Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 176 to 200 of 339
  1. #176
    Veteran jack sommerset's Avatar
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Post Count
    9,221
    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 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.

  2. #177
    Veteran Ignignokt's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Post Count
    7,042
    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 sexual 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 sexuality 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 sexuality 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 ins ution 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, gra ude, 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/m.../ai_n25362543/

  3. #178
    keep asking questions George Gervin's Afro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    11,409
    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 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

  4. #179
    Veteran jack sommerset's Avatar
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Post Count
    9,221
    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 ing a dog affect you?

  5. #180
    Veteran Ignignokt's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Post Count
    7,042
    so upbringing and nurturing have jack 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 ty, 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!!

  6. #181
    keep asking questions George Gervin's Afro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    11,409
    You're ability to arrive at conclusions from arguments is notoriously ty, 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 sexual....


    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..

  7. #182
    Veteran jack sommerset's Avatar
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Post Count
    9,221
    You're ability to arrive at conclusions from arguments is notoriously ty, so i can't help if you are weak at that area.
    No .

    You can't help the stupid.

  8. #183
    Veteran Ignignokt's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Post Count
    7,042
    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 sexual....
    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.

  9. #184
    keep asking questions George Gervin's Afro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    11,409
    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...

  10. #185
    keep asking questions George Gervin's Afro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    11,409
    I did choose, dumbass. The choice was obvious, bozo. The verdict is in, assclown. I'm normal!

    By the way, does a dude ing a dog affect you?
    gay people are normal also.. you do think that don't you bozo?

  11. #186
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    37,751
    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.

  12. #187
    Linger Ficking Good! CuckingFunt's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    22,076
    ... 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 mul ude 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 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.

  13. #188
    Linger Ficking Good! CuckingFunt's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    22,076
    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 ing a dog affect you?
    Yes. I'm against animal cruelty.

  14. #189
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    44,142
    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.

  15. #190
    The Wemby Assembly z0sa's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    15,772
    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 sexual iden y. 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.
    Last edited by z0sa; 07-11-2010 at 03:51 PM.

  16. #191
    The Wemby Assembly z0sa's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    15,772
    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 sexual....
    Patently false. There is very little difference in brain structure or activity between heterosexuals, bisexuals, and sexuals.

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

  17. #192
    Linger Ficking Good! CuckingFunt's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    22,076
    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.
    ing 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 sexual iden y. 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, 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 someone who turns you on is making a decision about an action, not an orientation.

  18. #193
    Veteran jack sommerset's Avatar
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Post Count
    9,221
    You still flapping your gums. You can keep saying people can't choose who they want to but you be wrong mister sister.

  19. #194
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    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/sc...win-study.html

    A new study of twins provides the strongest evidence yet that sexuality 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?

  20. #195
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    You still flapping your gums. You can keep saying people can't choose who they want to but you be wrong mister sister.
    Can you choose to start liking men then?

  21. #196
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    And honestly CF, why you're wasting your time I have no idea.

  22. #197
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    Apart from the usual bigoted remarks, what do the board conservatives think of the ACTUAL RULING?

  23. #198
    Veteran jack sommerset's Avatar
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Post Count
    9,221
    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.

  24. #199
    keep asking questions George Gervin's Afro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    11,409
    Patently false. There is very little difference in brain structure or activity between heterosexuals, bisexuals, and sexuals.

    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?

  25. #200
    keep asking questions George Gervin's Afro's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Post Count
    11,409
    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...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •