in periodicals intended for the general public. Indeed, it now appears that preferential recruitment did occur in the 1991 study - a more recent 2000 study by Bailey and his colleagues, using volunteers recruited, not from the gay community but from the Australian Twin Registry, revealed that only 20% and not 52% of identical twins share the same homosexual orientation. [9] This is not as significant a difference between identical and fraternal twins as earlier reported. Thus, as the authors of the 2000 paper conclude, it is very difficult to distinguish the genetic from the environmental influences on sexual orientation.
The third and most publicized study suggesting a genetic link for homosexual orientation was a paper published by Dean Hamer and his colleagues at the National Institutes of Health. The researchers studied 40 pairs of homosexual brothers and concluded that some cases of homosexuality could be linked to a specific region on the human X chromosome (Xq28) inherited from the mother to her homosexual son. [10] This study has come under much criticism - the Office of Research Integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services even investigated Hamer for alleged fraud in this study though it eventually cleared him [11] - and most significantly, has never been reproduced. In fact, two subsequent studies of other homosexual brothers have since concluded that there is no evidence that male sexual orientation is influenced by an X-linked gene. [12]
In sum, all the scientific evidence to date has not conclusively proven that genes determine homosexual orientation in human beings. The existence of a human gay gene remains a scientific myth."
=
Regarding the The Kinsey scale, also called the Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale...
"...much of Kinsey's work has been revealed as junk science and even fraud, and that he aided and abetted the molestation of hundreds of children in order to obtain data on "child sexuality."
"Five of these infants and children were subjects for months or years, and it is reported that much of the “testing” occurred when they were either strapped or held down. There is no evidence that the institute followed up to see whether they were adversely affected as a result of this sexual abuse/experimentation. We do know that today many of the adult “subjects” refuse to discuss Kinsey’s research; some 50 years later, they don’t even want to talk about the horrific experience" -Crouse
=
It doesn't take much research to realize human anatomical functions - like the anus is not meant to be an entrance. We each have experience EVERY DAY that proves it is an EXIT ONLY.
It also doesn't take much research to realize that we are born with brains only 25% developed so we can better adapt to environmental influences. Because of cyclical metaphysical (thought/endocrine) effects, one may feel as if sexual fetishes are innate, but the reality is that a newborn is unable to even distinguish between self and another for several months... And it takes several years to realize gender distinctions.
Peer pressure may try to get those gullible to fall for this or that - but if it's not backed up by truth - then you're just adopting dogma - this time one that is based on sexual fetishes.
Your posts are all lies and distortions. You've just proved it yet again by copying pasting 25 year old out-of-date distortions and lies from your favourite homobigots4jesus (eg NARTH ^^^ ) website and completely ignoring all the research since the 1990's. It's a classic tactic of rabid anti-gay crusaders.
You are the one who is "just adopting dogma" - based on wilful ignorance, prejudice, bigotry and hate. And a lot of childish nasty 'name-calling' about gay and lesbian people.
What a way to spend so much of your time. I feel sad for you.
You can call a circle a square, or marriage by something else, but it doesn't change the nature of it. Marriage was created to support the foundation of society - because although not all hetero couples have childrne, ALL children (every one of us) come from the union of a man's sperm & a female's egg.
As another poster noted... ''In other words, they have been able to persuade the majority, that sexual relationships between people of the same gender, are exactly the same as those between persons of complementary gender. But plainly they are not. Sex between men is not the same as sex between a man and a woman, and to say otherwise is to challenge the meaning of fundamental terms.''
Marriage is defined as: "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law."
You seem to not understand or at least refuse to acknowledge that definitions change. For example, the word dude used to refer to a well dressed man. Now it is rarely, if ever, used in that context. Every time you hear someone say "hey dude" do you correct them? No, because you acknowledge the definition has changed. Also, people have different definitions for the same thing. Some people say Texas is in the south, others say its the southwest. Or consider that the nature of Pluto hasnt changed, but the definition has (it's no longer considered a planet).
Your definition of marraige isnt even the original definition as it used to encompass polygamous unions and also only marraiges of people of the same race were legally recognized. Some people believe the latest definition of marriage has also changed to include same sex couples and that it doesn't require reproduction.
Maybe one day circles will be considered squares. If squares have 4 sides, and geomotrist begin to recognize a circle has an up side, a down side, a perimeter, and if the circle is 3d...who knows, maybe one day it will be classified as a square!
You seem to not understand or at least refuse to acknowledge that definitions change.
Yes, semantics do change with society's emerging beliefs.
Gay used to mean "happy" - now it refers to homosexual fetishes that people pretend are all about happiness, but in reality prove to be more about STDs, AIDS and mental illness, according to the US CDC.
Exactly, how are they, or would you rather just leave it to childish name-calling (ad hominem logical fallacy)?
Please address the following written by another:
"I do not agree with homosexuality in the same way I do not believe in religion. These people make a claim, I study the claim, I question the claim, I challenge the claim and then see how this claim finds an accordance along with the rest of the world and see if it has any evidence, rational thought or sensibility to support it. When someone says ''I am gay'', my mind can not help but think of these very rational counter points (indicated in brackets):
A - {Humans are sexually attracted to everything, not just the same sex, and are even attracted to fecal matter and ****, so why do they act like homosexuality is any special? Sounds like another excuse for being special and attention, honestly.} I only state this respectively, people.
B - {The fundamental system of mind does not have the ability to distinguish what we have created distinctions out of, such as the male and female genitalia. Shoving your dick in a woman's yahoo or a woman taking a big ol' slurp out of a guy's boomboom stick, is no different than shoving your dick in a peanutbutter jelly sandwich (may not be as good, but you still are experiencing the same system of pleasure), while the woman could get that same satisfaction by sucking on a lollipop by setting her mind to a sexual mindset.}
C - {I have repeatedly heard the argument that humans that commit sexual acts with the same sex is validated by animals having sex with the same gender. Yet, humans have the ability to acknowledge their own existence and question their own existence, while animals do not have the ability to even know what animal they are - forever damned to repeat their rather complex system of intrinisic intelligence and no more.}
If anyone is willing to point out why these questions have yet to be answered, it would be appreciated."
Yes, semantics do change with society's emerging beliefs.
Gay used to mean "happy" - now it refers to homosexual fetishes that people pretend are all about happiness, but in reality prove to be more about STDs, AIDS and mental illness, according to the US CDC.
Changing from "homosexual" to "gay" was part driven because people like you couldn't - and still cannot - find a way to remove sex acts from your perverted minds whenever you think of same-sex couplings or people.
Do you similarly think about what kind of business a straight couple is doing in the bedroom when you go to a wedding, or see a straight couple at the movies?
And get this quote from non other than Hillary Clinton:
" I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or the fundamental bedrock principle that it exists between a man and a woman going back into the mists of history, as one of the founding foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principle role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society in which they are to become adults.”
So much from principles. Those that can change fundamental beliefs so easily for political reasons are frauds and the worst kind of people to have in DC. You either have principles and beliefs that you stand by and don't change for political benefit or you don't.
I remember when SOME Dems opposed same-sex marriage. But thanks to the current Dem in the White House, their mistakes have been corrected.
P.S. If Mrs. Clinton is the nominee in 2016, I won't be voting Dem.
THAT's the problem! By demanding it be LEGALIZED, they will then demand the courts and government COMPEL religions provide lesbian and homosexual marriage if they provide marriages to heterosexual people.
This IS removing the rights of religion. It destroys religion. It is intentionally driving a wedge into religion, and it will eventually cause the protection of religion to be removed from the first Amendment.
If a state passes a law that prohibits a clergy person from performing a gay marriage is that "removing the rights of religion?"
@ Supersoul, I will address these "points". I must say first that I have read them, and without trying to be insulting, they are very weak points and it is very difficult to discern what argument the original poster is even trying to make. It just sounds like blog ranting. Secondly, these aren't even your own arguments. I suggest you start formulating your own arguments, as it is much more rewarding to debate from your own point of view, and use academic or verified news sources as a reference, rather than referencing an internet poster. Personally, I think some of the arguments you've produced on your own are much stronger than this poster's A,B, C points.
A. The question here is "Why do they (homosexuals?) act like homosexuality is anything special?" This is simply a false statement. Homosexual couples aren't requesting to be "special" as the poster implies, there is simply a request to be the same. They want the same government benefits and acknowledgement that opposite sex monogamous couples are granted upon request. -1 for the poster.
B. Here the poster is saying that humans can be sexually stimulated by non-human objects. This is true to a very small extent on the physical level, for both hetero and homosexuals alike (as I assume you are quite aware of when you're riding horses or bicycles). I don't understand how this relates to the gay marriage debate though. Invalid point. -2 for the Poster
C. Here the poster references the anti-gay argument which claims homosexuality is not "natural," and the rebuttal to this argument that homosexuality is in fact natural because it is found in the animal kingdom (where everything is still natural). This poster admits that homosexuality is found in the animal kingdom, and therefore it is natural, and his/her response is that humans should be morally above this natural practice because of our cognitive abilities. However, the poster doesn't address why we should do this on any moral or legal basis. Should humans abstain from all non-reproductive sexual activities because our cognitive abilities allow us to act against our natural desires? What's wrong with non-reproductive sexual activities? If no, then why just homosexuality, and not other non-reproductive sexual activities? This is not a sound argument as it is not a complete argument. -3 for the poster.
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.
