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.
Do you have the polling data from forty-four years ago, or do you simply make up "facts" as needed to support your argument?
Yes, but that isn't what we're discussing.
Please follow the thread.
This is the statement is question...
44 years ago the US considered interracial marriage immoral and indecent
This statement doesn't seem to be supported by evedence.
If a poll was conducted back then which showed most Americans opposed interracial marriage, I'd like to see it. Otherwise, please don't reference facts without proof.
I have been, given I started the thread.
I couldn't find evidence for that direct claim but I linked you to relevant information. I'm not the person who posted that claim--I just wanted to give you some other related info.
Sexual orientation is so complex that the exact pathways for its development are probably equally complex and no single cause or sequence will ever be established. Some people are noticeably "gay" even in childhood. Cher has said that she "always knew" that her daughter, Chastity, would be gay and she has said this on more than one occasion. Twin boys classmates of mine in grade school were very effeminate and both were gay when grown. Another childhood playmate of mine (from pre-school years) played nothing but "girl games" with me and after we started school he never played any rough-and-tumble games in school. If I wanted to play an active, rough-and-tumble game I played with other playmates. He was gay when grown and also had two cousins who were gay. We probably ALL can tell of instances like these.
This was my childhood. I ask the people in my life who watched me grow up and they all said they had a feeling I was lesbian. So when I came out no one was surprised. They were all just waiting for the day, lol. This is definitely a common story.
I have to admit I've never heard of unattractive men turning women gay, lol. Guess you learn something new every day.
I apologize nimchimpsky. I won't get into it anymore on this thread. I was just trying to point out that we are all born with natural dispositions and other factors can also be attributed to going this way or that way. But I don't believe it needs to be the end of the story.
I definitely understand. Maybe you can start a new thread in the R&P forum because what the Bible says about homosexuality and sexual temptation in general is a whole discussion topic in and of itself.
I have to admit I've never heard of unattractive men turning women gay, lol. Guess you learn something new every day.
Did you misread my post, nim? I said I knew of women so unattractive that men shunned them and so they turned to other women for love and intimacy. Not that they turned to other women to get away from unattractive men.
I've also known of women who have left very abusive relationships who then turned to women.
Can't say I've ever known of a man who turned to other men because he was too unattractive to get a date but that doesn't mean it never happens.
Did you misread my post, nim? I said I knew of women so unattractive that men shunned them and so they turned to other women for love and intimacy. Not that they turned to other women to get away from unattractive men.
I've also known of women who have left very abusive relationships who then turned to women.
Can't say I've ever known of a man who turned to other men because he was too unattractive to get a date but that doesn't mean it never happens.
Oh, sorry. I misunderstood.
I never understood why women see turning to other women as safer. The only abusive relationship I've ever been in, emotionally and physically, was with another woman. And it was really abusive. Women can be just as abusive as men.
Xq28 may or may not be a gay gene, but what difference does it make if it is?
Does a genetically linked low level of the CREB protein present in the Amygdala mean a person has no choice about becoming an alcoholic?
Of course not.
Alcoholism is a behavior based largely on personal choice and development.
We know Kallman's twin studies have been debunked and no one has come close to repeating his 100% concordance between monozygotic twins. Anything less than 100% means other factors are in play.
^ This is the best post on this thread. But I think it will go over the heads of many.
Leave it to liberals to shirk personal responsibility...it's what they do best.
Absolutely laughable-if only it was funny and not disgustingly irrational and illogical.
How facts backfire - Boston.com (http://articles.boston.com/2010-07-11/bostonglobe/29324096_1_facts-misinformation-beliefs - broken link)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax
Whatever your source is for this, it's way out of date and ignores all the studies in the past 20 years. Kallman's study was in 1952 and criticised because of the source of his subjects unlike later larger studies using twin registries. Citing Kallman's study (there was only one) but ignoring all the studies since then, is dishonest.
No scientists are claiming that homosexuality is caused by "A" gay gene as human sexual orientation is far too complex to be caused by just one gene.
Most scientists agree that there is genetic component to sexual orientation combined with environmental influences like pre-natal exposure to hormones. Twin studies have shown that identical twins are more likely to both be gay as compared to fraternal twins. There is more concordance between identical twins for homosexuality than there is for left-handedness.
For the umteenth time, homosexuality is not just a behavior. People can choose how they behave sexually, but they do not choose their orientation.
Comparing homosexuality to alcoholism just shows your prejudice.
How does a loving, committed, healthy, stable, lesbian couple, raising children, paying a mortgage, good jobs, no drug or alcohol issues etc, compare to an alcoholic who has lost their family, job, health etc because of their drinking?
__________________________________________________ ____
Spoiler
Here are some of the genetic studies within the past 20 years.
“There is a long-standing debate on the role of genetic factors influencing homosexuality because the presence of these factors contradicts the Darwinian prediction according to which natural selection should progressively eliminate the factors that reduce individual fecundity and fitness. Recently, however, Camperio Ciani, Corna, and Capiluppi (Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 271, 2217-2221, 2004), comparing the family trees of homosexuals with heterosexuals, reported a significant increase in fecundity in the females related to the homosexual probands from the maternal line but not in those related from the paternal one.†(2008) New evidence of genetic factors influencing sexual... [Arch Sex Behav. 2009] - PubMed result
Camperio Ciani, A., Cermelli, P., & Zanzotto, G. (2008). Sexually antagonistic selection in human male homosexuality. Plos One, in
press.
Rahman, Q., Collins, A., Morrison, M., Orrells, J. C., Cadinouche, K.,
Greenfield, S., et al. (2008). Maternal inheritance and familial
fecundity factors in male homosexuality. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 37.
Camperio Ciani, A., Iemmola, F., & Lombardi, L. (2008). Male
homosexuality partly correlates with an increased androphilia
and fecundity in females from maternal line
Vasey, P. L., & VanderLaan, D. P. (2007). Birth order and male
androphilia in Samoan fa’afafine. Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 274, 1437–1442.
Blanchard, R., & Lippa, R. A. (2007). Birth order, sibling sex ratio,
handedness, and sexual orientation of male and female participants
in a BBC Internet research project. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 36, 163–176.
Savolainen,V.,&Lehmann,L. (2007). Genetics and bisexuality. Nature,
445, 158–159.
"I demonstrate that the number of biological older brothers, including those not reared with the participant (but not the number of nonbiological older brothers), increases the probability of homosexuality in men. These results provide evidence that a prenatal mechanism(s), and not social and/or rearing factors, affects men's sexual orientation development."
"Biological Versus Nonbiological Older Brothers and Men’s Sexual Orientation," published by PNAS (Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences of the United States of America): Bogaert, A (2006) http://www.pnas.org/content/103/28/10771.full.pdf
"There's a converging line of evidence between the hormonal studies, the genetic studies, and the neuroanatomical studies. My research has identified candidate genes within these new chromosomal regions that could link together all of these different findings†Mustanski, B. S.; DuPree, M. G.; Nievergelt, C. M.; Bocklandt, S.; Schork, N. J.; Hamer, D. H. (2005)A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation. [Hum Genet. 2005] - PubMed
Rahman, Q., & Hull, M. S. (2005). An empirical test of the kin
selection hypothesis for male homosexuality. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 34, 461–467.
King, M., Green, J., Osborn, D. P. J., Arkell, J., Hetherton, J., &
Pereira, E. (2005). Family size in white gay and heterosexual men.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 117–122.
Camperio Ciani, A., Corna, F., & Capiluppi, C. (2004). Evidence for
maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and
promoting female fecundity. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 271, 2217–2221.
DuPree,M.G.,Mustanski, B. S.,Bocklandt, S., Nievergelt, C.,&Hamer,
D. H. (2004). A candidate gene study of CYP19 (aromatase) and
male sexual orientation. Behavior Genetics, 34, 243–250.
Blanchard, R. (2004). Quantitative and theoretical analyses of the
relation between older brothers and homosexuality in men.
Journal of Theoretical Biology, 230, 173–187.
Bobrow, D., & Bailey, J. M. (2001). Is male homosexuality maintained
via kin selection? Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 361–368.
Bailey, J. M., Pillard, R. C., Dawood, K., Miller, M. B., Farrer, L. A.,
Tivedi, S., et al. (1999). A family history study of male sexual
orientation using three independent samples. Behavior Genetics,
29, 79–86.
Blanchard, R. (1997). Birth order and sibling sex ratio in homosexual
versus heterosexual males and females. Annual Review of Sex
Research, 8, 27–67.
Blanchard, R., & Klassen, P. (1997). H-Y antigen and homosexuality
in men. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 185, 373–378.
Hu,S., Pattatucci,A.M., Patterson, C.,Li,L.,Fulker,D.W.,Cherny, S.S.,
et al. (1995). Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome
Xq28 in males but not in females. Nature Genetics, 11, 248–256.
Vasey, P. L. (1995). Homosexual behavior in primates: A review of
evidence and theory. International Journal of Primatology, 16,
173–204.
Hamer, D. H., Hu, S., Magnuson, V. L., Hu, N., & Pattattucci, A. M.
(1993). A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome
and male sexual orientation. Science, 261, 321–327.
Bailey, J. M., & Pillard, R. C. (1991). A genetic study of male sexual
orientation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 48, 1089–1096.
Here are some of the other more recent studies including hormone studies:
"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. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation."
"New Evidence of Genetic Factors Influencing Sexual Orientation in Men: Female Fecundity Increase in the Maternal Line". Garcia-Falgueras A, Swaab DF (2010). Pediatric Neuroendocrinology http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18561014
“Brain scans have provided the most compelling evidence yet that being gay or straight is a biologically fixed trait.
The scans reveal that in gay people, key structures of the brain governing emotion, mood, anxiety and aggressiveness resemble those in straight people of the opposite sex.
The differences are likely to have been forged in the womb or in early infancyâ€
â€Current evidence indicates that sexual differentiation of the human brain occurs during fetal and neonatal development and programs our gender identity— our feeling of being male or female and our sexual orientation as hetero-, homo-, or bisexual. This sexual differentiation process is accompanied by many structural and functional brain differences among these groups.â€
“…the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.8,11â€
"Male homosexuals have had less steroid exposure during [fetal] development than male heterosexuals and... female homosexuals have had greater steroid exposure during development than their heterosexual counterparts."
The determinants of sexual interest, in the sense of preferences for the same or opposite sex... appear to be caused by the neural organizational effects of the intrauterine hormonal events."
"A growing body of empirical literature suggests that the brains of gay males are less masculinized than those of heterosexual males, reflected in visual-spatial task performance -- a measure of cerebral masculinazation and one in which heterosexual males usually surpass females.
Several studies report that the cognitive performance of gay males is more typical of heterosexual females than heterosexual males.
Furthermore, the brain waves of gay males while performing verbal and spatial tasks are more similar to heterosexual females than males or significantly different from both." Relationships among childhood sex-atypical behavior, spatial ability, handedness, and sexual orientation in men. Cohen KM. Arch Sex Behav.(2002)
“…the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.8,11â€
You made a claim that you are called homophobic on a daily basis on the CD forums. Why is it "creepy" to dispute that claim with a couple of keystrokes?
I haven't personally called you homophobic. However I have certainly said that your opinions about homosexuals are insulting, prejudiced and uninformed and cannot be supported by evidence. All the major health organizations, all the science - says you are misinformed and incorrect.
You are the one making claims that homosexuals have a mental disorder. And that homosexuality is a choice. How does that work exactly? Choosing to have a mental disorder?
Why are you surprised that some people object to your ongoing insults about gay people? (and not just gay people, but straight people who are far more informed than you are)
You DO realise how insulting it is to have some misinformed, unqualified, clearly prejudiced person saying that gay people have a mental illness? Or for some person to say that all gay people are brainwashed and lying to themselves?
You think it's "obnoxious" to be called a "homophobe"?
Just think a moment about all the insulting posts you have posted about gay people.
Yes yes.... I know you said you don't have a problem with gay people...You only have a problem that they are gay.
Or is it mentally ill? Or brainwashed and all lying to themselves?
It's creepy b/c it's stalkerish, and if you don't realize that, well, then that's your problem.
Science does not say I am misinformed. I am giving my opinion, and in case you didn't realize, science is also opinion-based until it is proven. Nothing has been proven yet about gays and biology, it's all theoretical at this point.
People do things all the time that are due to mental dysfunction. Doesn't mean it's not a choice they are making. If a depressed person takes his life, is that still not a choice he is making? It's all based on a faulty worldview due to a mental disorder.
Again, you like to say I am misinformed, that's getting a little obnoxious as well. What specifically am I so misinformed about? I know a lot about a lot of things and that is how I form my opinions. A lot of this whole gay argument is emotionally driven, and THAT is misinformation and not based in reality. Most of the arguments are grasping at straws b/c it's apparently shameful to admit that you should not be gay but are doing so anyway. There are a lot of reasons that I could speculate about, but I think that is the main one, the shame involved in admitting to doing something wrong.
I am surprised that some people are so offended by my comments...after all, I am not nasty about it, I am stating my opinion, as you and all the others are stating yours. You don't have to agree but you also don't have to personally attack me b/c of it, nor do you need to attack my religion, something that is at the core of my being.
How else do you think I would see getting labeled a homophobe? Why shouldn't I think it's obnoxious and ignorant? Labels like that, just thrown around willy nilly are what drives the wedge between homosexuals and their supporters and conservatives (which is part of the OP's entire point with this thread!). You don't see me using disparaging language, do you? You won't see it here and if you knew me IRL, you wouldn't hear me say those kinds of things, either.
And then most of the time, when I state my views, I get attacked for my religion, which is worse than being labeled some stupid inaccurate buzz word. Don't you think all of this rhetoric is taking away from any meaningful discussion about homosexuality? And if you take notice, it's the gays and their supporters who are dumbing everything down. I have never once seen anybody here say a bad word toward a gay person, but I have seen plenty of name calling by the gays/supporters ("bigot" and "religious zealot" are thrown around a lot, for example).
I don't even "have a problem" with the people being gay, I just disagree with it. It's not something I think about in my daily life or if I'm around gay people. I just choose not to live my own life that way. What I do have a problem is with it being thrown in my face constantly, demanding attention and special treatment b/c of minority status. It's OBNOXIOUS. Live your life the way you see fit, but don't rub it in my face. I also have a problem with people saying that a homosexual relationship is equal to a heterosexual one...it's not, and it never will be. Doesn't mean I'm dissing the people involved, either.
Considering the fact that I do have a degree in psychology and originally planned to do counseling (now I don't have time to do a Master's program), obviously I have no problem with people with mental illness. I have two family members who are bipolar. One of them is fine and med compliant and the other goes on and off her meds and regularly goes to the psych ward. That BEHAVIOR is what is problematic, not the fact that she is bipolar to begin with.
It's creepy b/c it's stalkerish, and if you don't realize that, well, then that's your problem.
Science does not say I am misinformed. I am giving my opinion, and in case you didn't realize, science is also opinion-based until it is proven. Nothing has been proven yet about gays and biology, it's all theoretical at this point.
People do things all the time that are due to mental dysfunction. Doesn't mean it's not a choice they are making. If a depressed person takes his life, is that still not a choice he is making? It's all based on a faulty worldview due to a mental disorder.
Again, you like to say I am misinformed, that's getting a little obnoxious as well. What specifically am I so misinformed about? I know a lot about a lot of things and that is how I form my opinions. A lot of this whole gay argument is emotionally driven, and THAT is misinformation and not based in reality. Most of the arguments are grasping at straws b/c it's apparently shameful to admit that you should not be gay but are doing so anyway. There are a lot of reasons that I could speculate about, but I think that is the main one, the shame involved in admitting to doing something wrong.
I am surprised that some people are so offended by my comments...after all, I am not nasty about it, I am stating my opinion, as you and all the others are stating yours. You don't have to agree but you also don't have to personally attack me b/c of it, nor do you need to attack my religion, something that is at the core of my being.
How else do you think I would see getting labeled a homophobe? Why shouldn't I think it's obnoxious and ignorant? Labels like that, just thrown around willy nilly are what drives the wedge between homosexuals and their supporters and conservatives (which is part of the OP's entire point with this thread!). You don't see me using disparaging language, do you? You won't see it here and if you knew me IRL, you wouldn't hear me say those kinds of things, either.
And then most of the time, when I state my views, I get attacked for my religion, which is worse than being labeled some stupid inaccurate buzz word. Don't you think all of this rhetoric is taking away from any meaningful discussion about homosexuality? And if you take notice, it's the gays and their supporters who are dumbing everything down. I have never once seen anybody here say a bad word toward a gay person, but I have seen plenty of name calling by the gays/supporters ("bigot" and "religious zealot" are thrown around a lot, for example).
I don't even "have a problem" with the people being gay, I just disagree with it. It's not something I think about in my daily life or if I'm around gay people. I just choose not to live my own life that way. What I do have a problem is with it being thrown in my face constantly, demanding attention and special treatment b/c of minority status. It's OBNOXIOUS. Live your life the way you see fit, but don't rub it in my face. I also have a problem with people saying that a homosexual relationship is equal to a heterosexual one...it's not, and it never will be. Doesn't mean I'm dissing the people involved, either.
Considering the fact that I do have a degree in psychology and originally planned to do counseling (now I don't have time to do a Master's program), obviously I have no problem with people with mental illness. I have two family members who are bipolar. One of them is fine and med compliant and the other goes on and off her meds and regularly goes to the psych ward. That BEHAVIOR is what is problematic, not the fact that she is bipolar to begin with.
Yes, science is proven. It's not an opinion. Maybe you need a dictionary. That will help you to understand the difference between science and opinion.
I already told you that YOU can not change or choose your sexuality. And you have not given me a reason as to why you think gays can do. Then you have also not told me why they would "choose" to be gay, when they are being discriminated against, being harassed, and hated by people like you. You essentially utterly failed to make your point.
So now you label all "liberals" as "shirking responsibility"?
Like to judge and label all people as a group do you?
He posted information that he obviously didn't understand, was way out of date and was scientifically dishonest. His comparison of homosexuality and alcoholism reeked of prejudice. Yet you think it was the best post on the thread?
Huh? It's a general statement, not a label. I say things like that all the time about liberals...how else should I phrase it? Should I individually name each poster who likes to shirk responsibility on this forum? That would take days.
No, the poster did not post things that he didn't understand..and it's slightly funny you should say that, considering that my comment was that YOU and your ilk would not understand it. There was no prejudice there. That is what you are choosing to see. It's like a racist person goes around seeing racism everywhere, even if it doesn't exist. That's b/c people with prejudices have trained themselves to be on the lookout for things that back up that prejudice, so they project onto others the same things.
Again, the post was not prejudiced in any way and the premise remains correct.
It's creepy b/c it's stalkerish, and if you don't realize that, well, then that's your problem.
seems legit to me
Quote:
Science does not say I am misinformed. I am giving my opinion, and in case you didn't realize, science is also opinion-based until it is proven. Nothing has been proven yet about gays and biology, it's all theoretical at this point.
This shows a pretty basic non-understanding of science.
Nothing in science is ever proven. Nothing in science is ever opinion.
Quote:
I get attacked for my religion, which is worse than being labeled some stupid inaccurate buzz word. Don't you think all of this rhetoric is taking away from any meaningful discussion about homosexuality?
I think any use of a two-thousand year old fairy tale book is takes away from any meaningful discussion about homosexuality.
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.
