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.
This. Here you go. Insert any race and see how that goes. Notice that the responses you would get would probably mostly more scathing than the responses I posted.
It's bigoted to hold such a belief. Regardless or not if you believe people are born that way, when you hold such negative views (maladaptive, abnormal) and refuse to accept them...that's shows you condemn homosexuality.
Nobody is telling you to go to a pride parade. You are entitled to your opinions, however misguided and bigoted...however you will be challenged.
I'm not discussing race, I'm discussing sexual orientation. Your argument is completely fallacioius.
How is it bigoted? Give one example where I have stated that I refuse to accept homosexuals. You people seem to skip over my posts where I ask you for evidence to back up your false claims.
Also, this link provides no evidence that this study was peer-reviewed in any reputable scientific journal. Are you familiar with the scientific method?
Do you have sources to back up your claims? Have you tried to refute my claims?
The fact that you continue to use my analogy and claim that I used it to further my point tells me that you are lacking in comprehension. I used that analogy to display the illogical nature of the argument presented against mine.
I was a biopsych major at UCSB.
The analogy is stupid. Plain and simple. Explain it then how acceptance of cultural traits are the same of acceptance of biological traits.
You stated that the Sudanese accepted slavery and so did many other African nations, thus making slavery okay. Of course slavery deleteriously affects entire populations, whereas homosexuality has no deleterious affects. So the comparison is not apt in sense.
From a biological standpoint the Sudanese had no evidence to believe that slavery is genetic, however we have evidence to show that homosexuality is genetic. We are not talking about a trait that may negatively affect others (like a person born with a lesion in the orbital frontal cortex...making them less rational and more aggressive).
The analogy is stupid. Plain and simple. Explain it then how acceptance of cultural traits are the same of acceptance of biological traits.
You stated that the Sudanese accepted slavery and so did many other African nations, thus making slavery okay. Of course slavery deleteriously affects entire populations, whereas homosexuality has no deleterious affects. So the comparison is not apt in sense.
From a biological standpoint the Sudanese had no evidence to believe that slavery is genetic, however we have evidence to show that homosexuality is genetic. We are not talking about a trait that may negatively affect others (like a person born with a lesion in the orbital frontal cortex...making them less rational and more aggressive).
It is strange that you continue to mention an analogy that was used to display an illogical argument and use it to try to claim that I used it to back up my statements.
Also, please provide evidence that I ever stated anything close to what you claim in the bolded area.
I have stated before and I will state it again. I BELIEVE THAT INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE HOMOSEXUAL ARE BORN THAT WAY.
Also, this link provides no evidence that this study was peer-reviewed in any reputable scientific journal. Are you familiar with the scientific method?
Of course it doesn't. The citations in the journal are however, peer reviewed. Are YOU familiar with the scientific method? If you were you would understand how information gets passed to the general public. Sorry, my medpub account is shut down since I live in Korea. Also my jstor account is locked since I don't pay for it anymore. Not to mention the whole host of others. I can give my old text books on the genetics of the brain. It includes fascinated and dense chapters showing brain scans of various neuronal nuclei and explaining genetic expression caused by methylation and actylation.
Of course it doesn't. The citations in the journal are however, peer reviewed. Are YOU familiar with the scientific method? If you were you would understand how information gets passed to the general public. Sorry, my medpub account is shut down since I live in Korea. Also my jstor account is locked since I don't pay for it anymore. Not to mention the whole host of others. I can give my old text books on the genetics of the brain. It includes fascinated and dense chapters showing brain scans of various neuronal nuclei and explaining genetic expression caused by methylation and actylation.
I will review the citations and the material associated with it and respond momentarily. Meanwhile, I will clear up my analogy.
This is what I stated, which is contrary to what you comprehended: "She mentioned the fact that ancient Greeks had homosexual relations for "fun" and also mentioned that homosexuality has been observed in almost every species of life. Her argument is fallacious in both arguments. That's like me saying that since there is slavery going on in the Sudan (and a number of African countries), that therefore, slavery is normal."
My point is this: the fact that an act takes place (ancient Greece in my example) does not make that act normal. Just like slavery (Sudan in my example) is not normal just because the act of slavery takes place.
You can continue to twist my words any way you like, but I suggest you analyze what I actually state and not what you want to believe I stated.
She mentioned the fact that ancient Greeks had homosexual relations for "fun" and also mentioned that homosexuality has been observed in almost every species of life. Her argument is fallacious in both arguments. That's like me saying that since there is slavery going on in the Sudan (and a number of African countries), that therefore, slavery is normal.
You are saying she's wrong since the Sudanese accepted slavery (a bad thing) and thus acceptance of this bad thing makes it normal (which in your eyes is wrong). Of course, however, you can't use this argument since you are thus comparing apples to oranges. It's illogical. You can't refute an argument that homosexuality is normal by stating that if one cultural accepts a non normative CULTURAL practice and deems it normal (while it really isn't) the same is done with homosexuality (one cultural accepting it and thus deeming it normal even though it isn't...but it is).
We all fall on a normal distribution. Some genetic expressions are seen more frequently than others. We typically call things that are WAY out of the norm, abnormal. Homosexuality simply is not seen as that far out of the norm (10% of the population is too big to be seen as abnormal).
People also are more and more shying away from the term abnormal, not because of PC reasons, but because there really is too much diversity to have such a narrow definition of normal. Autism is a good example. It is a spectrum disorder since there is too much diversity to make a clear delineation between normal and abnormal.
Homosexuality has been seen in every species. Which makes your argument (just because a group of people says its okay doesn't make it so) even more ridiculous. Such species do not have a codified cultural system as us, thus how can you compare to such a codified culture? Other species typically react on biological impulse, not cultural rewards/ status.
On both levels you are comparing apples to oranges.
I will review the citations and the material associated with it and respond momentarily. Meanwhile, I will clear up my analogy.
This is what I stated, which is contrary to what you comprehended: "She mentioned the fact that ancient Greeks had homosexual relations for "fun" and also mentioned that homosexuality has been observed in almost every species of life. Her argument is fallacious in both arguments. That's like me saying that since there is slavery going on in the Sudan (and a number of African countries), that therefore, slavery is normal."
My point is this: the fact that an act takes place (ancient Greece in my example) does not make that act normal. Just like slavery (Sudan in my example) is not normal just because the act of slavery takes place.
You can continue to twist my words any way you like, but I suggest you analyze what I actually state and not what you want to believe I stated.
I understand and it doesn't make sense. Again you are taking a biological non choice (homosexuality) vs. a cultural choice (slavery). Don't you see how that's different?
I will review the citations and the material associated with it and respond momentarily. Meanwhile, I will clear up my analogy.
This is what I stated, which is contrary to what you comprehended: "She mentioned the fact that ancient Greeks had homosexual relations for "fun" and also mentioned that homosexuality has been observed in almost every species of life. Her argument is fallacious in both arguments. That's like me saying that since there is slavery going on in the Sudan (and a number of African countries), that therefore, slavery is normal."
My point is this: the fact that an act takes place (ancient Greece in my example) does not make that act normal. Just like slavery (Sudan in my example) is not normal just because the act of slavery takes place.
You can continue to twist my words any way you like, but I suggest you analyze what I actually state and not what you want to believe I stated.
I'm not twisting your words. You simply have a bad analogy.
Of course it doesn't. The citations in the journal are however, peer reviewed. Are YOU familiar with the scientific method? If you were you would understand how information gets passed to the general public. Sorry, my medpub account is shut down since I live in Korea. Also my jstor account is locked since I don't pay for it anymore. Not to mention the whole host of others. I can give my old text books on the genetics of the brain. It includes fascinated and dense chapters showing brain scans of various neuronal nuclei and explaining genetic expression caused by methylation and actylation.
I just scanned the entire article and didn't find any citations. I did see a mention that their findings were detailed in an issue of "PLOS ONE". In no way, shape, or form can that study be accepted as scientific proof.
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.
