DOMA ruled unconstitutional [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : DOMA ruled unconstitutional

Pages : [1] 2

MannyIsGod

07-08-2010, 05:13 PM

Damn right

:toast

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/07/judge_declares_3.html

The Reckoning

07-08-2010, 05:17 PM

have you sent out the invitations yet?

ElNono

07-08-2010, 05:20 PM

Judicial Activism!

MannyIsGod

07-08-2010, 05:21 PM

:lol

have you sent out the invitations yet?

jack sommerset

07-08-2010, 05:35 PM

Congrats Manny! I hope you two boys have the wedding you guys have always dreamed of.

MannyIsGod

07-08-2010, 05:45 PM

Congrats Manny! I hope you two boys have the wedding you guys have always dreamed of.

I'm holding out for you, Jack.

jacobdrj

07-08-2010, 05:49 PM

LnGrrrR

07-08-2010, 07:31 PM

panic giraffe

07-08-2010, 07:47 PM

...so basically now, you'll see red states rushing to get a gay marriage ban passed in their state, creating a cluster fuck of fuck when DADT is repealed and tom and dick get stationed in georgia only to learn that when tom gets sick dick has no say in his DNR status, leading to more lawsuits and years of lawyers getting paid til finally in 2089 an amendment is added to the constitution ensuring the freedom of two people to marry. this is backwoods and retarded.

z0sa

07-08-2010, 07:52 PM

snore

LnGrrrR

07-08-2010, 08:14 PM

CosmicCowboy

07-09-2010, 09:01 AM

So Manny, are you going to wear white?

George Gervin's Afro

07-09-2010, 09:28 AM

I can't wait for traditional marriage to be destroyed now..!

Spurminator

07-09-2010, 09:31 AM

It's already started. My wife left me last night for the next door neighbor's pet iguana.

George Gervin's Afro

07-09-2010, 10:10 AM

It's already started. My wife left me last night for the next door neighbor's pet iguana.

:lmao

damn liberals..

Sportcamper

07-09-2010, 10:16 AM

All this debating over gay marriage…Ever see an old married couple in their 70's…Can you really tell who is who…

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:7Af_iRTRbIBq3M:http://thatcomputerguy.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/ronwhite.jpg

jack sommerset

07-09-2010, 10:21 AM

Traditional marriage was destroyed many moons ago. Vows, affairs, divorce, swingers, lawyers, Vegas, etc.....

Let the fags get married. Let them stand together in Vatican City before the Pope and suck each other off. Have at it. Who knows, the Pope might even whip his stick out and join the party.

coyotes_geek

07-09-2010, 10:32 AM

I still have no idea why marriage is legislated in the 1st place. Person to person contracts are just that. Contracts. If it is religious, than it should have no place, as it is an issue of separation of church and state.
Even in a non-sexual context, why can't I form a civil union of mutual support between individuals or families?
Rules about insurance, taxes, responsibilities of children etc referencing marriage have no basis. Marriage, in a legal context should be about codependent people. It has nothing to do with 'the nasty'. Just mutual social benefit.
If you are of a religion and you want to get married, have fun. If some people don't accept that. Cool. Otherwise, legal social structures should not be limited to strung out family structures...

It's legislated for two reasons.

1. It's legislated because it's an opportunity for a state and/or local government to charge someone $50 bucks for a piece of paper.

2. It's legislated because "small government" republicans (snicker), homophobes and religious zealots dreaming of a theocracy want the government to endorse their preferred lifestyle over ones they disapprove of.

boutons_deux

07-09-2010, 10:36 AM

widespread pederasty, bestiality, necrophilia to follow. stay tuned.

Bender

07-09-2010, 10:40 AM

pederasty
I need to google that one, but I'm not going to...

DarkReign

07-09-2010, 10:42 AM

I need to google that one, but I'm not going to...

You know, I always thought it was "pedastry", but boutons is correct in its spelling.

boutons_deux

07-09-2010, 10:45 AM

Boutons is ALWAYS correct.

jack sommerset

07-09-2010, 11:02 AM

widespread pederasty, bestiality, necrophilia to follow. stay tuned.

I can see that happening. Not in the near future but somewhere down the line. You hear all the time how a owner leaves lots of cash to their pet chihuahua. These owners dress their animals up, take them everywhere, feed them burgers, sleep with them as if they were their life partner. No telling how much peanut butter is bought to bring these two lovers together. Don't think for one second treating these animals like humans stops at the bedroom. Sick fuckers.

If people make the argument "How does two dudes sucking each other off effect you" that same arguement can be made as to why Astro and Tammy should get married. It's none of your business. The line always gets moved back.

If some dude wants to get fuck to death by donkey, thats their business. They even record for the other sick fuckers to watch. Why should we judge. Have at it. Just stay away from me.

George Gervin's Afro

07-09-2010, 11:10 AM

I can see that happening. Not in the near future but somewhere down the line. You hear all the time how a owner leaves lots of cash to their pet chihuahua. These owners dress their animals up, take them everywhere, feed them burgers, sleep with them as if they were their life partner. No telling how much peanut butter is bought to bring these two lovers together. Don't think for one second treating these animals like humans stops at the bedroom. Sick fuckers.

If people make the argument "How does two dudes sucking each other off effect you" that same arguement can be made as to why Astro and Tammy should get married. It's none of your business. The line always gets moved back.

If some dude wants to get fuck to death by donkey, thats their business. They even record for the other sick fuckers to watch. Why should we judge. Have at it. Just stay away from me.

two consenting adults jack... an animal can't agree to marry anyone.. stop being stupid.

jack sommerset

07-09-2010, 11:59 AM

I'm pretty sure an adult for a dog is 3 years. Set a age limit since you are so concerned, you sick fuck.

How do you know what a animal wants? Are you Dr Doolittle or something? Spread some jam on your ass and see what happens. If the dog fights it, stay away but if the dog really likes it and sooner than later doesn't need the jam to get after your ass, someone like you should embrace it.

One night you get home from a hard day of posting about free shit the government should give you or how some stranger doesn't appreciate just how smart you really are. There's Rover jumping up and down as you enter your governemnt assisted apartment. You had relationships, divorced, kid doesn't see you any longer for being a deadbeat dad all those years but there is Arnold, curling up to you, giving you those big brown pouty eyes you always wanted as your own, loving you unconditionally like no other could possibly do. Who is to say you two lovers shouldn't be able to marry each other. Love speaks all language. Atleast that is what the sick fucks want you to believe. Have at it. It won't effect me if you get ass fucked by a chimp or marry one. Right?

George Gervin's Afro

07-09-2010, 12:40 PM

jack sommerset

07-09-2010, 01:02 PM

when's the last time you spread something on your ass jack?

Never.

It won't effect me if you get ass fucked by a chimp or marry one. Right?

George Gervin's Afro

07-09-2010, 01:14 PM

Why do you think of chimps a$$ f*cking jack? Do you like chimps?

jack sommerset

07-09-2010, 01:21 PM

It's really a simple question, George. Tell us why you would care if a human gets married to an animal. It doesn't effect you, right?

Wild Cobra

07-09-2010, 01:34 PM

I'm holding out for you, Jack.
I figured you would take the TS away from AlwaysBetOnBlack...

Wild Cobra

07-09-2010, 01:35 PM

The reasoning that the judge used was interesting but sound. To summarize, the judge basically said that "marriage" has been left up to the states to define, not the federal government, and ruled based off that.
I have to agree with "States Rights." I oppose same sex marriage, but if is the will of the people of a state, then who am I to say otherwise?

Oregon is one of the most liberal states around. However, such things still don't pass here.

George Gervin's Afro

07-09-2010, 01:45 PM

It's really a simple question, George. Tell us why you would care if a human gets married to an animal. It doesn't effect you, right?

what does marrying an animal have to do with two consenting adults getting married jack?

jack sommerset

07-09-2010, 02:04 PM

what does marrying an animal have to do with two consenting adults getting married jack?

I have no problem with two dudes getting married or some dude marrying his kitty cat. Should I?

Tell us why you would care if a human gets married to an animal. It doesn't effect you, right?

Wild Cobra

07-09-2010, 02:08 PM

I have no problem with two dudes getting married or some dude marrying his kitty cat. Should I?

Tell us why you would care if a human gets married to an animal. It doesn't effect you, right?
Let's say someone marries a tortoise that lives for 250 years, and gets his social security benefits for 200 years after he dies?

Does that affect us, or not?

Winehole23

07-09-2010, 02:12 PM

Let's say someone marries a tortoise that lives for 250 years, and gets his social security benefits for 200 years after he dies?Srsly? SSN#s for ani-pals?:rollin

Winehole23

07-09-2010, 02:14 PM

The reductio ad adsurdum here is faulty: the analogy of homosexuality to bestiality fails, because there is no element of reciprocal consent.

jack sommerset

07-09-2010, 02:29 PM

Says you. Love speaks in all languages. Retards get married and some have no clue what it means. They just know they love each other. So curious George decides he wants to marry his "adult doggie", (lord knows he is against marrying a puppy) I say let him. It's none of our business. Right George?

jack sommerset

07-09-2010, 02:30 PM

Let's say someone marries a tortoise that lives for 250 years, and gets his social security benefits for 200 years after he dies?

Does that affect us, or not?

Sure it does. I can't imagine 2 many people marrying turtles so I won't sweat it. Let love shine to everyone!

George Gervin's Afro

07-09-2010, 03:15 PM

CosmicCowboy

07-09-2010, 03:19 PM

I'll slloowwww down for you...2 consenting adults should be allowed to marry... got it dummy?

What about 3 consenting adults?

George Gervin's Afro

07-09-2010, 03:21 PM

I'll slloowwww down for you...2 consenting adults should be allowed to marry... got it dummy?

CosmicCowboy

07-09-2010, 03:23 PM

Why not 3? Or 4? Or 10?

Winehole23

07-09-2010, 03:24 PM

Says you. Love speaks in all languages. Retards get married and some have no clue what it means. They just know they love each other. There are limits to broad-mindedness even for you, I guess.

So curious George decides he wants to marry his "adult doggie", (lord knows he is against marrying a puppy) I say let him. It's none of our business. Your facetiousness presumes and profits from the general repugnance at bestiality, even though its connection to gay marriage or even homosexuality as such, is tenuous at best. The unpopularity of the terms of the comparison, does not necessarily reflect ill on them in principle, but bestiality is a known emetic.

Blake

07-09-2010, 03:25 PM

Srsly? SSN#s for ani-pals?:rollin

of course.

that way we can document the illegals, tax them, and require them to carry health insurance.

Wild Cobra

07-09-2010, 03:26 PM

I'll slloowwww down for you...2 consenting adults should be allowed to marry... got it dummy?
I think most of us agree that two consenting adults should have all the governmental rights and privileges of marriage. However, don't call it marriage. I believe to begin with that the government has no right to control marriage. It never did until racists wanted to limit the marriages of blacks. A marriage is a religious ceremony. By constitution, I would argue the government has no right to interfere with established religion.

earlier I stated that Oregon's citizens rejected all attempts for same sex marriage. However, Civil unions passed by a pretty good margin. Some still try to get it taken away but that will never happen.

Blake

07-09-2010, 03:26 PM

Why not 3? Or 4? Or 10?

what would be the potential problems of polygamy?

CosmicCowboy

07-09-2010, 03:28 PM

what would be the potential problems of polygamy?

Good Question. George Gervins Afro is being a narrow minded bigot.

Winehole23

07-09-2010, 04:01 PM

Why not 3? Or 4? Or 10?Why not? It's a contract, right?

Leaving aside the foreseeably byzantine legal consequences of plural marriage, there is the political effect on society to be considered. Polygamy can produce registered voters much faster than everyone else, besides being bastions of dirty fucking hippiedom and 19th century proprieties about the legal age of marriage and making love on the woodpile.

Wild Cobra

07-09-2010, 04:17 PM

Why not? It's a contract, right?

Leaving aside the foreseeably byzantine legal consequences of plural marriage, there is the political effect on society to be considered. Polygamy can produce registered voters much faster than everyone else, besides being bastions of dirty fucking hippiedom and 19th century proprieties about the legal age of marriage and making love on the woodpile.
If we are going to allow marriage by any two people, then I will insist it be limited to just a couple. I would say anything else cannot be acknowledged by the government for benefits.

In ancient times, it was practical to allow multiple wives, it sustained the culture well. You had so many people who could hardly support themselves. Only a few wealthy men could afford to take care of a wife and family. So many were so wealthy, they could afford more than just one "lifebringer"[1]. It was practical fro a man to support as many women and children as he could afford.

For you Zak:

[1] Lifebringer is the literal translation for Eve in the creation story. Mankind was Adam. God created a race. Not just a pair. It isn't until the story with Cane and Able that the Chaldean word changes, to the proper name Adam and Eve.

Winehole23

07-09-2010, 04:24 PM

If we are going to allow marriage by any two people, then I will insist it be limited to just a couple. I would say anything else cannot be acknowledged by the government for benefits.That's your view. It's the dominant view.

In ancient times, it was practical to allow multiple wives, it sustained the culture well. You had so many people who could hardly support themselves. Only a few wealthy men could afford to take care of a wife and family. So many were so wealthy, they could afford more than just one "lifebringer"[1]. It was practical fro a man to support as many women and children as he could afford.Outlived its usefulness, huh? First point to custom and traditional mores in warning against it, then to abstract social utility to excuse the past's tolerance of the very same. :lol

Are you an anthropologist, WC?

Blake

07-09-2010, 04:27 PM

If we are going to allow marriage by any two people, then I will insist it be limited to just a couple. I would say anything else cannot be acknowledged by the government for benefits.

In ancient times, it was practical to allow multiple wives, it sustained the culture well. You had so many people who could hardly support themselves. Only a few wealthy men could afford to take care of a wife and family. So many were so wealthy, they could afford more than just one "lifebringer"[1]. It was practical fro a man to support as many women and children as he could afford.

For you Zak:

[1] Lifebringer is the literal translation for Eve in the creation story. Mankind was Adam. God created a race. Not just a pair. It isn't until the story with Cane and Able that the Chaldean word changes, to the proper name Adam and Eve.

since nowadays so many "lifebringers" are also breadwinners, that argument falls pretty flat.

CosmicCowboy

07-09-2010, 04:27 PM

My argument is tongue in cheek and hypothetical, but I could apply every single argument used to justify gay marriage to justifying polygamy.

MannyIsGod

07-09-2010, 04:29 PM

My argument is tongue in cheek and hypothetical, but I could apply every single argument used to justify gay marriage to justifying polygamy.

No, you can't.

Wild Cobra

07-09-2010, 04:40 PM

That's your view. It's the dominant view.
My dominate viewpoint is that actual marriage recognition is based in religion. My practical financial viewpoint is that regardless of marital status, that the government can only recognize one spouse for the purpose of tax paid benefits.

Outlived its usefulness, huh? First point to custom and traditional mores in warning against it, then to abstract social utility to excuse the past's tolerance of the very same. :lol

History is what it was. I actually support the idea, but it is useless with equality. Women are now legally our equals when they choose to be, and welfare cases if they choose that as well. A man is not expected to take as many wives as he can afford, because society not only has less dirt poor men, but women can take care of themselves. Then if they don't, there are "tax payers!"

Blake

07-09-2010, 04:48 PM

My practical financial viewpoint is that regardless of marital status, that the government can only recognize one spouse for the purpose of tax paid benefits.

I fail to see how 3 people marrying each other hits my tax wallet.

Please expand on this practical financial viewpoint.

Wild Cobra

07-09-2010, 04:49 PM

I fail to see how 3 people marrying each other hits my tax wallet.

Please expand on this practical financial viewpoint.
Primarily things like spousal social security. Just one example. One special perk that others don't is one too many.

CosmicCowboy

07-09-2010, 04:49 PM

No, you can't.

Yes I can.

Nanny Nanny BooBoo!

Winehole23

07-09-2010, 04:50 PM

My dominate viewpoint is that actual marriage recognition is based in religion. My practical financial viewpoint is that regardless of marital status, that the government can only recognize one spouse for the purpose of tax paid benefits.
Commendably strict. Good luck with that. :tu

A man is not expected to take as many wives as he can afford, because society not only has less dirt poor men, but women can take care of themselves. Good point. Haven't they always though? :wakeup

Spurminator

07-09-2010, 05:13 PM

CosmicCowboy

07-09-2010, 05:27 PM

If you guys have issues with polygamy and bestiality then let's talk when those actually become seriously considered for legalization. It has nothing to do with gay marriage, and the fact that those are always brought up when discussing gay marriage just shows you don't have a single good argument against it.

I have no issue with civil unions for gays. Ex. purchasing property together, right of survivorship, medical power of attorney, etc.

No issues at all there but thats as far as it goes.

Specific example:

I do not think two gay men should be allowed to adopt a child, especially a male. They might be consenting adults but the child isn't.

So I'm a bigot and a redneck according to the so called "progressives" in this forum.

I could give a shit what you think.

MannyIsGod

07-09-2010, 05:32 PM

I have no issue with civil unions for gays. Ex. purchasing property together, right of survivorship, medical power of attorney, etc.

No issues at all there but thats as far as it goes.

Specific example:

I do not think two gay men should be allowed to adopt a child, especially a male. They might be consenting adults but the child isn't.

So I'm a bigot and a redneck according to the so called "progressives" in this forum.

I could give a shit what you think.

Actually I'm pretty sure that you more than anyone else on this entire site outside of maybe Koriwhat cares what others think.

But anyway, what is your reasoning for not wanting 2 men to adopt?

baseline bum

07-09-2010, 05:48 PM

I can't wait for traditional marriage to be destroyed now..!

Huh? Polygamy already is illegal.

CosmicCowboy

07-09-2010, 05:52 PM

Actually I'm pretty sure that you more than anyone else on this entire site outside of maybe Koriwhat cares what others think.

But anyway, what is your reasoning for not wanting 2 men to adopt?

I have no problem with people choosing a gay lifestyle. It is a lifestyle choice they wanted to make. By it's very nature it is a lifestyle choice that precludes procreation/family.

Manny, I just can't wrap my head around someone believing it's right to turn over the raising of a 5 year old male child to 2 gay guys.

You can laugh at my parochial values but that just ain't right.

ChumpDumper

07-09-2010, 05:54 PM

MannyIsGod

07-09-2010, 05:59 PM

I have no problem with people choosing a gay lifestyle. It is a lifestyle choice they wanted to make. By it's very nature it is a lifestyle choice that precludes procreation/family.

Manny, I just can't wrap my head around someone believing it's right to turn over the raising of a 5 year old male child to 2 gay guys.

You can laugh at my parochial values but that just ain't right.

Can you give a reason? I'm not laughing at anything, I'm asking you to explain your reasoning and you're dancing around it. Why can't you wrap your head around it? Do you feel males are incapable of raising children? Aren't you a father? Do you feel you did a bad job? Or do you feel that they would do a poor job because they are gay?

Just provide reasoning and we'll go from there. There has to be a reason you believe this. Lay it out.

CosmicCowboy

07-09-2010, 06:48 PM

My feeling on this is not logical and rational and I admit that.

I chose a conventional lifestyle and had children in the conventional way. I went through to normal pregnancy/childbirth.

I'm a relatively normal guy. I'm attracted to women. I had a daughter that I never even considered being sexually attracted to.

At the same time I see stepfathers in "conventional" relationships molesting their stepdaughters all the time. I even admit that there are "natural" fathers that molest their children. It's not a perfect world.

I just can't accept 2 guys that are attracted to males and have chosen an alternative lifestyle being allowed to adopt a young boy.

Sorry. I'm normally a pretty logical and rational guy but that one I just can't accept.

They may be the most wonderful guys in the world but they voluntarily chose that lifestyle. Life is full of choices. Adoption for gays shouldn't be one of them.

CosmicCowboy

07-09-2010, 06:49 PM

BTW, bash away. I'm probably gone for the night. At least a couple of hours.

ChumpDumper

07-09-2010, 06:57 PM

So your whole argument is that adoptive gay parents will by definition be pedophiles and molest any male child they can get their degenerate hands on.

Cute.

George Gervin's Afro

07-09-2010, 07:58 PM

My argument is tongue in cheek and hypothetical, but I could apply every single argument used to justify gay marriage to justifying polygamy.

who is arguing to legalize polygamy?

Blake

07-09-2010, 08:27 PM

Primarily things like spousal social security. Just one example. One special perk that others don't is one too many.

I don't see how spousal social security benefits would be paid any more than it is now with just two people.

It might get more complex, but that's it, unless you can explain further.

MannyIsGod

07-09-2010, 08:40 PM

Blake

07-09-2010, 08:43 PM

My feeling on this is not logical and rational and I admit that.

They may be the most wonderful guys in the world but they voluntarily chose that lifestyle. Life is full of choices. Adoption for gays shouldn't be one of them.

It sounds like the notion that 'homosexuality is a deviant/sinful/gross/etc lifestyle' has been pounded into your head for so long that you can't get over it.

You're an idiot.

LnGrrrR

07-09-2010, 09:43 PM

My feeling on this is not logical and rational and I admit that.

And yet, you want to base legislation on an illogical and irrational view? Why not just say "This is my view, and I PERSONALLY choose not to perform X action"? That would be more logically consistent.

After all, I don't think you're all for putting on a Klan hood and going to rallies on the weekend, are you? Does that mean you're against their right to do so?

CosmicCowboy

07-09-2010, 10:41 PM

You guys crack me up. Bunch of progressive cock suckers in a cyber daisy chain.

Blake

07-09-2010, 10:56 PM

You guys crack me up. Bunch of progressive cock suckers in a cyber daisy chain.

Conflicted, self-proclaimed normal guy dumbfucks like you crack me up. :tu

ChumpDumper

07-09-2010, 11:00 PM

You guys crack me up. Bunch of progressive cock suckers in a cyber daisy chain.Please explain why you think gay men will always molest little boys.

CuckingFunt

07-09-2010, 11:37 PM

Please explain why you think gay men will always molest little boys.

I'd settle for an explanation of how, specifically, and at what age he made the choice to be straight.

Ignignokt

07-09-2010, 11:46 PM

Two men adopting a kid is nasty.

ChumpDumper

07-09-2010, 11:50 PM

Two men adopting a kid is nasty.Why?

Ignignokt

07-09-2010, 11:54 PM

Why?

No kids should ever have to see the demasculization and immorality of men becoming dominated and acting like females, it's against the sexual reproductive rules of nature, it only shows up in nature as an aberration.

ChumpDumper

07-09-2010, 11:58 PM

No kids should ever have to see the demasculization and immorality of men becoming dominated and acting like femalesDo all gay men act like females and become dominated?

What effect do you claim that would have on a child?
it's against the sexual reproductive rules of nature, it only shows up in nature as an aberration.So it's natural.

Very convincing, gtown.

George Gervin's Afro

07-10-2010, 08:21 AM

I'd settle for an explanation of how, specifically, and at what age he made the choice to be straight.

I think it was back in 84 for me.... Jimmy had a nice bottom and it was tempting but in the end I decided to keep having sex with my girlfriend...

CosmicCowboy

07-10-2010, 10:48 AM

I'd settle for an explanation of how, specifically, and at what age he made the choice to be straight.

I see where you are going with that.

Hasn't progressive academia made the determination that homosexuality is a choice and not a genetic aberration?

jack sommerset

07-10-2010, 10:53 AM

jack sommerset

07-10-2010, 10:56 AM

I think it was back in 84 for me.... Jimmy had a nice bottom and it was tempting but in the end I decided to keep having sex with my girlfriend...

Thanks for some honesty Curious George. Tell us your thoughts on beastility. How would some dude fucking a dog affect you?

Trainwreck2100

07-10-2010, 11:02 AM

if gays want to adopt they should only be allowed to adopt the opposite sex

MannyIsGod

07-10-2010, 11:03 AM

I see where you are going with that.

Hasn't progressive academia made the determination that homosexuality is a choice and not a genetic aberration?

Why don't you show us?

So how many of your policy views are decided in non rational and non logical manners?

MannyIsGod

07-10-2010, 11:06 AM

if gays want to adopt they should only be allowed to adopt the opposite sex

Because all gays want to have sex with the children of their gender, right?

CosmicCowboy

07-10-2010, 11:07 AM

Why don't you show us?

So how many of your policy views are decided in non rational and non logical manners?

Unlike you, very few of my positions are irrational.

Manny, I don't deny your right to have Boutons fuck you in the ass, I just don't think you should be able to adopt young boys to watch.

Ignignokt

07-10-2010, 11:08 AM

Do all gay men act like females and become dominated?

I didn't indicate that both men would act like a female, nevertheless, one would more than likely assume the female role in sex, relationship, or parenting. If you have two masculine men as a couple, thats just as bad and fits the criteria for demasculization because one of them would have to deny his manhood and recieve. The child would have to grow up in confusion.

So it's natural.

Very convincing, gtown.

I said nothing that would indicate homosexuality is "natural" or benificial to nature. Learn to read first before you make a clown out of yourself.

MannyIsGod

07-10-2010, 11:11 AM

Unlike you, very few of my positions are irrational.

Manny, I don't deny your right to have Boutons fuck you in the ass, I just don't think you should be able to adopt young boys to watch.

:lol

I'm asking you legit questions and you get sooooooooo defensive so fast. You yourself said the position was irrational and illogical so why do you get upset when I characterize it as such.

Anyway, do you feel policy should be made on irrational positions?

Can you show me research that shows parenting done by heterosexuals is better than parenting by homosexuals?

Ignignokt

07-10-2010, 11:13 AM

Because all gays want to have sex with the children of their gender, right?

Despite TW silly argument, what i say to that is, the real consequence to gay adoption is raising the kid in confusion and immorality.

It truly is disgusting for two men to pleasure themselves where nature has deemed it useful to pass fecal matter and toxic substances.

moreso, it is quite disturbing that men would have to submit themselves dominated to another man and give him oral sex. An ideal man is an individual unwilliling to submit and his worth is in his self worth, and is to be glorified by the females who need him spiritually, and physically.

jack sommerset

07-10-2010, 11:14 AM

if gays want to adopt they should only be allowed to adopt the opposite sex

A dude had a sex change and was in a "lezbo" relationship with another "girl" and they decided they wanted to adopt a kid. Should they still get a boy or should we all just admit the want to be parents are mentally disturbed and have no business raising what odds say would be a straight kid?

MannyIsGod

07-10-2010, 11:15 AM

BTW CC, I probably do have some positions based on bad or incorrect information: I'm sure everyone does. Its impossible to have the correct view on nearly everything.

One thing I will hopefully never have, is a willful position that I myself can categorize as irrational and illogical. I prefer not to shut my eyes and plug my ears and act like everything I believe is right. Anytime I view something that contradicts my view I may view it with skepticism but if it makes sense and everything checks out then I adpat my views.

Its OK to be wrong and I realize that I'm wrong on a daily basis but to just acknowledge there is no basis for a belief but to hold it anyway is pretty bad. In my view, anyway.

CosmicCowboy

07-10-2010, 11:17 AM

:lol

I'm asking you legit questions and you get sooooooooo defensive so fast. You yourself said the position was irrational and illogical so why do you get upset when I characterize it as such.

Anyway, do you feel policy should be made on irrational positions?

Can you show me research that shows parenting done by heterosexuals is better than parenting by homosexuals?

I don't have statistical data proving that two gay guys adopting a young boy would be better/worse/equal for the child than being adopted by heterosexual parents.

Neither do you.

Thus my statement that my position was not based on logic.

Neither is yours.

At least I have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

Ignignokt

07-10-2010, 11:18 AM

:lol

I'm asking you legit questions and you get sooooooooo defensive so fast. You yourself said the position was irrational and illogical so why do you get upset when I characterize it as such.

Anyway, do you feel policy should be made on irrational positions?

Can you show me research that shows parenting done by heterosexuals is better than parenting by homosexuals?

Policy shouldn't, but individual rights don't have to protect only rational people.

I have nothing against gay couples trying to reach equality with hetero couples.

Children on the other hand have no say in who they are raised by, no child should be forced into a house of confusion.

George Gervin's Afro

07-10-2010, 11:19 AM

Thanks for some honesty Curious George. Tell us your thoughts on beastility. How would some dude fucking a dog affect you? sex and animals Jack.

I feel sorry for your pets

MannyIsGod

07-10-2010, 11:19 AM

Despite TW silly argument, what i say to that is, the real consequence to gay adoption is raising the kid in confusion and immorality.

Have children raised by homosexual parents been confused on a larger basis than the average teenager? I'm not going to go into immorality because morality is a personal issue that differs from person to person so wanting to have a baseline morality to pass on to people is very non libertarian of you, Gtown.

It truly is disgusting for two men to pleasure themselves where nature has deemed it useful to pass fecal matter and toxic substances.

What about heterosexuals engaging in anal sex? Do they automatically lose their parental rights? I'm fairly certain the child should not be exposed to either heterosexual or homosexual habits of children in any case and I'm fairly certain that the state cannot consider sexual habits (aside from pedophiles for obvious reasons) that do not directly endanger children in any case.

moreso, it is quite disturbing that men would have to submit themselves dominated to another man and give him oral sex. An ideal man is an individual unwilliling to submit and his worth is in his self worth, and is to be glorified by the females who need him spiritually, and physically.

Personal and religious views are not supposed to be used for policy decisions. Once again, very unlibertarian of you.

Trainwreck2100

07-10-2010, 11:20 AM

Because all gays want to have sex with the children of their gender, right?
not all gays are pedos but all men who like boys are gay. Also I only support gay adoption because gays should never procreate. If you believe gayness is a genetic thing than you have no choice but to agree.

A dude had a sex change and was in a "lezbo" relationship with another "girl" and they decided they wanted to adopt a kid. Should they still get a boy or should we all just admit the want to be parents are mentally disturbed and have no business raising what odds say would be a straight kid?

That's not really a gay relationship to me cause genetically the post op is still a man.

MannyIsGod

07-10-2010, 11:35 AM

I don't have statistical data proving that two gay guys adopting a young boy would be better/worse/equal for the child than being adopted by heterosexual parents.

Neither do you.

Thus my statement that my position was not based on logic.

Neither is yours.

At least I have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf

http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/advocacy/brief.pdf

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123248173/HTMLSTART?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/2009-11-17-doma-aff-lamb.pdf

http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf

Here are some statements by organizations and groups.

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychology

http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/children_with_lesbian_gay_bisexual_and_transgender _parents

North American Council on Adoptable Children

http://www.nacac.org/policy/positions.html#Gay

Child Welfare League of America

https://www.cwla.org/programs/culture/glbtqposition.htm

American Psychoanalytic Organization

http://www.apsa.org/About_APsaA/POSITION_STATEMENTS/GAY_AND_LESBIAN_PARENTING.aspx

American Psychological Association

http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/parenting.aspx

American Psychiatric Association

http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/200214.aspx

There are a ton of other studies too but linking them does no good unless you have JSTOR access.

MannyIsGod

07-10-2010, 11:39 AM

Also, there are quite a few countries around the world where gay adoption is and has been legal. If the concerns displayed in this thread were valid, would we not see a rise in cases echoing those concerns in those countries that allow gay adoption?

Ignignokt

07-10-2010, 11:48 AM

Have children raised by homosexual parents been confused on a larger basis than the average teenager? I'm not going to go into immorality because morality is a personal issue that differs from person to person so wanting to have a baseline morality to pass on to people is very non libertarian of you, Gtown.

What about heterosexuals engaging in anal sex? Do they automatically lose their parental rights? I'm fairly certain the child should not be exposed to either heterosexual or homosexual habits of children in any case and I'm fairly certain that the state cannot consider sexual habits (aside from pedophiles for obvious reasons) that do not directly endanger children in any case.

Personal and religious views are not supposed to be used for policy decisions. Once again, very unlibertarian of you.

ha!

You do not have a clue on what i think the federal govt's role on gay adoption should be. If i were to be a libertarian, it would not mean that i can never use morals or values when it comes to my decisions.

It may be so that LIBERTARIANs would not use moral arguments in policy , but it's foolish to think that you don't. How else do you justify social spending?

Individual Rights is a moral principle to me, and i object to gay parenting because a child is forced by the state to join a gay family that is unfit to raise a child in a sane way.

The govt has no right to enforce a kid to go to a broken situation by court decision, that kind of decision should be based by consent of the agency who deals with such matters. The kid is also an individual. Since the kid at certain ages does not have the rational capabilities to understand these things and because he has no legal guardian to make the decisions for him , it is up to the responsible agency to see what is improper and proper to do concerning these matters. When a kid is given up, his rights are determined by a particular party who for a moment is temporarily the guardian. I believe an agency has a right to deny a couple a child if it deems it so. Govt should not get into the buisiness of raising kids, so my position on gay adoption is that the govt should leave it up to the adoption agencies to decide. That my friend is my libertarian position.

MannyIsGod

07-10-2010, 11:55 AM

ha!

You do not have a clue on what i think the federal govt's role on gay adoption should be. If i were to be a libertarian, it would not mean that i can never use morals or values when it comes to my decisions.

Actually I believe it does - at least as far as it goes on infringing on others rights.

It may be so that LIBERTARIANs would not use moral arguments in policy , but it's foolish to think that you don't. How else do you justify social spending?

On multiple fronts but not because it gives me warm fuzzies. For instance - spending on social services in order to reduce the burden on the government and society at a later point thus saving money.

In any event, I am not a self described libertarian. Unless I'm mistaken, you are.

Individual Rights is a moral principle to me, and i object to gay parenting because a child is forced by the state to join a gay family that is unfit to raise a child in a sane way.
Yet you can find no evidence to support that view point other than your personal morality. You don't believe its right and you believe the child would be confused but you can't prove that it happens or can you?

The govt has no right to enforce a kid to go to a broken situation by court decision, that kind of decision should be based by consent of the agency who deals with such matters. The kid is also an individual. Since the kid at certain ages does not have the rational capabilities to understand these things and because he has no legal guardian to make the decisions for him , it is up to the responsible agency to see what is improper and proper to do concerning these matters. When a kid is given up, his rights are determined by a particular party who for a moment is temporarily the guardian. I believe an agency has a right to deny a couple a child if it deems it so. Govt should not get into the buisiness of raising kids, so my position on gay adoption is that the govt should leave it up to the adoption agencies to decide. That my friend is my libertarian position.

Wait, so your premise is that the rights of the child are important but not important enough for the government to protect? No one is talking about the government raising children - we're talking about the government denying people adoption rights based on sexual preference.

Yeah, an agency can deny adoption based on many criteria and I'm not against that one bit but I don't see how one of those criteria should be the parents sexual preference when research shows it doesn't negatively affect the child.

Spurminator

07-10-2010, 12:09 PM

Despite TW silly argument, what i say to that is, the real consequence to gay adoption is raising the kid in confusion and immorality.

It truly is disgusting for two men to pleasure themselves where nature has deemed it useful to pass fecal matter and toxic substances.

moreso, it is quite disturbing that men would have to submit themselves dominated to another man and give him oral sex. An ideal man is an individual unwilliling to submit and his worth is in his self worth, and is to be glorified by the females who need him spiritually, and physically.

Actually this argument makes a lot of sense. I know that when I was a child, it was comforting to know that when I watched my parents have sex, they were doing it as God and nature intended. Because they had sex in front of me a LOT. And I could have been pretty warped if they were both dudes. As it is, I have a perfectly healthy perspective on sex thanks to my heterosexual parents having heterosexual sex in front of me.

ChumpDumper

07-10-2010, 12:20 PM

I didn't indicate that both men would act like a female, nevertheless, one would more than likely assume the female role in sex, relationship, or parenting.This is your scientific conclusion?

If you have two masculine men as a couple, thats just as bad and fits the criteria for demasculization because one of them would have to deny his manhood and recieve.Receive what? You think they are having sex in front of the child? You need to provide proof of this.
The child would have to grow up in confusion.Since gays have brought up children before, surely there is something more than your insecure speculation about the "confusion" of children in those households.

I said nothing that would indicate homosexuality is "natural" or benificial to nature. Learn to read first before you make a clown out of yourself.You just made a clown out of yourself by stating homosexuality happens in nature.

That makes it natural.

ChumpDumper

07-10-2010, 12:22 PM

Ignignokt

07-10-2010, 01:08 PM

You just made a clown out of yourself by stating homosexuality happens in nature.

That makes it natural.

I didn't say anything about homosexuality being "natural" or not. I can't help a clown understand the concept of abberation, and i'm not at fault for you wrongly concluding that i think what happens in nature is perfect or predestined. I didn't say that. Genetic mutations happen in nature and can go against special survival or reproduction, that is a natural occurence but a negative one.

To try to paint your opponent as denying that homosexuality doesn't occur in reality or nature is pathetic when his statement has said that it does occur.

Unless you're trying to show a contradiction in my words by imposing your special definition of "natural", then it would be fruitless to dedicate anotheer huge paragraph as to why this is moronic.

Don't make a clown of yourself further. When you want to troll, let me know, and i will act half witted with you in your delusions.

Ignignokt

07-10-2010, 01:15 PM

Actually this argument makes a lot of sense. I know that when I was a child, it was comforting to know that when I watched my parents have sex, they were doing it as God and nature intended. Because they had sex in front of me a LOT. And I could have been pretty warped if they were both dudes. As it is, I have a perfectly healthy perspective on sex thanks to my heterosexual parents having heterosexual sex in front of me.

I'm sorry that you either think that educating a child on sexual matters is completely an intimate visual presentation with his parents, your idea not mine, or that you think that a child will never grow into adolescence and question his parents condition, compare other kid's parents and demonstrate confusion.

That you think the kid will grow up naive about the difference in his parents and not question it is idiotic. The homosexual parents will at one time or another have to address their views on sex.

If we are to believe Freudian theories on pshycology, then we derive our attitudes and views of the opposite sex from our parents. I don't see how a child can have a healthy view on the role of genders from homosexuals who are engaging in deviant and abnormal behaviour.

mookie2001

07-10-2010, 01:20 PM

how did the deviants and abnormals learn their behavior?

Ignignokt

07-10-2010, 01:24 PM

Wait, so your premise is that the rights of the child are important but not important enough for the government to protect? No one is talking about the government raising children - we're talking about the government denying people adoption rights based on sexual preference.

Yeah, an agency can deny adoption based on many criteria and I'm not against that one bit but I don't see how one of those criteria should be the parents sexual preference when research shows it doesn't negatively affect the child.

The govt is to uphold individual rights. A govt cannot ban or force adoption. That would interfere with the individual rights of a child. IT is up to the legal guardian at the time to make that decision.

We're not talking about indviduals acquiring inanimate objects but other individuals. When that happens there can be an infringement on indvidual rights.

Individual rights for kids are determined by law to be managed by the natural parent, when the natural parent forfiets the right to be the kid's guardian, the agency is now the manager of it's right, and it's the agencies determination of who and what can be adopted, not the federal govt, because it would violate the individual's rights.

If i wanted to give up my kid for adoption, i can deny a couple for whatever reason morally, and the govt shouldn't have to force me to do so. That is unconstitutional.

Also, your justification for spending sans morals is weak, since it can be said that most social spending has contributed to the burden on society and crippled families.

Ignignokt

07-10-2010, 01:29 PM

how did the deviants and abnormals learn their behavior?

what do you mean?

I'm on the fence on wether such things are genetic or not, so i can't determine if such things can be learned.

What i can say, is that one can commit homosexual acts out of confusion or curiousity, Kinsey's reports have shown such phenomenae in certain segments of the population.

If a kid theoretically is genetically hetero, then his view on the opposite sex are at risk of being warped by his homosexual parents. (even without a voyeur exposition, Spurminator. GASP!!)

George Gervin's Afro

07-10-2010, 01:54 PM

lol at those who still think it's a choice... memo to conservatives.. people are born gay..

and jack stop thinking about monkeys and anal sex

CuckingFunt

07-10-2010, 02:00 PM

I see where you are going with that.

Hasn't progressive academia made the determination that homosexuality is a choice and not a genetic aberration?

I don't know what progressive academia has decided, or if they're even in the position to decide.

Lifestyle is a choice, but sexuality is not.

CuckingFunt

07-10-2010, 02:06 PM

not all gays are pedos but all men who like boys are gay.

Actually lots of the men who like little boys live heterosexual lifestyles.

Spurminator

07-10-2010, 02:52 PM

I'm sorry that you either think that educating a child on sexual matters is completely an intimate visual presentation with his parents, your idea not mine, or that you think that a child will never grow into adolescence and question his parents condition, compare other kid's parents and demonstrate confusion.

That you think the kid will grow up naive about the difference in his parents and not question it is idiotic. The homosexual parents will at one time or another have to address their views on sex.

Who says they would be naive to it? They just don't have to know every graphic detail. And if their parents ARE sharing every graphic detail of their sex life with their kids, that's pretty fucked up regardless of their orientation.

Kids don't really start to learn about sex as a purely recreational activity until they're fairly mature.

Before a kid is old enough to learn about sex, you explain that Daddy loves Daddy very much, just as much as Billy's daddy loves his mommy.

When the kid is old enough to learn about sex in the reproduction sense, you explain that Daddy and Daddy can't reproduce. When they're finally old enough to understand that Daddy and Daddy enjoy pleasuring each other sexually, he's probably just as disgusted by this idea as most people are with the idea of their parents having sex. It's not really an altogether different experience.

If we are to believe Freudian theories on pshycology, then we derive our attitudes and views of the opposite sex from our parents. I don't see how a child can have a healthy view on the role of genders from homosexuals who are engaging in deviant and abnormal behaviour.What qualifies as a "healthy view of the role of genders?"

Spurminator

07-10-2010, 02:57 PM

If a kid theoretically is genetically hetero, then his view on the opposite sex are at risk of being warped by his homosexual parents. (even without a voyeur exposition, Spurminator. GASP!!)

1. How do you know?
2. So what?
3. Why should this affect public policy?

mookie2001

07-10-2010, 03:17 PM

lol at those who still think it's a choice... memo to conservatives.. people are born gay..

and jack stop thinking about monkeys and anal sex

yeah the anti gay, pro family/bible people are obsessed with anal sex and beastiality

it really is strange

ChumpDumper

07-10-2010, 03:51 PM

I didn't say anything about homosexuality being "natural" or not. I can't help a clown understand the concept of abberation, and i'm not at fault for you wrongly concluding that i think what happens in nature is perfect or predestined. I didn't say that. Genetic mutations happen in nature and can go against special survival or reproduction, that is a natural occurence but a negative one.

To try to paint your opponent as denying that homosexuality doesn't occur in reality or nature is pathetic when his statement has said that it does occur.

Unless you're trying to show a contradiction in my words by imposing your special definition of "natural", then it would be fruitless to dedicate anotheer huge paragraph as to why this is moronic.

Don't make a clown of yourself further. When you want to troll, let me know, and i will act half witted with you in your delusions.:lol

U mad?

You're the one who shit all over your own argument -- which was the stupidest one you have ever tried pass off here.

:tu

Ignignokt

07-10-2010, 04:05 PM

1. How do you know?
2. So what?
3. Why should this affect public policy?

This shouldn't be public policy is my position. You haven't read my argument, and you think i'm advocating Govt ban on gay adoption, unreal.

Ignignokt

07-10-2010, 04:09 PM

:lol

U mad?

You're the one who shit all over your own argument -- which was the stupidest one you have ever tried pass off here.

:tu:lol

U mad?

lol stupidest

I guess you just want to troll. I can play too.

LnGrrrR

07-10-2010, 04:10 PM

You guys crack me up. Bunch of progressive cock suckers in a cyber daisy chain.

Translation: I've been owned, I've admitted my argument is not logically sound, yet I still will vote for the politicians who promise me that they will prevent gays from marrying because it makes me feel good

LnGrrrR

07-10-2010, 04:12 PM

No kids should ever have to see the demasculization and immorality of men becoming dominated and acting like females, it's against the sexual reproductive rules of nature, it only shows up in nature as an aberration.

Things that also don't show up in nature:

Cars
The internet
Violent video games
Mp3s

Quick! Ban all of the above!

LnGrrrR

07-10-2010, 04:13 PM

Manny, I don't deny your right to have Boutons fuck you in the ass, I just don't think you should be able to adopt young boys to watch.

Nice to see your irrational fears coming out in the open. I love the old "ALL HOMOSEXUALS ARE SEXUAL PREDATORS" trope. How 1950's of you CC.

ChumpDumper

07-10-2010, 04:14 PM

:lol

U mad?:lol

lol stupidestDid you have one that is more stupid?

Link?

I guess you just want to troll. I can play too.lol You said children are confused, but then you say they have to be old enough to understand sex in the first place. They are going to find out about homosexuality sooner or later. Did finding out about gays confuse and damage you?

And you still have nothing but your insecure speculation to go on. Show us these hundreds of confused and damaged kids that were brought up by gays.

We're waiting.

LnGrrrR

07-10-2010, 04:15 PM

I said nothing that would indicate homosexuality is "natural" or benificial to nature. Learn to read first before you make a clown out of yourself.

I don't see anything that indicates watching TV is "natural" or beneficial to nature. Same goes with driving cars and using the internet.

Quick! Ban everything that isn't natural! Let's all live in huts!

LnGrrrR

07-10-2010, 04:16 PM

A dude had a sex change and was in a "lezbo" relationship with another "girl" and they decided they wanted to adopt a kid. Should they still get a boy or should we all just admit the want to be parents are mentally disturbed and have no business raising what odds say would be a straight kid?

So you're for psychologically testing every potential parent, to ensure that they won't possibly harm their child psychologically, correct?

Spurminator

07-10-2010, 04:16 PM

This shouldn't be public policy is my position. You haven't read my argument, and you think i'm advocating Govt ban on gay adoption, unreal.

Fine, then...

1. How do you know?
2. So what?

Unreal is thinking every 7 year old raised by two gay men is going to somehow know the ins and outs of anal sex.

Blake

07-10-2010, 04:23 PM

I don't know what progressive academia has decided, or if they're even in the position to decide.

Lifestyle is a choice, but sexuality is not.

Obviously you've decided.

Ignignokt

07-10-2010, 04:46 PM

Fine, then...

1. How do you know?
2. So what?

Unreal is thinking every 7 year old raised by two gay men is going to somehow know the ins and outs of anal sex.

Unreal is thinking that a 7 year old will be guarded from that certain thing, and why a specific number, a 7 year old will not stay 7 for eternity. I don't see how gay couples can produce positive male and female role models in a childs life.

Ignignokt

07-10-2010, 04:54 PM

:lol

Did you have one that is more stupid?

Link?

lol You said children are confused, but then you say they have to be old enough to understand sex in the first place. They are going to find out about homosexuality sooner or later. Did finding out about gays confuse and damage you?

And you still have nothing but your insecure speculation to go on. Show us these hundreds of confused and damaged kids that were brought up by gays.

We're waiting.

Kids don't learn about sex and gender roles in one day, they will notice that theirs is different from society and the animal kingdom. They will wonder which one of their daddies had them in the womb. A kids education in sex will be learned daily without anyone's control to a certain extent.

Those studies are inconclusive, what those parents managed to do was to indoctrinate their viewpoint on those kids later on in life, they still grew up in much in worse confusion regarding sexuality. Nobody here thinks kids from gay parents are gonna rob a liqour store. The effect on kids from gay parents will come from a moral sense, something science can't measure.

Ignignokt

07-10-2010, 04:59 PM

I don't see anything that indicates watching TV is "natural" or beneficial to nature. Same goes with driving cars and using the internet.

Quick! Ban everything that isn't natural! Let's all live in huts!

1. You're a total complete idiot

2. I don't want a govt ban on gay adoption

3. You're argument is silly, enjoying entertainment and producing technology have nothing to do with arguments concerning nature or natural order, or reproductive sexuality.

4. You must understand that you're a complete fool.

Ignignokt

07-10-2010, 05:12 PM

Let me elaborate my oppinion further.

My argument saying that homosexuality is perverse comes from it's role in nature or lack of it, and limiting to a small percentage in species, and the fact that it isn't beneficial heatlh wise, nor reproductively, but that isn't my sole reason. I fully recognize it as a phenomenae in nature, therefore i don't associate anything that shows up in nature or reality as inherently good or evil. Rape also occurs in nature, that's not an argument for or against the act of rape.

There are many things that are disgusting and loathesome in the natural world. We are humans and have the rational capabilities to determine what is good and what is not.

We didn't come to set an arbitrary age limit for sexual consent or set laws on pederasty according to science. We based it on our own values as a society. Both things occurred in the natural world and in human civilization.

So to try to use scientific polling and data to prove a moral argument is pointless.

mookie2001

07-10-2010, 05:29 PM

Ignignokt

07-10-2010, 06:06 PM

its an american issue

this is the land of the free

what american group has the right or left or the bible ever stopped from gaining equal rights?

the poor?, women?, the disabled?, atheists?, minorities?

the bible and "science" was against a lot of shit

the "im moral, read the bible!" crowd always loses

i've yet to use a bible verse or appeal to God here. I argue that an adoption agency has the right to refuses adoption rights to whoever they see fit. I'm arguing on individual rights.

CuckingFunt

07-10-2010, 09:13 PM

Obviously you've decided.

I've made several choices over the years as to whether or not I've felt comfortable acting on certain attractions or whether or not I've felt comfortable living a specific lifestyle publicly, certainly. Behavior is a choice.

Sexuality has nothing to do with behavior, though. Sexuality is rooted in attraction and desire, which is something that none of us can decide or control.

jack sommerset

07-10-2010, 09:34 PM

Sexuality is rooted in attraction and desire, which is something that none of us can decide or control.

Whatever gets you through the night!:lmao

George Gervin's Afro

07-10-2010, 09:46 PM

Whatever gets you through the night!:lmao

I've made several choices over the years as to whether or not I've felt comfortable acting on certain attractions or whether or not I've felt comfortable living a specific lifestyle publicly, certainly. Behavior is a choice.

Sexuality has nothing to do with behavior, though. Sexuality is rooted in attraction and desire, which is something that none of us can decide or control.

translation: if you are attractd to women it is ingrained in who you are..you don't choose it..why am I even trying you dumbass

jack sommerset

07-10-2010, 09:58 PM

You said, curious George (that's you), choose between Jimmy (a boy) and your gf (a girl) back in the day. You went with the chick. Thats making a choice. Goddamn you are fucking dumb.

We now know you understand why the dude fucks the dog, he can't control himself but does the dude fucking the dog affect you?

CuckingFunt

07-10-2010, 10:05 PM

Whatever gets you through the night!:lmao

I'll ask again: how, specifically, and at what age did you consciously decide to whom you were attracted?

jack sommerset

07-10-2010, 10:14 PM

I'll ask again: how, specifically, and at what age did you consciously decide to whom you were attracted?

I didn't know you asked me before. You are confused but we already knew that.

I think I was 14-15 when I relized I wanted to stick my cock in a girls twat. I wish I could be more specific but I really don't remember what girl or age or how I came up with such a tough decision. Turns out I am normal. I like the cunt. Speaking of which, I am going to fuck my wife now. Ask George his specifics. He was attracted to both at some point in his life. Night!

mookie2001

07-10-2010, 10:20 PM

normal, thats awesome

whens the book coming out wifefucker?

CuckingFunt

07-10-2010, 10:20 PM

I think I was 14-15 when I relized I wanted to stick my cock in a girls twat. I wish I could be more specific but I really don't remember what girl or age or how I came up with such a tough decision.

So, then, it wasn't a choice. Thanks.

Also... 14 or 15? Bit of a late bloomer, were we?

Jekka

07-10-2010, 10:34 PM

Unreal is thinking that a 7 year old will be guarded from that certain thing, and why a specific number, a 7 year old will not stay 7 for eternity. I don't see how gay couples can produce positive male and female role models in a childs life.

I had a stay-at-home dad growing up who did most of the cooking and cleaning while my mom worked out of the house - do straight couples who defy the conventions of hetero-normative behavior also endanger their children of having "warped" ideas of gender roles? By your logic, any personal issues I have must be related to the fact that my dad is the one who taught me how to do laundry.

Ignignokt

07-10-2010, 10:40 PM

I had a stay-at-home dad growing up who did most of the cooking and cleaning while my mom worked out of the house - do straight couples who defy the conventions of hetero-normative behavior also endanger their children of having "warped" ideas of gender roles? By your logic, any personal issues I have must be related to the fact that my dad is the one who taught me how to do laundry.

Do you think gender roles are just confined to house chores?

Jekka

07-10-2010, 10:49 PM

Do you think gender roles are just confined to house chores?

Isn't that about as logical as your idea that it is inappropriate for a child to be exposed to a parent doing things that don't abide by gender roles and convention? God forbid a kid sees his dad act like a "woman."

Ignignokt

07-10-2010, 10:59 PM

Isn't that about as logical as your idea that it is inappropriate for a child to be exposed to a parent doing things that don't abide by gender roles and convention? God forbid a kid sees his dad act like a "woman."

My dad had to take care of me at one point and was a stay at home dad, he did chores and cooked, nevertheless, he maintained his role as a father in spiritual and leadership direction. took me fishing, taught me about the world some and taught me how to fend for myself and how to treat my mother, her family, and women with respect. He may have done some house chores, but he still acted the part of a father. It would be a disgrace for a son to see his father act feminine, my mother was there to nurture and help me to become an organized and clean person.

Fathers have a role in rearing different from mothers. We wouldn't be here as a civilization if we didn't. Maybe a few can afford to have an unconventional, little to no upbringing, but it's not good for society. I however am not asking for the govt to step in, but to step out and let citizens make that judgement call.

Jekka

07-10-2010, 11:01 PM

My dad had to take care of me at one point and was a stay at home dad, he did chores and cooked, nevertheless, he maintained his role as a father in spiritual and leadership direction. took me fishing, taught me about the world some and taught me how to fend for myself and how to treat my mother, her family, and women with respect. He may have done some house chores, but he still acted the part of a father. It would be a disgrace for a son to see his father act feminine, my mother was there to nurture and help me to become an organized and clean person.

Fathers have a role in rearing different from mothers. We wouldn't be here as a civilization if we didn't. Maybe a few can afford to have an unconventional, little to no upbringing, but it's not good for society. I however am not asking for the govt to step in, but to step out and let citizens make that judgement call.
Good thing my mother wasn't the one who taught me how to fish - I would be so screwed! Now if only my father had never nurtured me ...

z0sa

07-10-2010, 11:02 PM

Sexuality has nothing to do with behavior, though. Sexuality is rooted in attraction and desire, which is something that none of us can decide or control.

:rollin

Someone needs to pick up a psychology textbook. Sexuality at least has as much to do with nurture as it does nature; in fact, you won't find any evidence out there that implies nature means more, anywhere. Conversely, every bit of evidence will show you liberal-minded environments harbor liberal philosophies on sexuality.

mookie2001

07-10-2010, 11:07 PM

Ignignokt

07-10-2010, 11:13 PM

Good thing my mother wasn't the one who taught me how to fish - I would be so screwed! Now if only my father had never nurtured me ...

I've never seen anybody use sarcasm as a discussion tactic, how clever.

It's funny how one's mind is so warped by the PC thought that they cannot logically conclude that gay parenting might confuse children's sexuality.

It's only when we have an honest study done do we get to find out the real truth. Now this study was only done with lesbian parenting, economic factors are not known, so we don't have a complete study. And there are some positives with Lesbian parenting, but to deny that they don't confuse gender roles is idiotic.

University of Southern California USC Logo
USC News logo

Sociology: Study examines gender roles of children with gay parents
05/30/01
Researchers say children of gay parents more likely to depart from traditional gender roles, but democratic societies should welcome the difference
By Gilien Silsby
Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz argue that children with lesbian and gay parents are more likely to depart from traditional gender roles.

Photo by Irene Fertik
Children born to and raised by homosexuals tend to play, dress and behave differently than children reared in heterosexual households, a USC study on gay parenting has found.

But, researchers said, many of the differences are those that any democratic society should welcome.

In the paper, "How Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" professors Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz argue that children with lesbian and gay parents are more likely to depart from traditional gender roles.

The researchers’ findings, published in the April edition of the American Sociological Review, were culled from an analysis of 21 studies dating back to 1980. Those past studies – which included only birth children, not adopted children – downplayed contrasts between children raised by homosexuals and heterosexuals. The USC paper focused mainly on lesbian mothers and their offspring, because fewer studies of gay fathers exist.

"We found that despite the ‘no differences’ mantra, many studies do report evidence of some intriguing differences, and even of some potential advantages of lesbian parenthood," said Stacey, holder of the Streisand Professorship in Contemporary Gender Studies. "A difference is not necessarily a deficit."

Stacey and Biblarz found some evidence that children in gay households are more likely to buck stereotypical male-female behavior. For example, boys raised by lesbians appear to be less aggressive and more nurturing than boys raised in heterosexual families. Daughters of lesbians are more likely to aspire to become doctors, lawyers, engineers and astronauts.

In addition, heterosexual mothers tend to encourage sons to participate in historically "masculine" games and activities – such as Little League – and daughters in more "feminine" pursuits – such as ballet. In contrast, lesbian mothers had no such interest – their preferences for their children's play were gender neutral.

"Lesbian and gay parent families offer a unique opportunity to examine ways in which gender differences affect parenting practices and outcomes," said Biblarz, an associate professor of sociology. "We believe there are some very interesting issues of gender and sexuality that shouldn’t be ignored."

In two studies, a greater number of young adult children raised by lesbians had participated in or considered a same-sex relationship or had an attraction to the same sex. However, statistically, they were no more likely to identify themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual.

One area the researchers found no differences in was the mental health of children or their quality of relationship with parents. Children brought up by lesbians and gay men are well-adjusted, have good levels of self-esteem and are as likely to have high educational attainments as children raised in more traditional heterosexual families.

"Levels of anxiety, depression, self-esteem and other measures of social and psychological behaviors were generally similar," Biblarz said. "While all children probably get teased for one thing or another, children with gay parents may experience a higher degree of teasing and ridicule. It is impressive then that their psychological well-being and social adjustment does not significantly differ, on average, from that of children in comparable heterosexual-parent families. Exploring how lesbian and gay parent families help children cope with stigma could prove helpful to all kinds of families."

Lesbian co-parents typically are highly involved in raising the children. Lesbian social mothers (partners who did not give birth to the child) take on more responsibility – changing diapers, picking up children from day care and organizing play dates – than heterosexual fathers.

Lesbian couples tend to "be in greater harmony in terms of their parenting approaches," Stacey added.

Other high points of the study include:

o Teenage boys raised by lesbians are more sexually restrained, less aggressive and more nurturing then boys raised in heterosexual families.

o Adolescent and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste. Sons of lesbians display the opposite – boys are choosier in their relationships and tend to have sex at a later age than boys raised by heterosexuals.

o It is more common for both lesbian moms to be employed, to earn similar incomes and to cut back on their hours of paid work in order to nurture young children. Some research indicates that egalitarian parenting contributes to child well-being, Stacey said.

o Same-sex couples proved better at managing disagreements and anger than did comparable heterosexual married couples. Research suggests that parental conflict may be one of the most significant sources of difficulty for children, Stacey said.

"Studying how the numbers, genders and sexualities of parents interact to influence children could give us valuable information relevant to central questions in family theory," said Biblarz. "Researchers have been reluctant to investigate differences among children for fear that such evidence will be used to discriminate against gay families."

Search search

http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/6908.html

Ignignokt

07-10-2010, 11:19 PM

some people are stupid about shit like this

i understand the bible shit but what i dont understand is how two guys raising a baby, getting married or making a sandwich together, affects you in ANY WAY. it seems to me like the very worst example of being a pompous chode

being antigay, its just a very obsessive quality

you go your way, ill go mine, carry on playa

Mookie, i don't know whether this post is what you really believe or it's just inflammatory.

Being anti anything does not mean being obsessive, you're anti manu, does that mean you're obsessed with him? Don't be silly.

Also, you're in no position to judge people psychologically who you've never met based on their positions on issues. You should use reason to back up your claims and not pseudo psychology.

Gay adoptions is not about Gays doing their own thing, adoption involves the life of another person being subjected to another individual. The child's rearing is just as important as the homosexuals desire to raise kids.

If i wanted to give up my kid for adoption, i should have the right to deny and discriminate on who i want to raise that child. You could never know my motives or judge, there are many motives as to why someone would offer a kid to adoption. That doesn't make me obsessed with Gays.

Jekka

07-10-2010, 11:20 PM

I've never seen anybody use sarcasm as a discussion tactic, how clever.
I find it appropriate when responding to condescension.

It's funny how one's mind is so warped by the PC thought that they cannot logically conclude that gay parenting might confuse children's sexuality.

You seem to be having a hard time separating gender roles and sexuality. Just because a child grows up with an altered perception of gender roles does not mean that they will be gay.

Ignignokt

07-10-2010, 11:26 PM

I find it appropriate when responding to condescension.

Up to the point where you were being sarcastic, i didn't call you names or disrescpect you in anyway. You obviously took my position on this whole thing personally. If that's what it was, that wasn't my intention, but don't excuse your own shortcomings in having a civilized debate and accuse me of something which i haven't done.

[QOUTE]You seem to be having a hard time separating gender roles and sexuality. Just because a child grows up with an altered perception of gender roles does not mean that they will be gay.[/QUOTE]

Actually i mentioned gender roles and sexuality in my previous arguments concerning the issue of gay adoption. Infact we first started talking about gender roles and i coined it as such. The confusion was in that i forgot to include gender roles in that sentence. But this whole argument has not been about me confusing the two. My apologies for not being clear.

mookie2001

07-10-2010, 11:34 PM

sigh

no i am serious

my reasoning is i have seen kids in my own family, grow up with a mother and father who tackled them and watched sports and drank beer and threw footballs at them and they turned out gay, and we all figured it out from the time we were little kids

i also knew kids who were raised by their dad and a "uncle" and were dragged to go shopping all day and had to watch fantasy movies and listen to pop music all day, and they grew up to be straight

and also, GAY KIDS come from parents in a heterosexual relationship, this is a fact, every single one them, its not hard to figure out

yes if i my family were WASP asshole protestants and i was born in 1932 and not 50 years later i would probably be on the other side of the issue. meet a gay couple with kids, i dont see how you can say two moms is better than one mom or no mom or no dad or a grandma or whatever. its just wrong and really really pompous and arrogant to think otherwise

mookie2001

07-10-2010, 11:36 PM

i saidddddd

Ignignokt

07-10-2010, 11:52 PM

i saidddddd

You must think it's crazy that man has survived on this gender role structure, and biology and evolution had no part in the development of the human mind. So when i say that mother and father parental units are superior to single parent units, and gay units, it's not because i'm being pompous or a chode. It's because our species has grown this way, and the female and male brain have evolved to work in such way that a man provides certain qualities and a woman provides her particular qualitites which happen in order for man to survive and nurture and care for offspring.

Yeah, i'm pretty sure gay kids will turn out gay eventually, that's not the point, and hetero households don't guarantee anything. It's just as pompous to assume that people who are anti gay adoption must all think that hetero parenting is faultless. It's pompous for you to denigrate our arguments like that so you can beat up a strawman.

Yes, all those cases you cite i believe them. There will be exceptions, as much as nature seems to work in a designed way, it's still chaotic and there are variables which we cannot predict. Infact many of nature's phenomenae is due more to a pattern of Identification than order.

Furthermore, the field of phsycology has not been conclusive on whether homosexuality is strictly a nature or nurture thing. There are many reasons to think that it is both, and to deny that gay parenting might affect this is being negligent to your own rational faculty.

Even Dr Kinsey's reports, as shitty as the sample data is, concludes that sexuality is not so etched in stone.

Why do prisoners who live straight lives all this time end up in prison and briefly experiment with homosexuality? Do you have all the awnsers? NOne of us do.

But to sit here and claim that homosexual parenting is exactly like hetero parenting and that it does not affect a child's sexual development is not rational, but decietful to one who is either willing to take it that way to appeal to a jingoist argument about equality when this subject isn't about such thing, either that or you can't fathom challenging the PC hypothesis.

mookie2001

07-11-2010, 12:12 AM

yes sexuality is not etched in stone

but what happens then? whats the worst thing you can imagine, the homosexuality level reaches 100% and the earths populaton dwindles down to zero?

is that what youre afraid of? is the species that fragile?

i mean we have to look out for mankind right

Ignignokt

07-11-2010, 12:13 AM

mookie2001

07-11-2010, 12:19 AM

maybe not mankind, thats extreme

youre afraid of lil billy out there who grows up to be gay and wears sparkly shirts and drive nissan cubes and shit

i just dont get it

CuckingFunt

07-11-2010, 12:21 AM

:rollin

Someone needs to pick up a psychology textbook. Sexuality at least has as much to do with nurture as it does nature; in fact, you won't find any evidence out there that implies nature means more, anywhere. Conversely, every bit of evidence will show you liberal-minded environments harbor liberal philosophies on sexuality.

And someone else needs to improve their reading comprehension. I said nothing about nature or nurture in determining sexuality.

What I said was that sexuality was rooted in attraction and desire, rather than in behavior. Generally in this country, moreso than in other countries, discussions about sexuality tend to revolve around behavior and/or sexual practices -- we are obsessed with what people are doing in the bedroom and attempt to make that central to the definition of sexuality. When you think about it objectively, however, this fixation doesn't make a damn bit of sense. Sexuality is about much more than merely sex.

What people do, who they do it with, and who they want to do it with all operate independently. Behavior is always a choice. Always. Whether or not a person has relationships, sexual or emotional, with members of the same sex is based on a conscious decision to do so. Or to not do so. Whether or not someone publicly identifies as lesbian/gay/bisexual/etc. is, again, based on a conscious choice to act. Attraction is not a behavior, though, and therefore cannot be controlled through choice. There is not a single person reading this thread who has ever seen someone across a room and chosen to find them attractive. Not one.

CuckingFunt

07-11-2010, 12:26 AM

My dad had to take care of me at one point and was a stay at home dad, he did chores and cooked, nevertheless, he maintained his role as a father in spiritual and leadership direction. took me fishing, taught me about the world some and taught me how to fend for myself and how to treat my mother, her family, and women with respect. He may have done some house chores, but he still acted the part of a father. It would be a disgrace for a son to see his father act feminine, my mother was there to nurture and help me to become an organized and clean person.

Fathers have a role in rearing different from mothers. We wouldn't be here as a civilization if we didn't. Maybe a few can afford to have an unconventional, little to no upbringing, but it's not good for society. I however am not asking for the govt to step in, but to step out and let citizens make that judgement call.

Isn't the important thing that children get all of those things -- nurturing, love, teaching, etc. -- rather than worrying about which parent provides each of those aspects?

Ignignokt

07-11-2010, 12:57 AM

Isn't the important thing that children get all of those things -- nurturing, love, teaching, etc. -- rather than worrying about which parent provides each of those aspects?

kids are not yet developed individuals to make those value judgements, even more reason why good parenting is so important, and having a father is really important, the black community has been plagued by this disease.

Ignignokt

07-11-2010, 01:00 AM

maybe not mankind, thats extreme

youre afraid of lil billy out there who grows up to be gay and wears sparkly shirts and drive nissan cubes and shit

i just dont get it

Why is disagreeing to anything has to involve fear. Is that the way your life works, are you afraid of brussel sprouts, carrots, V8 juice, striped socks, a balanced diet, waking up at 8 am?

Is one afraid at things he opposes or choses to disagree with?

mookie2001

07-11-2010, 01:06 AM

youre concerned for lil pt cruiser driving billy?

Ignignokt

07-11-2010, 01:08 AM

youre concerned for lil pt cruiser driving billy?

wut?

Oh, Gee!!

07-11-2010, 01:28 AM

it's about time

mookie2001

07-11-2010, 01:33 AM

youre not afraid of the gays, youre concerned for them?

z0sa

07-11-2010, 01:34 AM

What I said was that sexuality was rooted in attraction and desire, rather than in behavior.

... and I reiterate: educate yourself.

Behavior theorists everywhere would be appalled at such a statement. I got a chuckle myself.

You're just wrong, for a multitude of reasons I don't care to explain. Nothing else needs to be said. But because you will no doubt cast off a very plain fact due to lack of knowledge, I will explain simply:

Behavior is the product of tons of social and cognitive reinforcement. Your behavior, my behavior, everyone's behavior. Cognitive-behavioral theories, which are what you're appealing to even if you don't know it, run afoul of your statement.

You think it's just "natural and uncontrollable" who you're attracted to. That's simply untrue. Your attraction to someone, male or female, has (almost) everything to do with how you've been nurtured; with how your behavior, and others' behaviors you have witnessed, has been reinforced.

It is true that humans find certain people more attractive than others naturally, due to genetics and natural selection. However, what you're trying to spin off as a reality-based opinion can't be done as such, because it's a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Long story short: "attraction and desire" for another person has everything to do with behavior. Unless, of course, you'd like to call 125 years of behavior research wrong.

btw..

I said nothing about nature or nurture in determining sexuality.

How can one have any discussion about determining sexuality without any inference or implication of nature and nurture? It's literally impossible, because sexuality has everything to do with nature and nurture's interference. In fact, to discuss human behavior at all is to argue the impacts of nature and nurture.

z0sa

07-11-2010, 01:56 AM

One other thing I'd like to state: the vast majority of people's sexuality is determined in early childhood, IMO, and has very little to do with conscious decision and everything to do with reinforcement - reinforcement of traditional gender roles by the parents being the biggest cog. Freud and many other psychologists agree with this sentiment.

Of course, that doesn't mean some people aren't confused about their sexuality for many years. This is probably because gender roles have evolved to a point where they are becoming indistinguishable, among other reasons.

sabar

07-11-2010, 02:58 AM

Veterinarian

07-11-2010, 03:07 AM

lol the Bible. In 2010.

Is anything more irrelevant?

George Gervin's Afro

07-11-2010, 08:45 AM

... and I reiterate: educate yourself.

Behavior theorists everywhere would be appalled at such a statement. I got a chuckle myself.

You're just wrong, for a multitude of reasons I don't care to explain. Nothing else needs to be said. But because you will no doubt cast off a very plain fact due to lack of knowledge, I will explain simply:

Behavior is the product of tons of social and cognitive reinforcement. Your behavior, my behavior, everyone's behavior. Cognitive-behavioral theories, which are what you're appealing to even if you don't know it, run afoul of your statement.

You think it's just "natural and uncontrollable" who you're attracted to. That's simply untrue. Your attraction to someone, male or female, has (almost) everything to do with how you've been nurtured; with how your behavior, and others' behaviors you have witnessed, has been reinforced.

It is true that humans find certain people more attractive than others naturally, due to genetics and natural selection. However, what you're trying to spin off as a reality-based opinion can't be done as such, because it's a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Long story short: "attraction and desire" for another person has everything to do with behavior. Unless, of course, you'd like to call 125 years of behavior research wrong.

btw..

How can one have any discussion about determining sexuality without any inference or implication of nature and nurture? It's literally impossible, because sexuality has everything to do with nature and nurture's interference. In fact, to discuss human behavior at all is to argue the impacts of nature and nurture.

That is such bullshit. How many promninant christian conservatives have gay children? Are you tellimg me that raising kids in a strict christian household made them choose to be gay? Affected who they were attracted to? If tha's the case, in the case of twins, why does one turn out gay and the other not?. I understand that conservtaives have to believe beoing gay is a choice because it gives them the leeway to say nasty and horrible things. If they were to acknowledge that those people were born that way then when they say nasty and horrible things they look like unreasonable pieces of shit.

Ignignokt

07-11-2010, 09:51 AM

That is such bullshit. How many promninant christian conservatives have gay children? Are you tellimg me that raising kids in a strict christian household made them choose to be gay? Affected who they were attracted to? If tha's the case, in the case of twins, why does one turn out gay and the other not?. I understand that conservtaives have to believe beoing gay is a choice because it gives them the leeway to say nasty and horrible things. If they were to acknowledge that those people were born that way then when they say nasty and horrible things they look like unreasonable pieces of shit.

A gay twin wouldn't prove shit, you would think if it was genetic, both would be gay.

Ignignokt

07-11-2010, 09:52 AM

lol the Bible. In 2010.

Is anything more irrelevant?

Seems like it's still relevant, not one religous argument has been brought up, or bible verse has been brought up, yet it seems to be the boogeyman here.

Btw, shit troll.

George Gervin's Afro

07-11-2010, 09:56 AM

A gay twin wouldn't prove shit, you would think if it was genetic, both would be gay.

so upbringing and nurturing have jack shit to do with people being gay. thanks for proving my point.

has a gay gene been identified?

jack sommerset

07-11-2010, 10:07 AM

So, then, it wasn't a choice. Thanks.

Also... 14 or 15? Bit of a late bloomer, were we?

You are clearly confused. I think, I don't remember, I wish I could be more specific is what I told you and you, gender confused like you are, trying to play Dr Phil or Dr Laura this week comes up with the conclusion "So, then, it wasn't a choice" followed up by thanking me!

You go boy or girl.

LOL@ 14-15 a late bloomer.

Again. Anyone can fuck anyone they want. Have at it but don't tell me 99 percent of the people are wrong. You same sex addicts are clearly disturbed.

Ignignokt

07-11-2010, 10:10 AM

I see no issue. Children that are up for adoption are already in miserable conditions, broken households, picked on at school, fatherless, or whatever concern there is with homosexual adoption. At the worst it is a lateral move. Considering that parents adopting have to have a steady income, two parents, no domestic issues, blah blah blah, then the orphan or kid with a 14 year old mom has nowhere to go but up.

Why is it a lateral move? Why if a kid is already going through such stress would you want to complicate the situation?

I also don't see what gender roles or sexual education has to do with anything. Yeah, they are different than their peers. So are deaf kids, amputees, mentally handicapped kids, blind kids, divorced parents' kids, smart kids, dumb kids, ugly kids, fat kids, black kids, or a thousand other conditions. They grow up mostly normal.

You don't make any sense whatsoever in this whole parargraph. You outright dismiss the importance of gender roles and sexuality, sex education on what premise? That it is a hinderance towards your viewpoint on morality for the moment? Do you have to discard the importance of a field of pshyscology for such a whimsical purpose? And you don't think that sexual confusion is not one of the many sundry problems in alot of kids today? And what does amputees, blind kids, divorced kids, smart etc, have to do with gender roles. Their handicaps, or advantages may or may not have anything to do with their parental condition. And just because kids grow up normal, that's even a farce. One can never know how one grew up on a surface level, nor are we apt to evaluate a person psychologically because they can walk, talk and chew gum and not look like slobs.

Poverty has produced some normal kids, yet you wouldn't want to if you had alternatives, raise a kid in abject poverty.

Another thing that makes no sense is the natural/biological/evolution argument. Passing on homosexuality to the next generation is no different that passing on diabetes, near-sightedness, heart disease, or one of a million other things. Our intelligence and technology weakens the gene pool and allows us to artificially select what is passed on. Who cares if homosexuality makes humanity weaker or destroys our precious gender roles? We don't live by camp fires and hunt tigers; gender roles are a relic of an animalistic past.

This comment is riddled with fallacies i don't care to address them all because it is too time consuming, but this sentenced I bolded shows the complete ignorance in your conception of the role of families.

Strong and stable family units were one of the characteristics of the begining of advanced civilizations, not hunters and savages.

The family unit has been the symptom, the strong producing unit of civilization, and is a reason we are here today as a strong species.

Bedrock of Civilization: the family is the first natural society from which all other communities and nations spring, the very cornerstone of civilization

by Ann Shibler | April 14, 2008 | 0 Comments

The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world.

--William Ross Wallace

William Ross Wallace was a poet, not an historian. Yet what historian would dare dismiss his famous dictum that "the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world"? Don't the youth determine the future? And aren't they deeply and permanently influenced by the hand that rocks the cradle?
Related Results

* Business News, CNNfn

Yet the history books say relatively little about the hand that rocks the cradle or about the family, compared to other subjects such as war and politics. There is a reason for this, and it does not have to do with child-rearing or family life being less important than the topics the historians do focus on. "We must remind ourselves again that history as usually written ... is quite different from history as usually lived," historian Will Durant said in his study The Lessons of History. "The historian records the exceptional because it is interesting--because it is exceptional." But the "interesting" and "exceptional" are not necessarily what ultimately determine the kind of world in which we live. Durant continued: "Behind the red facade of war and politics, misfortune and poverty, adultery and divorce, murder and suicide, were millions of orderly homes, devoted marriages, men and women kindly and affectionate, troubled and happy with children."

As Durant suggests in his reference to adultery and divorce, not all homes were (or are) orderly. But there is no doubt that throughout history, the fundamental unit of civilization has been the family. In The Mansions of Philosophy, Durant wrote: "The family has been the ultimate foundation of every civilization known to history. It was the economic and productive unit of society, tilling the land together; it was the political unit of society, with parental authority as the supporting microcosm of the State. It was the cultural unit, transmitting letters and arts, rearing and teaching the young; and it was the moral unit, inculcating through cooperative work and discipline, those social dispositions which are the psychological basis and cement of civilized society."

The family is not just "the supporting microcosm of the State," but is also the precursor to the state, the first natural society from which all others spring. According to the Old Testament, the ancestry of all of us can be traced back to Noah and his family, and before that to Adam and Eve. Their families grew to extended families and eventually to communities and nations encompassing many communities. The purpose of a national government, therefore, is not merely to safeguard the individual citizens comprising the nation, but even more fundamentally than that, to safeguard the family--the vital cell of society, the bedrock of civilization.

Accepted through faith and reason by most, the family is not only the fundamental unit of society, but, through marriage, an institution created and ordained by God. The family is meant to be that fundamental unit--the place where the parents perform the supernatural duty of child-rearing; the place where love and life are born, nurtured, and grow: and the place where values, faith, and traditions are passed on from one generation to the next.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Ultimately, the strength of a civilization is determined by the strength of its families and family values.

Family Matters

The importance of the family as the place where children first receive training in speech, general knowledge, notions of God and religion, respect for the rights of others, and social duties cannot be underestimated. Inside the home, it is the family that fosters and promotes lessons of fraternity, obedience, patience, self-sacrifice, self-control, duty, and responsibility. By suffering and rejoicing together, members learn pity, sympathy, gratitude, and faithfulness. It is in the family that the inalienable value of each human life is discovered and respected.

Good habits and work ethics accompanied by creativity and ingenuity contribute to a stable and self-supporting family, teaching self-sufficiency and productivity to its members. The family creates a legal order of its own with laws and proper authority that members must submit themselves to. But the family members do so willingly, based not only on the promise the married couple made to God but also on the strong bonds of love between the husband and the wife, and the parents and the children.

Endowed with a social nature, man tends toward associations with other men in every stage of life. Some pursuits, such as art, science, and philosophy, require means that are beyond familial initiative, thereby necessitating the existence of a larger civil society called the state. The larger association develops into a permanent body for the purpose of maintaining order and for the general welfare. Family members quite naturally separate themselves from their original small social order, and participate in the new civil society, bringing with them all they have learned and experienced inside the family. It is the virtues and good qualities and practices inculcated into family members that are brought into society through non-family interactions. It is through good families' morality that society is infused with proper sustenance and moral fiber.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_8_24/ai_n25362543/

George Gervin's Afro

07-11-2010, 10:15 AM

You are clearly confused. I think, I don't remember, I wish I could be more specific is what I told you and you, gender confused like you are, trying to play Dr Phil or Dr Laura this week comes up with the conclusion "So, then, it wasn't a choice" followed up by thanking me!

You go boy or girl.

LOL@ 14-15 a late bloomer.

Again. Anyone can fuck anyone they want. Have at it but don't tell me 99 percent of the people are wrong. You same sex addicts are clearly disturbed.

so you didn't choose to be a hetero... it's ok to admit you're a dumbass..
but,but,but it's a choice... nice one bozo

jack sommerset

07-11-2010, 10:18 AM

so you didn't choose to be a hetero... it's ok to admit you're a dumbass..
but,but,but it's a choice... nice one bozo

I did choose, dumbass. The choice was obvious, bozo. The verdict is in, assclown. I'm normal!

By the way, does a dude fucking a dog affect you?

Ignignokt

07-11-2010, 10:19 AM

so upbringing and nurturing have jack shit to do with people being gay. thanks for proving my point.

has a gay gene been identified?

You're ability to arrive at conclusions from arguments is notoriously shitty, so i can't help if you are weak at that area.

One twin being gay and the other being straight would not prove the genetics argument since one would think both twins with identical genes would come out gay. It doesn't disprove or prove that argument or anyother.

Of consequence it was you who threw in the gay twin variable, not I. The fact that you needed help to illustrate how this variable is useless is not surprising.

If you want to go play with toys and act half witted, be my pleasure. Btw, i like your avatar, I never thought you were a hipster, your avatar is so ironic!!

George Gervin's Afro

07-11-2010, 10:21 AM

You're ability to arrive at conclusions from arguments is notoriously shitty, so i can't help if you are weak at that area.

One twin being gay and the other being straight would not prove the genetics argument since one would think both twins with identical genes would come out gay. It doesn't disprove or prove that argument or anyother.

Of consequence it was you who threw in the gay twin variable, not I. The fact that you needed help to illustrate how this variable is useless is not surprising.

If you want to go play with toys and act half witted, be my pleasure. Btw, i like your avatar, I never thought you were a hipster, your avatar is so ironic!!

so you and I agree it's not a choice and that nothing in society or a family causes gayness.. people are born either as a hetero or homosexual....

the twin issue was in reponse to another post. the same post that said family upbringing had everything to do with a child deciding whether to like boys or girls..

jack sommerset

07-11-2010, 10:21 AM

You're ability to arrive at conclusions from arguments is notoriously shitty, so i can't help if you are weak at that area.

No shit. :lol

You can't help the stupid.

Ignignokt

07-11-2010, 10:27 AM

so you and I agree it's not a choice and that nothing in society or a family causes gayness.. people are born either as a hetero or homosexual....

It doesn't prove genetics either because both twins didn't come out gay. The variable doesn't conclude anything. So not side is strenghten by either one.

You do understand this, right? Don't let me think you're that dumb and dense.

George Gervin's Afro

07-11-2010, 10:31 AM

It doesn't prove genetics either because both twins didn't come out gay. The variable doesn't conclude anything. So not side is strenghten by either one.

You do understand this, right? Don't let me think you're that dumb and dense.

Look dumbass apparently your observation skills are sorely lacking. the twins reference was in response to another one of your poltical brethern trying to state that upbringing is the reason why people either are, or aren't gay...

George Gervin's Afro

07-11-2010, 10:35 AM

I did choose, dumbass. The choice was obvious, bozo. The verdict is in, assclown. I'm normal!

By the way, does a dude fucking a dog affect you?

gay people are normal also.. you do think that don't you bozo?

Spurminator

07-11-2010, 11:43 AM

Unreal is thinking that a 7 year old will be guarded from that certain thing, and why a specific number, a 7 year old will not stay 7 for eternity. I don't see how gay couples can produce positive male and female role models in a childs life.

The age doesn't matter.

Your position on positive gender role models is built on arbitrary assumptions of what qualifies as positive. You seem to be afraid that gay adoption is going to produce more gay people. To you, this is a bad thing. To others, even if there is any validity to the idea, it's not a concern.

CuckingFunt

07-11-2010, 11:45 AM

... and I reiterate: educate yourself.

Behavior theorists everywhere would be appalled at such a statement. I got a chuckle myself.

You're just wrong, for a multitude of reasons I don't care to explain. Nothing else needs to be said. But because you will no doubt cast off a very plain fact due to lack of knowledge, I will explain simply:

Behavior is the product of tons of social and cognitive reinforcement. Your behavior, my behavior, everyone's behavior. Cognitive-behavioral theories, which are what you're appealing to even if you don't know it, run afoul of your statement.

You think it's just "natural and uncontrollable" who you're attracted to. That's simply untrue. Your attraction to someone, male or female, has (almost) everything to do with how you've been nurtured; with how your behavior, and others' behaviors you have witnessed, has been reinforced.

It is true that humans find certain people more attractive than others naturally, due to genetics and natural selection. However, what you're trying to spin off as a reality-based opinion can't be done as such, because it's a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Long story short: "attraction and desire" for another person has everything to do with behavior. Unless, of course, you'd like to call 125 years of behavior research wrong.

Then, for the third time in this thread: how, specifically, and at what age did you make the conscious choice to be attracted to members of the opposite sex?

btw..

How can one have any discussion about determining sexuality without any inference or implication of nature and nurture? It's literally impossible, because sexuality has everything to do with nature and nurture's interference. In fact, to discuss human behavior at all is to argue the impacts of nature and nurture.

If I were discussing what determines one's sexuality, I would agree with this point. I'm not, however, and your attempts to shift the focus of the conversation indicate either the intentional use of a strawman argument or a complete misunderstanding of my point.

I don't doubt that there are a million different things that go into determining attraction. Nor do I doubt that many of those things are based in nurturing and social reinforcement. In fact, as a follower of several social constructionist theories, I tend to fall more on the nurture side of the nature v. nurture argument in most areas. That has fuck all to do with my point in this thread, though. The only thing I'm saying, the only thing I've been saying, is that, whatever those million little things may be that go into determining our sexual attraction, we are not, individually or collectively, in control of that attraction. Is there a social/nurture element involved in the make up of my/our sexuality? Of course. But neither I nor anyone else here had a moment in early life in which we consciously decided "I am going to be attracted to ________." Nor would I or anyone else here be able to, as an adult, make a conscious decision to suddenly end that attraction.

CuckingFunt

07-11-2010, 11:49 AM

I did choose, dumbass. The choice was obvious, bozo. The verdict is in, assclown. I'm normal!

The choice was obvious because you were acting on an attraction inherent to your nature. That's not choosing to be straight, it's choosing to act upon the fact that you are straight. Two completely different things.

By the way, does a dude fucking a dog affect you?

Yes. I'm against animal cruelty.

CosmicCowboy

07-11-2010, 12:23 PM

Then, for the third time in this thread: how, specifically, and at what age did you make the conscious choice to be attracted to members of the opposite sex?

You might have a point there. I actually remember my first erection caused by an attractive adult woman in a bikini. I was quite young and it was actually a little confusing. It certainly wasn't a conscious decision.

z0sa

07-11-2010, 03:00 PM

Then, for the third time in this thread: how, specifically, and at what age did you make the conscious choice to be attracted to members of the opposite sex?

This is not the third time you've asked me, but I've already answered.

This is a moot point, because most people - the vast majority of people, in fact - don't make a conscious decision about their sexuality. By the time they are "capable" of making a cognitive choice about their sexuality (when that happens is certainly arguable, but also moot) it is already hard-wired, so to speak. This why no one answers. They don't know, because they can't remember, because they already technically were aware of their sexuality at a very early age, and never made that decision for themselves.

I have been thinking - Human-existentialists would probably be kinder to your hypothesis than behaviorists or cognitive theorists. They believe conscious choice plays a larger role than what the majority of psychologists believe. However, they rarely delve into the realm of sexuality, which is generally considered to be the product of one's environment.

If I were discussing what determines one's sexuality, I would agree with this point. I'm not, however, and your attempts to shift the focus of the conversation indicate either the intentional use of a strawman argument or a complete misunderstanding of my point.

The only thing I'm saying, the only thing I've been saying, is that, whatever those million little things may be that go into determining our sexual attraction, we are not, individually or collectively, in control of that attraction.

I know exactly what you're saying. I've posted your thesis statement twice now, and responded to it twice now, unless you disagree that was your main point (which I'd find hard to believe). And the truth is, your opinion runs afoul of psychology common knowledge. The main indicator of that is this quote:

"What I said was that sexuality was rooted in attraction and desire, rather than in behavior."

* Rooted means based in - a figurative image of a tree's roots being used metaphorically. One's sexuality is not rooted in attraction and desire, but in how his or her attraction and desire has been reinforced and how it's been reinforced in others, primarily the parents.

Example: if two parents fulfill traditional gender roles, stay married semi-happily, and promote and reward the continued fulfillment of a heterosexual gender type, it will be an anomaly of a rare sort if their child establishes a homosexual identity. This is an oversimplification, but it's categorically true. Put simply: the constant reinforcement of heterosexual behavior and gender roles will drive the child to have attraction and desire for the opposite sex almost exclusively.

Put even more simply: your attraction and desire has everything to do with his or her behavior, and your own (how it's been reinforced) - moving past aforementioned genetic/natural selection factors, of course.

Therefore, to imply in the second half of that sentence that most of attraction and desire is not rooted in behavior is to imply something that is patently false.

Now if you want to go on a tirade about how no one can control their attractions personally, go ahead. Just don't use this "attraction over behavior" theory. It just makes no sense.

There's more to it: Through intelligent reasoning, reinforcement and most of all, self-awareness, one could theoretically alter their perceptions of "hot" and "not". How? It differs for everyone, and requires a high practical intelligence, but all of behavior research suggests it is possible. I think everyone will agree that our tastes change over time, even in our preference of men and women (genetic/natural selection factors notwithstanding).

Additionally, even though you are perhaps not in control of your own attraction, social influence theory suggests that everyone else - your friends and family, especially, and others who directly affect you; but everyone you witness, technically - is, to a large extent.

If, after all this, you still think I've somehow missed the point, or not addressed it fully, then it is you who is abusing or misusing words like "sexuality" and "behavior". If you don't know the precise definitions and how to apply them, don't argue/complain about anyone missing your points/arguing strawmen.

z0sa

07-11-2010, 03:54 PM

so you and I agree it's not a choice and that nothing in society or a family causes gayness.. people are born either as a hetero or homosexual....

Patently false. There is very little difference in brain structure or activity between heterosexuals, bisexuals, and homosexuals.

People are not born with their sexuality in place. Sexuality is (mostly) the product of one's environment.

CuckingFunt

07-11-2010, 06:55 PM

This is not the third time you've asked me, but I've already answered.

No, you haven't. I've asked that question of three different people in this thread, and no one has been able to provide an answer.

This is a moot point, because most people - the vast majority of people, in fact - don't make a conscious decision about their sexuality. By the time they are "capable" of making a cognitive choice about their sexuality (when that happens is certainly arguable, but also moot) it is already hard-wired, so to speak. This why no one answers. They don't know, because they can't remember, because they already technically were aware of their sexuality at a very early age, and never made that decision for themselves.

Fucking duh. That's what I've been saying. I've only ever pointed out that we are not in control; I've not made a single attempt to claim knowledge of what is in control.

I know exactly what you're saying. I've posted your thesis statement twice now, and responded to it twice now, unless you disagree that was your main point (which I'd find hard to believe). And the truth is, your opinion runs afoul of psychology common knowledge. The main indicator of that is this quote:

"What I said was that sexuality was rooted in attraction and desire, rather than in behavior."

* Rooted means based in - a figurative image of a tree's roots being used metaphorically. One's sexuality is not rooted in attraction and desire, but in how his or her attraction and desire has been reinforced and how it's been reinforced in others, primarily the parents.

Example: if two parents fulfill traditional gender roles, stay married semi-happily, and promote and reward the continued fulfillment of a heterosexual gender type, it will be an anomaly of a rare sort if their child establishes a homosexual identity. This is an oversimplification, but it's categorically true. Put simply: the constant reinforcement of heterosexual behavior and gender roles will drive the child to have attraction and desire for the opposite sex almost exclusively.

Put even more simply: your attraction and desire has everything to do with his or her behavior, and your own (how it's been reinforced) - moving past aforementioned genetic/natural selection factors, of course.

Therefore, to imply in the second half of that sentence that most of attraction and desire is not rooted in behavior is to imply something that is patently false.

Now if you want to go on a tirade about how no one can control their attractions personally, go ahead. Just don't use this "attraction over behavior" theory. It just makes no sense.

There's more to it: Through intelligent reasoning, reinforcement and most of all, self-awareness, one could theoretically alter their perceptions of "hot" and "not". How? It differs for everyone, and requires a high practical intelligence, but all of behavior research suggests it is possible. I think everyone will agree that our tastes change over time, even in our preference of men and women (genetic/natural selection factors notwithstanding).

Additionally, even though you are perhaps not in control of your own attraction, social influence theory suggests that everyone else - your friends and family, especially, and others who directly affect you; but everyone you witness, technically - is, to a large extent.

If, after all this, you still think I've somehow missed the point, or not addressed it fully, then it is you who is abusing or misusing words like "sexuality" and "behavior". If you don't know the precise definitions and how to apply them, don't argue/complain about anyone missing your points/arguing strawmen.

Firstly, fuck you for the condescension.

Secondly, you're still missing it. Completely.

It was suggested early in this thread, as it often is in such discussions, that people choose to be gay. In an attempt to point out that sexuality was not a choice, a point that the post I've quoted above would seem to endorse, I asked the first of three posters when, specifically, they made the choice to be straight.

Where you seem to be the most confused, however, is in the comments I made in a post meant to complicate/illuminate the issues of choice within sexuality. I suggested that behavior and lifestyle can be based on conscious choice, but that attraction and desire cannot. I further suggested that sexuality (and here perhaps I should have used the clearer "sexual orientation," but I tend to avoid that term so did not) is based in desire and attraction, rather than in behavior or lifestyle.

Someone is gay because they are attracted to members of the same sex. Someone is straight because they are attracted to members of the opposite sex. And so on. Uncontrollable attraction, no choice involved.

Someone is not gay because of what they do in the bedroom, however. Plenty of straight couples have anal sex, while plenty of gay male couples do not. Plenty of men and women have had same sex experiences not rooted in attraction (workers in the sex industry, for example, or drunk sorority chicks trying to turn their boyfriends on). Plenty of men and women openly recognize and act upon same sex attractions without publicly identifying with a particular lifestyle or set of "gay" behaviors. And so on. Controllable actions, all based in choice.

That difference is too often confused, however, in both gay and straight contexts. I asked when people made the conscious choice to be attracted to the opposite sex, and they responded by telling me when they made the conscious choice to act on attractions already there. Choosing to fuck someone who turns you on is making a decision about an action, not an orientation.

jack sommerset

07-11-2010, 07:10 PM

You still flapping your gums. You can keep saying people can't choose who they want to fuck but you be wrong mister sister.

LnGrrrR

07-11-2010, 07:27 PM

One twin being gay and the other being straight would not prove the genetics argument since one would think both twins with identical genes would come out gay. It doesn't disprove or prove that argument or anyother.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/17/science/gay-men-in-twin-study.html

A new study of twins provides the strongest evidence yet that homosexuality has a genetic basis, researchers say, though they say other factors like social conditioning may be important.
The study, published in the December issue of The Archives of General Psychiatry, adds to evidence that sexual orientation does not result from a maladjustment or moral defect, one author said.

"We found 52 percent of identical twin brothers of gay men also were gay, compared with 22 percent of fraternal twins, compared with 11 percent of genetically unrelated brothers," said J. Michael Bailey, an assistant professor of psychology at Northwestern University in Evanston, "which is exactly the kind of pattern you would want to see if something genetic were going on." By "unrelated," Dr. Bailey was referring to brothers by adoption.

You were saying?

LnGrrrR

07-11-2010, 07:28 PM

You still flapping your gums. You can keep saying people can't choose who they want to fuck but you be wrong mister sister.

Can you choose to start liking men then?

LnGrrrR

07-11-2010, 07:29 PM

And honestly CF, why you're wasting your time I have no idea.

LnGrrrR

07-11-2010, 07:30 PM

Apart from the usual bigoted remarks, what do the board conservatives think of the ACTUAL RULING?

jack sommerset

07-11-2010, 07:39 PM

Can you choose to start liking men then?

Absolutly but don't hold your breath.

I know it's off subject but how is that kid of yours. I thought I read somewhere a few weeks/months ago he might need surgery somewhere down the road. Hope everything is going well with the family.

George Gervin's Afro

07-11-2010, 08:22 PM

Patently false. There is very little difference in brain structure or activity between heterosexuals, bisexuals, and homosexuals.

People are not born with their sexuality in place. Sexuality is (mostly) the product of one's environment.

so what about families with gay and straight children..same parents, same upbringing... how does that work?

George Gervin's Afro

07-11-2010, 08:32 PM

I know gay people wo by the age of 6 or 7 knew they we different.. but I guess gay people don't know anything..the hetero conservatives have gayness down...

z0sa

07-11-2010, 08:47 PM

No, you haven't. I've asked that question of three different people in this thread, and no one has been able to provide an answer.

Because it's a stupid question that usually doesn't have an answer. Mostly no one can answer, and those very few that can are supremely fucked up (IMO). I assume you are supremely fucked up.

Fucking duh. That's what I've been saying.

:rollin

I've only ever pointed out that we are not in control; I've not made a single attempt to claim knowledge of what is in control.

Untrue.

Firstly, fuck you for the condescension.

I can't help you're an idiot. I gladly destroy these misrepresentations of facts you (and others) call arguments.

Pick up a fucking psychology text and stop talking out of your ass.

Secondly, you're still missing it. Completely.

Your opinion is rooted in bullshit, not facts. Touchy, feely bullshit. And even when you have addressed the issues - like talking shit about me bringing up nature and nuture - you've done it in a way that reveals you have no fucking clue about what you're discussing.

Time to face the music.

z0sa

07-11-2010, 08:53 PM

I know gay people wo by the age of 6 or 7 knew they we different...

That'd be most homosexuals.

z0sa

07-11-2010, 08:55 PM

so what about families with gay and straight children..same parents, same upbringing... how does that work?

Each person is "brought up" differently, and their behavior reinforced in different ways. No two people are the same, agreed? So what kind of question is that?

MannyIsGod

07-11-2010, 09:07 PM

Zosa, do you have any friends? I can't imagine the type of person that would want to spend time with you.

z0sa

07-11-2010, 09:08 PM

Zosa, do you have any friends? I can't imagine the type of person that would want to spend time with you.

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao Great one Manny!! :lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

z0sa

07-11-2010, 09:11 PM

Yo manny: how does one accumulate 35000 posts on a message board then talk shit about someone else being a loser while holding a straight face?

ElNono

07-11-2010, 09:28 PM

lol pretending that psychology is an exact science...

ElNono

07-11-2010, 09:30 PM

might aswell tell em to pick up the bible...

z0sa

07-11-2010, 09:31 PM

lol pretending that psychology is an exact science...

Who did that? And where?

ElNono

07-11-2010, 09:32 PM

Who did that? And where?

You're asking people to pick up a psychology book, like that's some kind of authority on the subject, where it's as factless as anything in this thread.

z0sa

07-11-2010, 09:33 PM

You're asking people to pick up a psychology book, like that's some kind of authority on the subject, where it's as factless as anything in this thread.

:lmao

It's about as "factless" as behaviorists aren't empirical. Everything I've said can be backed up by research, easily done research.

And it is an authority on the subject. Probably the authority on this subject.

z0sa

07-11-2010, 09:35 PM

Still waiting for where I pretended psychology is an exact science. I've used "theory" generously.

Have you ever read a psych textbook? You might find it stunning how much biological and sociological information they use as the basis for their theories - you know, proven facts.

ElNono

07-11-2010, 09:38 PM

:lmao
It's about as "factless" as behaviorists aren't empirical. Everything I've said can be backed up by research, easily done research.

But not factually proven. Which is the other side of the scientific method that qualifies you as an exact science. This is something that psychologists get severely butthurt about, nonetheless, it's entirely accurate.

And it is an authority on the subject. Probably the authority on this subject.

As much as an authority as anybody claiming to know how the mind of anybody works. Please, do start explaining how the human mind operates. You'll be the first one.

z0sa

07-11-2010, 09:41 PM

But not factually proven. Which is the other side of the scientific method that qualifies you as an exact science. This is something that psychologists get severely butthurt about, nonetheless, it's entirely accurate.

Snore

As much as an authority as anybody claiming to know how the mind of anybody works. Please, do start explaining how the human mind operates. You'll be the first one.

Psychology's definition is "study of human behavior and mental processes." IE, how the mind works.

Wilhelm Wundt has me beat by, oh, 130 years?

ElNono

07-11-2010, 09:42 PM

Still waiting for where I pretended psychology is an exact science. I've used "theory" generously.

You qualify it as something higher than the opinion of somebody else.
I have to infer from that, that you think there's some actual factual information to be found there.

Have you ever read a psych textbook? You might find it stunning how much biological and sociological information they use as the basis for their theories - you know, proven facts.

Theories are not facts. A scientist knows as much...
And if you knew anything about psychology, you would know very well there are very different, contradictory theories about this very subject.

ElNono

07-11-2010, 09:44 PM

Psychology's definition is "study of human behavior and mental processes." IE, how the mind works.

Let me add, 'through observation'... still completely based on unverifiable theories, which makes my opinion and yours on the subject as good as anybody.

Wilhelm Wundt has me beat by, oh, 130 years?

130 years and we still don't know shit about the mind... looks like a heavily evolved science... :rolleyes

z0sa

07-11-2010, 09:45 PM

You qualify it as something higher than the opinion of somebody else.

Psychologists have much research to fall back on.

DuckingFumbass has her own stupid inhibitions.

I have to infer from that, that you think there's some actual factual information to be found there.

There is. A shitload of it.

Theories are not facts. A scientist knows as much...

Theories are based around facts. A scientist knows as much.

And if you knew anything about psychology,

Like the knowledge from acing psychology and abnormal pyschology courses?

you would know very well there are very different, contradictory theories about this very subject.

In the minority. The vast majority agree with my sentiments; and since you're so good at inferring, you should have known that I left the door open for just those.

Freud and many others psychologists agree with this sentiment;

I qualified my words. I didn't say that there are no conflicts in psychology. I didn't imply it. Like any other field, even fields concerning "exact sciences," there are conflicts.

z0sa

07-11-2010, 09:48 PM

Let me add, 'through observation'... still completely based on unverifiable theories, which makes my opinion and yours on the subject as good as anybody.

That's completely illogical.

130 years and we still don't know shit about the mind

This statement is false.

ElNono

07-11-2010, 09:54 PM

Psychologists have much research to fall back on.
DuckingFumbass has her own stupid inhibitions.

Research that has shown different outcomes over the course of 130 years. Simply because nobody really knows how the mind works.

There is. A shitload of it.
Theories are based around facts. A scientist knows as much.

Still a theory, ie: unverifiable, thus factually as good as anybody else's theory.

Like acing psychology and abnormal pyschology courses?

Good for you. I personally couldn't put up with the psychology bullshit for the duration and moved on to philosophy. Doesn't mean I didn't get my background.

In the minority. The vast majority agree with my sentiments; and since you're so good at inferring, you should have known that I left the door open for just those.

The minority is as good as anything else when you can't verify what you're saying. That statistically speaking 90% of people fit a criteria only proves that your theory is not good enough. If we built buildings using the same way psychology has faith in the soundness of it's science, we would have a lot of creaky buildings.

ElNono

07-11-2010, 09:57 PM

That's completely illogical.

What is? This is the same conversation of prove me there's a god and disprove there is a god. Which philosophically speaking, really makes psychology a lot like religion.

This statement is false.

Through psychology? Absolutely true statement.

Ignignokt

07-11-2010, 09:57 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/17/science/gay-men-in-twin-study.html

You were saying?

52 % constitutes scientific proof, :lol. This is science not a presidential election.

Stay in the Nba Boards.

z0sa

07-11-2010, 10:00 PM

Research that has shown different outcomes over the course of 130 years. Simply because nobody really knows how the mind works.

Not in the case of sexuality. In fact, sexuality is one of the very few aspects of psychology that can be "measured." How? Most people can be sure, or mostly sure, of their sexuality, without much "mental" red tape.

Still a theory, ie: unverifiable, thus factually as good as anybody else's theory.

It is verified by the facts. Just because more than one theory fits the facts doesn't mean a theory isn't verified.

That's like saying evolution isn't a fact even though every day it's proven time and time again. (Yes, I just said that, and meant it.)

Good for you. I personally couldn't put up with the psychology bullshit for the duration and moved on to philosophy. Doesn't mean I didn't get my background.

That's interesting (really). How do you find philosophy not full of the same BS? I haven't taken a philosophy course but I'd think it'd have much more immeasurable, non-empirical "proof."

The minority is as good as anything else when you can't verify what you're saying. That statistically speaking 90% of people fit a criteria only proves that your theory is not good enough. If we built buildings using the same way psychology has faith in the soundness of it's science, we would have a lot of creaky buildings.

It's an interesting point, and one I'm willing to concede. It still doesn't mean that the facts don't fit their theories, or that the theories themselves are unusable. Second, 99.9% of educated people base their arguments on some aspect of psychology (nature/nurture) when having these discussions. An appeal to your inner self as proof is simply questionable, because a psychologist has already done that with others like yourself. Why is their evidence unusable compared with yours?

ElNono

07-11-2010, 10:00 PM

And BTW, I'm pretty sure we'll know the answer to this through exact science at some point or another. We're just not there yet.

Ignignokt

07-11-2010, 10:01 PM

Look dumbass apparently your observation skills are sorely lacking. the twins reference was in response to another one of your poltical brethern trying to state that upbringing is the reason why people either are, or aren't gay...

Yeah, and i'm just pointing out how you're example is horrid. It's a valid conclusion. I'm not knocking on you for refuting someone else, i'm knocking on you for bringing even weaker shit.

Ignignokt

07-11-2010, 10:03 PM

And BTW, I'm pretty sure we'll know the answer to this through exact science at some point or another. We're just not there yet.

It's a bunch of bullshit, the feild of psychology doesn't support your premise so you're hoping to find that gay gene.

It's not about waiting for the truth.

z0sa

07-11-2010, 10:10 PM

What is? This is the same conversation of prove me there's a god and disprove there is a god. Which philosophically speaking, really makes psychology a lot like religion.

I don't think the two are all that similar. We can't study the nature and behavior of god. We can study the nature and behavior of humans. We can look through their past for reasons why things happen now, and even implant false memories using hypnosis. We can see how chemical balance affects the psyche.

Through psychology?

We've gone from people burning witches because of possession by the devil to medical drug treatments based on the amount of neurotransmitters like acetylcholine in your brain. I think psychology has much, much evidence to the contrary - not all of its implications are simply descriptive.

ElNono

07-11-2010, 10:17 PM

Not in the case of sexuality. In fact, sexuality is one of the very few aspects of psychology that can be "measured." How? Most people can be sure, or mostly sure, of their sexuality, without much "mental" red tape.

Sure. But you don't know how it works. Where it's coming from. You're merely observing based on a set of parameters, and looking at the reaction. It's truly looking into a black box that you have very little, if any, idea of how it works.

It is verified by the facts. Just because more than one theory fits the facts doesn't mean a theory isn't verified.

A verified theory is no longer called a theory. If it's still called a theory, it's because in part or as a whole, it can't be verified. The thing with psychology is that statistics play a major role. I don't really have to explain this to you, but for reference of anybody else reading here, if a research shows 85% of people reacts a certain way to a stimuli, then it gets accepted as 'good enough' for psychology. I understand. You don't know how the black box works, and you gotta work with something. But when you translate that to other fields of science, it's entirely unacceptable.

That's like saying evolution isn't a fact even though every day it's proven time and time again. (Yes, I just said that, and meant it.)

Sure. We can also talk about the special relativity theory. Although, now we find out that it doesn't work with quantum mechanics. In psychology, statistical 'good enough' is good enough. I like exact sciences better.

That's interesting (really). How do you find philosophy not full of the same BS? I haven't taken a philosophy course but I'd think it'd have much more immeasurable, non-empirical "proof."

I had to take an inexact science course. It was non-negotiable. I thought psychology would work, and it didn't. Philosophy is as much BS, but it doesn't go around trying to explain too much. You don't see philosophers setting up offices to attend to people :lol
Anyways, it was interesting in it's own way. I'm more of an exact science zealot though.

It's an interesting point, and one I'm willing to concede. It still doesn't mean that the facts don't fit their theories, or that the theories themselves are unusable. Second, 99.9% of educated people base their arguments on some aspect of psychology (nature/nurture) when having these discussions. An appeal to your inner self as proof is simply questionable, because a psychologist has already done that with others.

Listen, I'm not saying psychology is worthless. As an aid to certain people, it works (coincidentally, much like religion, as I mentioned before). I just can't really give it the authenticity of actual verifiable science, since it doesn't have it. That's why it pisses me off to no end when people remit other people to educate themselves in psychology. I'm also well aware this comes off as a snub on psychology, and pisses psychologists off. Oh well.

ElNono

07-11-2010, 10:24 PM

It's a bunch of bullshit, the feild of psychology doesn't support your premise so you're hoping to find that gay gene.

It's not about waiting for the truth.

At some point in time we thought the earth was flat. Then we figured out through science that it wasn't.

At some point in time we thought only humans could create life. Then along came test tube babies.

I couldn't care less what you think. I am pretty sure we will figure out eventually through actual exact science what are the conditions in which this happens. Might be a gene, might be a chemical imbalance, etc etc etc

z0sa

07-11-2010, 10:32 PM

Sure. But you don't know how it works. Where it's coming from. You're merely observing based on a set of parameters, and looking at the reaction. It's truly looking into a black box that you have very little, if any, idea of how it works.

Psychologists, especially recently with the advent of genetic research, form very solid working relationships underlying their theories.

Of course there is no simple, always verifiable answer concerning the human mind. The mind isn't a tree that, if cut a certain way, will always produce 2x4's.

However, research into the biological aspect of the mind, and stimulation of certain parts of the brain, allows us to decipher what controls what, and how it does that. There will always be the "why" concerning psychology, because humans are capable of choice. Which is why you have humanist-existentialist psychologists. However, the vast amount of research supports what I've said, and is verifiable in that it accurately predicts behavior.

A verified theory is no longer called a theory. If it's still called a theory, it's because in part or as a whole, it can't be verified. The thing with psychology is that statistics play a major role. I don't really have to explain this to you, but for reference of anybody else reading here, if a research shows 85% of people reacts a certain way to a stimuli, then it gets accepted as 'good enough' for psychology. I understand. You don't know how the black box works, and you gotta work with something. But when you translate that to other fields of science, it's entirely unacceptable.

It's not an exact science. That's because the human brain and body is different for everyone - if the settings of an experiment can never be truly the same, why expect exact, repeatable results? That's the main reason why psychologists operate solely on theories, instead of facts, and why statistics play such important parts.

Sure. We can also talk about the special relativity theory. Although, now we find out that it doesn't work with quantum mechanics. In psychology, statistical 'good enough' is good enough. I like exact sciences better.

^^ see above ^^. Humans aren't exactly pieces of clay that can be sculpted. All of our clay is born a little different than everyone else's clay, so to speak.

I had to take an inexact science course. It was non-negotiable. I thought psychology would work, and it didn't. Philosophy is as much BS, but it doesn't go around trying to explain too much. You don't see philosophers setting up offices to attend to people :lol
Anyways, it was interesting in it's own way. I'm more of an exact science zealot though.

Thanks for relating, although I can't say I agree that psychotherapy is a bad thing. It's hard to measure anything about it accurately, true, but all in all polling suggests that most people benefit greatly from it.

The religion parallel is rather uncanny, and something I never thought of. Good take.

That's why it pisses me off to no end when people remit other people to educate themselves in psychology. I'm also well aware this comes off as a snub on psychology, and pisses psychologists off. Oh well.

I think it's important to at least know the basics of psychology before arguing about it, then lambasting someone else for missing the point. JMO. And it doesn't piss me off, personally, even though I appeal to psychologists' reasoning concerning any argument over human behavior; I think it's a misinformed opinion, but yours to justify how you wish.

ElNono

07-11-2010, 10:33 PM

I don't think the two are all that similar. We can't study the nature and behavior of god. We can study the nature and behavior of humans. We can look through their past for reasons why things happen now, and even implant false memories using hypnosis. We can see how chemical balance affects the psyche.

What you do is stimulate and observe reactions. Then try to draw conclusions based on the observation. That's psychological research 101, and it's the most inefficient method of research. Basically, a brute force research. I understand you do it because only now other sciences are getting to the point where you can actually take a look inside the black box. We're still far away from understanding how it all works, but that sheer amount of information and divergence is what makes psychology itself undervalued.
IE: Even if you could implant false memories using hypnosis, you couldn't possibly ascertain that everybody will react the same to them.

We've gone from people burning witches because of possession by the devil to medical drug treatments based on the amount of neurotransmitters like acetylcholine in your brain. I think psychology has much, much evidence to the contrary - not all of its implications are simply descriptive.

Well, the people burning witches were long before psychology existed. And psychiatrists are the ones in charge of medical drug treatments.

ElNono

07-11-2010, 10:51 PM

Psychologists, especially recently with the advent of genetic research, form very solid working relationships underlying their theories.

My sister is a bioengineer. It's a painstaking job, but ultimately what will end up either verifying or dispelling a lot of what we think we know about psychology and the human mind and body. But we're just getting our feet wet there.

Of course there is no simple, always verifiable answer concerning the human mind. The mind isn't a tree that, if cut a certain way, will always produce 2x4's.

Well, we can't conclusively say one way or the other. Through observation, it looks like it's not possible for it to be that way. But observation is not conclusive, it's merely 'good enough'.

However, research into the biological aspect of the mind, and stimulation of certain parts of the brain, allows us to decipher what controls what, and how it does that. There will always be the "why" concerning psychology, because humans are capable of choice. Which is why you have humanist-existentialist psychologists. However, the vast amount of research supports what I've said, and is verifiable in that it accurately predicts behavior.

Prediction is a field of statistics. It's as good as Paul the octopus. And it should be taken with a big grain of salt. Otherwise, John Hollinger wouldn't need to write articles for ESPN every week. He would just know how everything will turn out to be.

It's not an exact science. That's because the human brain and body is different for everyone - if the settings of an experiment can never be truly the same, why expect exact, repeatable results? That's the main reason why psychologists operate solely on theories, instead of facts, and why statistics play such important parts.

Then why we should assume that because 92% of a given sample size behave one way, then that should be the ultimate authority on a given theory? especially when external factors normally have huge implications in these very same experiments? The reason they can be temporarily accepted is that as a society we simply can't do better right now, but you simply can't pretend that the result is not a precarious one, and likely either be confirmed or completely dispelled when new research comes along.

Thanks for relating, although I can't say I agree that psychotherapy is a bad thing. It's hard to measure anything about it accurately, true, but all in all polling suggests that most people benefit greatly from it.

I don't think it's all bad. Psychology or psychiatry. Works for some people, doesn't work with another. I'm sure you can guess in which group I'm personally at. :lol

The religion parallel is rather uncanny, and something I never thought of. Good take.

:tu

I think it's important to at least know the basics of psychology before arguing about it, then lambasting someone else for missing the point. JMO. And it doesn't piss me off, personally, even though I appeal to psychologists' reasoning concerning any argument over human behavior; I think it's a misinformed opinion, but yours to justify how you wish.

I think that without explaining the 'caveats' (ie: this is the best we know today, even if it might be a bit shaky), you will end up with the same old argument: prove it to me/you can't disprove it.

MannyIsGod

07-12-2010, 01:55 AM

Yo manny: how does one accumulate 35000 posts on a message board then talk shit about someone else being a loser while holding a straight face?

Well I'll just say this. You know how much you annoy the shit out of people. For your sake, I hope thats merely an online phenomenon. Only you know if thats the case.

George Gervin's Afro

07-12-2010, 08:09 AM

peopel are born gay regardluess of their upbringing..

I am tired of hearing conservative males explaining to me that being gay is a choice and that how you discipline your child is a cause of their homosexualtiy. Find me one poll that asks gay people how they became who they are. The conservatives on this board go to text books to explain to us the origins of homosexuality all the while ignoring what gay people state to the contrary!

Every gay friend that I have tells me the same thing so my poll is still hovering at 100%....

In the end you ladies are trying to justify your nasty and vulgar attitudes. Man up and admit you don't like gay people...there are plenty of people on this board who agree so you will have support..

CuckingFunt

07-12-2010, 09:01 AM

Because it's a stupid question that usually doesn't have an answer. Mostly no one can answer, and those very few that can are supremely fucked up (IMO). I assume you are supremely fucked up.

:rollin

Untrue.

I can't help you're an idiot. I gladly destroy these misrepresentations of facts you (and others) call arguments.

Pick up a fucking psychology text and stop talking out of your ass.

Your opinion is rooted in bullshit, not facts. Touchy, feely bullshit. And even when you have addressed the issues - like talking shit about me bringing up nature and nuture - you've done it in a way that reveals you have no fucking clue about what you're discussing.

Time to face the music.

Either you really can't read, or you're being intentionally thick for the sake of dragging out the argument.

Blake

07-12-2010, 09:38 AM

I don't see how a child can have a healthy view on the role of genders from homosexuals who are engaging in deviant and abnormal behaviour.

define "healthy view" and how a lack of it might keep a child from being a productive member of society

z0sa

07-12-2010, 12:54 PM

Either you really can't read, or you're being intentionally thick for the sake of dragging out the argument.

Actually, being an aggressive asshole helps me sleep better at night.

LnGrrrR

07-12-2010, 02:36 PM

Absolutly but don't hold your breath.

I know it's off subject but how is that kid of yours. I thought I read somewhere a few weeks/months ago he might need surgery somewhere down the road. Hope everything is going well with the family.

I find it amazing that everyone who says they could easily start liking men absolutely decline to. If it's so easy, why not like men for a day then go back to women? I didn't say it had to be a permanent switch, or that you have to have sex with a man. Just like them for a day or two.

My kid's doing fine, thanks! He's learning to climb on everything... the other day he grabbed this make-shift gate we put up, then lifted himself up by his arms and tried to walk up it! He's insane. And my mother is doing well after her chemo treatments, and looking forward to next March where she comes to visit me here in Honolulu/Pearl Harbor.

How is your family Jack? Doing well I hope?

LnGrrrR

07-12-2010, 02:45 PM

52 % constitutes scientific proof, :lol. This is science not a presidential election.

Stay in the Nba Boards.

Your critical thinking skills are atrocious. Absolute garbage, honestly. Do you expect EVERY set of twins to be either gay or straight? Really?

The evidence shows that genetic twins tend to be both gay or straight more often than fraternal twins, and fraternal are both gay or straight more often than adopted twins. In fact, the closer they are genetically, the more likely they're both gay or straight.

You, sir, are an idiot.

Blake

07-12-2010, 03:07 PM

Actually, being an aggressive asshole helps me sleep better at night.

you must sleep great

LnGrrrR

07-12-2010, 03:09 PM

you must sleep great

:lmao

Ignignokt

07-12-2010, 04:52 PM

Your critical thinking skills are atrocious. Absolute garbage, honestly. Do you expect EVERY set of twins to be either gay or straight? Really?

The evidence shows that genetic twins tend to be both gay or straight more often than fraternal twins, and fraternal are both gay or straight more often than adopted twins. In fact, the closer they are genetically, the more likely they're both gay or straight.

You, sir, are an idiot.

This doesn't prove shit, you can't prove anything of that kind that has many variables with statistical analysis. If it's genetic then both would have to be gay. You couldn't have identical twins vary if gayness was truly genetic. The fraternal disparity could have many variables. One is that fraternal twins are different and also look entirely different which can cause one parent to favor the other and which could change on how they are treated and nurtured, also. fraternal twins could be both boy and girl.

We don't even know the sex of the twins studied in this study, that can prove to make a big difference. If the fraternal sample had more girl/boy than the identical twin samlple, you can't draw anything.

Identical twins also may recieve different treatment than fraternal twins.

Sorry, LNGGRR, you haven't brought one legitamate argument in this whole thread. You suck hard eggs quite honestly, tbh.

Ignignokt

07-12-2010, 04:56 PM

define "healthy view" and how a lack of it might keep a child from being a productive member of society

Being gay is unhealthy, and can lead to an unhealthy lifestyle. Gays are more prevelant than the straight population to contact deadly std's by the very nature of their act.

LnGrrrR

07-12-2010, 06:48 PM

Being gay is unhealthy, and can lead to an unhealthy lifestyle.

Define "unhealthy".

Gays are more prevelant than the straight population to contact deadly std's by the very nature of their act.

Really? Explain how being gay, or having gay sex, is more likely to cause STD transmission, if you don't mind.

Being an athelte is rather unhealthy too...have you heard all the stories about ex-NFL players that had concussions? Beter ban football while we're at it!

LnGrrrR

07-12-2010, 06:51 PM

This doesn't prove shit, you can't prove anything of that kind that has many variables with statistical analysis. If it's genetic then both would have to be gay. You couldn't have identical twins vary if gayness was truly genetic. The fraternal disparity could have many variables. One is that fraternal twins are different and also look entirely different which can cause one parent to favor the other and which could change on how they are treated and nurtured, also. fraternal twins could be both boy and girl.

You are an idiot.

The whole point of the study is that both are MORE LIKELY TO BE GAY IF THEY SHARE THE SAME GENETICS.

Do you think people are robots? Even if two people had the exact same genetics, nurture plays a part too. It's just that genetics plays a strong role. Just like if cancer runs in my family, I'm more likely to get it; if a gay gene runs in my family, I might be more likely to be gay.

We don't even know the sex of the twins studied in this study, that can prove to make a big difference. If the fraternal sample had more girl/boy than the identical twin samlple, you can't draw anything.

What difference would that make?

Identical twins also may recieve different treatment than fraternal twins.

And I might find a dollar on the sidewalk today. What's your point? What does "different treatment" have to do with them being more or less likely to be gay?

Sorry, LNGGRR, you haven't brought one legitamate argument in this whole thread. You suck hard eggs quite honestly, tbh.

You're an idiot. Your points are invalid and your logic is poorly formed.

Blake

07-12-2010, 08:55 PM

Being gay is unhealthy, and can lead to an unhealthy lifestyle. Gays are more prevelant than the straight population to contact deadly std's by the very nature of their act.

what is your source of information? miamiheat?

what about lesbians? how might being raised by a pair of lesbians keep a child from being a productive member of society?

CuckingFunt

07-12-2010, 11:36 PM

what about lesbians? how might being raised by a pair of lesbians keep a child from being a productive member of society?

I'm almost certain the answer to this is dependent upon the attractiveness of the women in question. That's usually an important consideration when bigots discuss gay women.

z0sa

07-13-2010, 02:55 AM

Well I'll just say this. You know how much you annoy the shit out of people. For your sake, I hope thats merely an online phenomenon. Only you know if thats the case.

JUe-lXAoSZI

Ignignokt

07-13-2010, 03:46 AM

You are an idiot.

The whole point of the study is that both are MORE LIKELY TO BE GAY IF THEY SHARE THE SAME GENETICS.

Do you think people are robots? Even if two people had the exact same genetics, nurture plays a part too. It's just that genetics plays a strong role. Just like if cancer runs in my family, I'm more likely to get it; if a gay gene runs in my family, I might be more likely to be gay.

You can't make a hypothetical out of something that has not been found or exist and try to pass it off as logical or rational. The gay gene has not been proven.

This study isn't scientific proof of anything, as to which plays a role in homosexuality.

We don't know what were the sex of the twins in the study, so you can't take that study seriously.

Half of paternal twin pairs feature opposite sexes so it would not prove anything.

I don't know how you wake up everyday and deal with a moron when looking in the mirror.

George Gervin's Afro

07-13-2010, 07:33 AM

I don't know how you wake up everyday and deal with a moron when looking in the mirror.

you do just fine so it can be done!

Blake

07-13-2010, 11:36 AM

You can't make a hypothetical out of something that has not been found or exist and try to pass it off as logical or rational. The gay gene has not been proven.

This study isn't scientific proof of anything, as to which plays a role in homosexuality.

We don't know what were the sex of the twins in the study, so you can't take that study seriously.

Half of paternal twin pairs feature opposite sexes so it would not prove anything.

I don't know how you wake up everyday and deal with a moron when looking in the mirror.

how might being raised by a pair of lesbians keep a child from being a productive member of society?