California Proposition 8

[Chip]

Another source is Dr. Cynthia Chappell's A BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATION FOR HUMAN SEXUAL ORIENTATION which can be viewed on the net at: http://www.pflaghouston.org/news/headline.htm.

Presentations by a lesbian and gay web site are naturally being viewed with suspicion by those in debate with you.

If you can post something that orients from a non-biased purely scientific source, perhaps you might fare better in convincing others of your opinion on the etiology of homomsexuality.

For now, I for one remain confident that homosexuality is not a conscious choice, is not caused by special composition of gestational fluid, and is not genetic, but instead is inculcated during the first four years of post-natal life while the brain is still forming, still changing in shape and structure, as an unconscious reaction to idiosyncratic yet specific and consistently causal dysfunctional conditions in family-of-origin dynamics.

Regardless, does it really matter the etiology of homosexuality?

With respect to this thread, the time-honored, long-standing, traditional definition of marriage remains "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", regardless of the super tiny percentage of definititvely inappropriate exceptions throughout history.

The California Supreme Court will either appeal to definition that respects the historic vast majority or it will revise definition in deference to history's very small percentage of exceptions.

And the etiology of homosexuality will not matter one iota.

The only thing that will matter is political pressure.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Presentations by a lesbian and gay web site are naturally being viewed with suspicion by those in debate with you.

Dr. Cythia Chappell is not a lesbian, she's a doctor with a two sons, one of whom is gay. She lives in Texas and heard all the idiocy about gay people so she decided to research the subject and find out what science actually has discovered. Who else is going to post her presentation? Not Focus on the Family. You can buy copies of the presentation for $10 and watch them at home, but Sihouette wouldn't spend a dime for the disc.

Dr. Brizendine's book doesn't concern itself with homosexuality per se, her conclusions are a by-product of research.

If you can post something that orients from a non-biased purely scientific source, perhaps you might fare better in convincing others of your opinion on the etiology of homomsexuality.

No one on this thread has presented any scientific evidence except me, Dr. Chappell is a reseacher in tropical diseases, a more dispassionate source you will not find. If you can find a "non-gay" site that will host her presentation, then tell me about it and I'll send them a copy of the disc.

With respect to this thread, the time-honored, long-standing, traditional definition of marriage remains "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", regardless of the super tiny percentage of definititvely inappropriate exceptions throughout history.

Like 14 centuries of Christianity? Japanese warriors in early modern times, Chinese men and women during the Yuan and Ming dynasties, Native Americans from many tribes, many African tribes up into the 20th century, males and females in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Russia, and the Pacific Islands. Hello? Marriage has meant so many things to so many people during so many eras that ruling out anything is difficult. Even Solomon in the Bible stretched the limits of what you define as "marriage". Part of the problem here is a lack of historical perspective, marriage as we know it is nearly as modern as the nuclear family.

The California Supreme Court will either appeal to definition that respects the historic vast majority or it will revise definition in deference to history's very small percentage of exceptions.

And the etiology of homosexuality will not matter one iota.

The only thing that will matter is political pressure.

Political pressure should override the US Constitution which guarantees equal protection under the law. If marriage is the only contract to be denied to consenting American adults on the basis of sexual orientation, then it should be taken out of law and returned to the churches for safe keeping. But truly, that won't work either because there are Christian churches all over that will marry gay people just as soon as it's legal. Once again, Christians have split into more than 3000 sects because they can't agree with each other on the interpretation of God's Word.

PFLAG isn't a gay and lesbian website any more than Al Anon is a drinking club, it's a nationwide support group for families and friends of gay and transgendered people.

 

[Chip]

Dr. Cythia Chappell is not a lesbian, she's a doctor with a two sons, one of whom is gay. She lives in Texas and heard all the idiocy about gay people so she decided to research the subject and find out what science actually has discovered. Who else is going to post her presentation? Not Focus on the Family. You can buy copies of the presentation for $10 and watch them at home, but Sihouette wouldn't spend a dime for the disc.

Dr Chappell is understanably considered a biased source by virtue of having a son who is gay.

You do get that, right?

It's difficult to hold people, even people who consistently post irrelevancies, harmful in the matter of eschewing such references.

Besides, as a doctor, she will likely over-stress biology at the expense of neuropsychology, and she may not be the best person to diagnose on the evidence.

I've scanned the internet ... and I've yet to find a link presenting the gene (combination) for homosexuality.

Were such a genetic proof of sexual preference in conflict with genetalia in existence and thus ebraced by all genetic scientists, it would be all over the internet.

There is no genetic etiology discovered for homosexuality.

There most likely never will be.

No one on this thread has presented any scientific evidence

Which means they haven't substantiated their claims that homosexuality is a conscious choice.

We both intuitively know that the state of being homosexual is most certainly not a conscious choice.

except me, Dr. Chappell is a reseacher in tropical diseases, a more dispassionate source you will not find.

Which, as I'm sure you know, means nothing with regard to the validity of her presentation of the genetic etiology of homosexuality or whatever other guess she may make.

If you can find a "non-gay" site that will host her presentation, then tell me about it and I'll send them a copy of the disc.

If a "non-gay" site hosted her presentation, she would still be the mother of a gay son and therefore biased in the matter.

In the absence of the discovery by genetic scientists of a gene (combination) for homosexuality, or other foundation for her conclusions, her presentation would be just as suspect now that we know of her bias no matter where she posts it, and she would still be a relatively unqualified doctor, not a genetic scientist.

Like 14 centuries of Christianity? Japanese warriors in early modern times, Chinese men and women during the Yuan and Ming dynasties, Native Americans from many tribes, many African tribes up into the 20th century, males and females in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Russia, and the Pacific Islands.

I don't know.

After all, a list without numbers and comparative percentages with references from trusted historical sources is mere useless anecdote ... and other debaters might wonder if it's contrived.

Hello? Marriage has meant so many things to so many people during so many eras that ruling out anything is difficult.

The overwhelming vast majority consider marriage to be a domestic partnership between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

Considering that's the long-standing time-honored cross-culturally traditional definition of marriage, it is understanable to conclude that the anecdotes you cite are at best microscopic percentage exceptions that most certainly can't be weighed equally against the overwhelming vast majority rule.

So it really is pretty easy to rule out anecdotal exceptions.

Even Solomon in the Bible stretched the limits of what you define as "marriage".

Appeal to "A"uthority is irrelevant.

It doesn't matter what some allege "S"olomon to have done.

What matters is the historical overwhelming majority through the ages that have brought us to the modern-day definition of marriage as a man and a woman as husband and wife.

Part of the problem here is a lack of historical perspective, marriage as we know it is nearly as modern as the nuclear family.

That changes in socioeconomics have comparatively recently allowed father, mother and kids to live more often alone in the form of the "nuclear family" remains irrelevant.

That for millenia many families may have sometimes lived under one roof doesn't change the fact that each family was initially composed of a mother, a father and their kids as a segregate unit, until either death or divorce altered that structure, and it doesn't matter how many other family and non-family members lifed with them, as only that father and that mother were, if married, married to each other, and to no one else.

Political pressure should override the US Constitution which guarantees equal protection under the law.

Well ... no it shouldn't ...

... But here equal protection under the law is inapplicable with respect to the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

Indeed, there is no "equal protection" for cat owners that says they can invade and disrupt a dog show to present their cats.

Definitive propriety must be respected with regard to application of the law.

If marriage is the only contract to be denied to consenting American adults on the basis of sexual orientation, then it should be taken out of law and returned to the churches for safe keeping.

Of course, I disagree.

First of all, it's not about the churches, it's about humanity's respect for definitive propriety.

Second, sexual orientation is also irrelevant, as marriage rightly cannot be denied on the basis of sexual orientation.

Marriage rightly with respect to definitive propriety can only be denied if the participants are not "a man and a woman as husband and wife", regardless of the sexual orientation of either ... though many would argue that, unless one or both were in denial about their sexual orientation, which does happen, it is likely that sexual orientation follows naturally heterosexually in definitively appropriate marriage.

But truly, that won't work either because there are Christian churches all over that will marry gay people just as soon as it's legal. Once again, Christians have split into more than 3000 sects because they can't agree with each other on the interpretation of God's Word.

Which only supports my point that if you have people of religion on both sides of this issue then you've negated religion as an issue in the matter.

Indeed, this is not a religious issue from any perspective.

It's a simple matter of the overwhelming vast majority's acceptance of the time-honored, long-standing, cross-culturally traditional definition of marriage being a domestic partnership between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

The California Supreme Court will either appeal to that definition or revise it.

Being the political animals I believe them to be, their decision will not be made based on rational respect for reason and common sense, but on political pressure.

And that is sad, no matter which way they decide.

 

[Sihouette]

The whole point I was making is that homosexuality is not truly understood definitively, even by people who have gone to college and have degrees on their walls. The old joke in college was the psych majors always had a ton of baggage and that's why they went for psych majors..

We are juggling opinions and circumstantial evidence here for people to view. We are on the cutting edge of the homosexuality debate, even amongst degreed professionals. So posting their theories is as relevant as posting our own.

One's sexual preference is not a choice, it is a motivation from condition.

To punish people in any way for a behavior that is motivated by their condition, a behavior that is not criminal, is dubious, and such punishment is likely motivated by the punisher's fear-based bias.~ Chip

Having experience raising and training animals for decades now, and observing their behavior from birth until death, and being responsible for having to train them to certain behaviors (I have a stallion doing AI), I feel I have a glove to throw in the ring.

Sexual behavior is a choice and it is not. The developing mammals all across the board, including us, at the onset of puberty seem to be able to be trained to prefer from an external source or trained to perfer from an internal pressure (frustration of sexual drive) to have initial experiences with same or opposite gender, or in the case of AI a dummy mount. I've seen buck goats frustrated at not being able to access females, mount each other. And thereafter seem only to prefer to mount their male buddies. At first they were craning to reach the females, displaying vigorous interest as they approached the fence. So I concluded that they, via frustration from an internal unsatisfied drive, were heterosexual, but instead cemented their preference in homosexual preference having identified "male" as the target to vent their frustration. Once that cementing is done, again, around puberty, it is nearly impossible to turn around.

Friends of mine have lamented and warned me to let my stallion live-service a mare first before I had him AI trained. I did that luckily. Some stallions after being trained to vent their normal desires for mare on a dummy, only seem to "know" to mount a dummy from then on. They're led to an estrus mare and get excited but don't mount. They're looking for the dummy. It can be a real problem in stallion management if one should want to do both live service and AI.

People in the animal breeding business would be the foremost people to consult about mammalian sexuality. After all, when the bottom line rests on exact understanding of reproductive preferences and behavior of male and female animals and at exactly what age they manifest those, you tend to pay attention really closely. We in the business know that if we want a certain sexual preference in our livestock, we'd do well not to frustrate our male and female stock at a critical age. Also, young males and females selected to breed must not be exposed to an aggressive or mean member of the opposite gender. If so, they may shy away from breeding altogether. Or choose to mount and be mounted by members of their own gender.

That's why I speak with such authority on these matters. Livestock people know this stuff old hat. It's the human behavioralists who are seeing these concepts just dawn on the horizon. My personal feeling is that they themselves are sitting on denial issues that don't allow them to take a completely unbiased looksie at how the human sex drive develops at puberty. Ranchers are far more practical. They have to be. They wouldn't make money if they weren't.

That all being said, I have to agree with Chip when he says that we cannot be biased against gays. They, after a given point, have no choice in their preference. However, there's is not a "normal" condition. Normal sexual behavior in mammals is between adult males and females for the purpose of procreation. Anything else is deviant. And deviations exist. Marriage was created to establish a mating bond between two adults of the opposite sex. To disrupt that description with deviant sexual behavior as equal to normal sexual behavior is not a good idea when questioning adolescents are looking on... in our "herd"...

More than any other mammal, we learn stuff socially. To hold a deviant behavior up as socially acceptable is playing with fire. What other deviant behaviors will our youth justify along those lines?

I for one don't want to find out..

And again, I know scores of homosexuals who know exactly what ranchers do: that adolescents are impressionable sexually. And I know scores of homosexuals who do openly seek to recruit to their sexuality from the ranks of impressionable young people. So they can't have their Twinkie and eat it too. If they're acting on the priniciples that sexuality is able to be imprinted, yet harping about how it is "genetic" I'm not listening. They are right in that once a certain age is reached, it isn't a choice any longer. But before then it is.

And that is the crux of my argument. Arguing pro homosexual marriage is de facto, one giant attempt at subconscious recruitment via seeking social legitimacy. Boiling it down further it is one giant attempt at inappropriate "contact" with children.

 

[Unite Our Nation]

A gay is simply a human who chooses to have sex with the same sex. Nothing more. A human who chooses to have sex with the opposite sex is a heterosexual. Yes, it is an action that makes you one or the other. That is the only difference in the two.

 

[Sihouette]

A gay is simply a human who chooses to have sex with the same sex. Nothing more. A human who chooses to have sex with the opposite sex is a heterosexual. Yes, it is an action that makes you one or the other. That is the only difference in the two.~Unite

On one level, the spiritual level, you are right. But you cannot ignore imprinted behaviors.

It's a fact that my billy goat, once his sexual preference was "set" via frustration in puberty, he had no interest in mounting females for release from that point on.

It is a very innate and deep fixation by the way. In that sense I agree with the gay perspective. We disagree from the age from which that fixation sprang however.

There are definitely examples of animals who are born hermaphrodite or with hormonal imbalances. But the frustration/shying factor at adolescence plays a much bigger part in my experience.

Think of it this way. You know how when baby birds are hatched, the first thing they see is "mother". You've heard the stories of a string of goslings following the rancher around like he is mommy? OK, well with sexuality, in puberty, it is like a birth of the sexual drive. The first thing they get sexual access to imprints the "object of sexual expression". And from then on, there isn't a team of wild horses that will tear that away from expressing themselves sexually that way. That's why child molesters are incurable. For some reason they sought sexual contact with children first, or had modeled for them "sexual contact between adults and children is love". And then the beast took on a life of its own. It's why we require them to register as offenders. We know they will reoffend if given half the chance.

We shouldn't underestimate the power of social modeling and sexual imprinting...a very dangerous cocktail if in the wrong hands....

 

[Unite Our Nation]

I appreciate your indepth explainations! Very powerful indeed.

So if what you say is true (which I do believe) then those that are predipositioned to murder, raping children, or stealing, then they are a "group" too, just like gays. Are they one day going to demand that their group be given special rights and acknowledgement?

 

[Sihouette]

Well...

There is NAMBLA. I was going to argue that you were reaching but...I remembered that there actually is an organization out there lobbying for compassion for men having sex with boys. So..?

I don't know.

I just think that we try to ignore basic animal drives and that the human behavioralists are far behind the animal ones in their understanding of how sexuality is formed in the mammalian mind. It is a cutting edge area of philosophical arts and biological science to be sure. Humans always try to set themselves above animals and I think that is a mistake when you're considering the most basic of all animal drives: sexual reproduction. I remember one biology teacher explaining how the gametes themselves evolved these complex body-shells to better their chances at replication. He said that properly, we are really gametes with a highly sophisticated and complex shell, of which the 'rational mind' is but one component, and that everything we do is shadowed with that basic drive to survive long enough to replicate ourselves. And in the case of mammals, to sometimes further the chance of survival of our genes (in our offspring) by setting them up for survival before we boot them out of the nest...to go on replicating our genes..

In the farm community, knowledge of the formation of animal sexuality is old hat, like I said. "Common sense". Day in and day out on the farm we watch a much more rapid version of mammalian development inasmuch as the animals reach sexual maturity in a matter of months (usually, except horses that can take up to a year or more). So we get to see many many examples and study how they behave. Our livelihoods depend on that keen observation actually. If you have, like I did, one prize goat for stud that you paid good dinero for suddenly take a fancy to males and won't mount females, you'd better get to the bottom of why that is and not make the same mistake twice.

It was my fault. I shouldn't have kept him frustrated for so long but I was waiting for the female I intended to breed him to, to get a little older, a little bigger so the pregnancy wouldn't be so hard on her.

Will murderers be lobbying? I don't know. Suffice it to say that homosexuality is far more benign on the scale of potential to cause harm to others, as long as it is between two consenting adult homosexuals who aren't praying on or trying to recruit youngsters by direct contact, or as in the case with their pleas to have gay marriage socially legitimized, praying on impressionable, socially learning youngsters by example.

 

[Unite Our Nation]

Your speak with a wealth of knowledge in this area Sih and I find it very interesting!

Yes, I was reaching on the murder group. But, it really is not out of question.

The information that you shared makes one leary of allowing gays to adopt small children and artificially have babies.

Did you see where a school in the northeast I believe, had young elementary (kindergarden I think) children sign a pledge about gays? No note home to parents beforehand. This would outrage me personally. I've always been very vocal about me raising my children the way I see fit...not how someone else sees fit.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Dr Chappell is understanably considered a biased source by virtue of having a son who is gay.
You do get that, right?

So anyone who has a gay family member is suspect? Anyone who has a Christian family member is also suspect? You can rule out damn near everybody with those two restrictions.

Besides, as a doctor, she will likely over-stress biology at the expense of neuropsychology, and she may not be the best person to diagnose on the evidence.

I appreciate people who will discount a source without even looking at it, that's called "invincible ignorance".

I've scanned the internet ... and I've yet to find a link presenting the gene (combination) for homosexuality.

Were such a genetic proof of sexual preference in conflict with genetalia in existence and thus ebraced by all genetic scientists, it would be all over the internet.
There is no genetic etiology discovered for homosexuality. There most likely never will be.

No one said we had all the answers, if you or anyone else had looked at either of the sources I supplied you wouldn't have to post things like this. Anybody can say "I searched the internet and couldn't find it," while specifically ignoring the sources supplied to them.

Which means they haven't substantiated their claims that homosexuality is a conscious choice.

We both intuitively know that the state of being homosexual is most certainly not a conscious choice.

Do you understand the difference between "proof" and "evidence" in sphere of science?

Which, as I'm sure you know, means nothing with regard to the validity of her presentation of the genetic etiology of homosexuality or whatever other guess she may make.

Except that I have presented evidence from two credible sources and no one else has presented any.

If a "non-gay" site hosted her presentation, she would still be the mother of a gay son and therefore biased in the matter.

In the absence of the discovery by genetic scientists of a gene (combination) for homosexuality, or other foundation for her conclusions, her presentation would be just as suspect now that we know of her bias no matter where she posts it, and she would still be a relatively unqualified doctor, not a genetic scientist.

One does not need to be a geneticist to know something about genetics and endocrinology. We know many things are influenced by genetics that we have yet to figure out the whole mechanism, once again you seem to not be aware of the difference between scientific evidence and proof. Think of this like the argument about evolution vs creationism, there is a great deal of scientific evidence for evolution--not proof, but there is none for creationism--neither evidence nor proof.

I don't know.

After all, a list without numbers and comparative percentages with references from trusted historical sources is mere useless anecdote ... and other debaters might wonder if it's contrived.

I don't have to contrive my evidence. Do you want sources? Or will you dismiss them without looking just like you have with the other two? Many of my sources are books because I read a lot and have a personal library of research materials--almost no one seems to read books anymore, everyone wants a sound-bite off the internet. Too bad, people end up being ignorant and bigoted because they simply don't know any better. Sad.

The overwhelming vast majority consider marriage to be a domestic partnership between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

Considering that's the long-standing time-honored cross-culturally traditional definition of marriage, it is understanable to conclude that the anecdotes you cite are at best microscopic percentage exceptions that most certainly can't be weighed equally against the overwhelming vast majority rule.

So it really is pretty easy to rule out anecdotal exceptions.

Yet, the only thing that has been presented by anyone but me is the very "anecdotal" evidence which you just ruled out. Hello? A large portion of the world has accepted and sanctioned gay relationships, only you have stated " at best microscopic percentage exceptions" but you haven't cited any sources to support your assertion. You have made a statement with no attempt to support it in any way--even Siho tells us about feedlots to shore up her imginary logic. Haven't you in your statement above ruled out the very evidence you just presented in your comment "at best microscopic percentage exceptions"?

Appeal to "A"uthority is irrelevant.

Not true when that "authority" is the basis for the problem. The Bible does calls for our deaths.

What matters is the historical overwhelming majority through the ages that have brought us to the modern-day definition of marriage as a man and a woman as husband and wife.

Horse-puckey, I at least cited a real person whose life contradicts your completely unsupported anecdotal statement bolded above and the one in your previous paragraph above (also bolded).

 

[Sihouette]

Back to the Bible-thumping eh? There's nothing like safe ground.

That's why this debate should fall in the area of arts and science. Religion has no place except to siderail otherwise probing debate.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Part 2

That changes in socioeconomics have comparatively recently allowed father, mother and kids to live more often alone in the form of the "nuclear family" remains irrelevant.

No, it's not irrelevant, you are arguing that things cannot change because we've always done it this way. And I am pointing out a similar instance in which things were done one way for a long time BUT CHANGED AS THE WORLD CHANGED. The cultural and socio-economic world has changed and you are trying to say that everything else can change but not your narrow version of marriage.

That for millenia many families may have sometimes lived under one roof doesn't change the fact that each family was initially composed of a mother, a father and their kids as a segregate unit, until either death or divorce altered that structure, and it doesn't matter how many other family and non-family members lifed with them, as only that father and that mother were, if married, married to each other, and to no one else.

Your statement is not only unsupported by anything but your statement, but it's also wrong as noted in a vast number of texts down through history. One of which is the Bible, now you wouldn't take Dr. Chappell's word for anything because she's got a gay son, but will you dismiss the Bible because God has gay people on in His Universe?

Well ... no it shouldn't ...... But here equal protection under the law is inapplicable with respect to the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

Indeed, there is no "equal protection" for cat owners that says they can invade and disrupt a dog show to present their cats.

Definitive propriety must be respected with regard to application of the law.

That was pretty convolute, but the bottom line is that dogs and cats are different species, not consenting adults, taxpayers, nor citizens of the US. Gay people are all of those things and thus are protected under the equal protection clause. The only difference between gay and straight people is their sexual orientation--which, as you have noted, cannot be PROVEN to be from any single cause--therefore, since you have no PROOF, how is it that you are willing to support laws that disenfrachise them? You've ruled out anecdotal evidence while at the same time giving only anecdotal evidence that your "unchanging marriage" position is accurate. You have refused to even look at my non-anecdotal evidence, so in effect you are saying that your opinion with no support is correct and you will neither support your position nor examine anything that confronts your position.

First of all, it's not about the churches, it's about humanity's respect for definitive propriety.

Please provide your source for a definiton of this term.

Second, sexual orientation is also irrelevant, as marriage rightly cannot be denied on the basis of sexual orientation.

But it is being done and you are supporting it by refusing to look beyond your narrow position--a position you have not supported in anyway.

Marriage rightly with respect to definitive propriety can only be denied if the participants are not "a man and a woman as husband and wife", regardless of the sexual orientation of either ... though many would argue that, unless one or both were in denial about their sexual orientation, which does happen, it is likely that sexual orientation follows naturally heterosexually in definitively appropriate marriage.

Which only supports my point that if you have people of religion on both sides of this issue then you've negated religion as an issue in the matter.

Once again you have used what amounts to a semantic confection to shore up a point for which we have nothing but your statement to rely on. You give no sources, no references, and you refuse to look at any. Having warring religious factions in no way negates their influence on the issue, it just shows how much doubt there is in the validity of the religious arguments. Schmooze it anyway you like, but the fact is that the Bible is translated to say that we should be killed and for the last 600 years they have killed hundreds of thousands of us.

Indeed, this is not a religious issue from any perspective.

Indeed this is almost entirely a religious tradition issue, according to you (with no evidence) everyone has always done it this way (unimportant microscopic exception-- noted by you with no support either) and therefore we have to keep doing it this way.

It's a simple matter of the overwhelming vast majority's acceptance of the time-honored, long-standing, cross-culturally traditional definition of marriage being a domestic partnership between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

The California Supreme Court will either appeal to that definition or revise it.

Being the political animals I believe them to be, their decision will not be made based on rational respect for reason and common sense, but on political pressure.

And that is sad, no matter which way they decide.

And we come to the end in which you state that Might is Right, but acknowledge that it's a sad truth.

Are you really a professional counselor like someone posted?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I appreciate your indepth explainations! Very powerful indeed.

So if what you say is true (which I do believe) then those that are predipositioned to murder, raping children, or stealing, then they are a "group" too, just like gays. Are they one day going to demand that their group be given special rights and acknowledgement?

If you are convinced by her posting (with nothing to support it) then I predict that you could have a great future in the fields of phlogiston and phrenology.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Back to the Bible-thumping eh? There's nothing like safe ground.

That's why this debate should fall in the area of arts and science. Religion has no place except to siderail otherwise probing debate.

So, Siho, in post 131 you called me out, demanded sources, and I supplied them. How about you? Got sources outside of the feedlot or the farrowing cage? What about that major in biology? It's probably good that people don't look at the sources I supplied, there is nothing so dangerous to ignorance as information.

Hey, you're not the only person on this website, I try to gear my presentation to the person it's written to, you claim not to be a Bible-beater, then that's fine with me, but you claimed to have majored in biology too and we all know about that one.

 

[top gun]

Do you mean, a very, very small percentage of homosexuals who will admit they've been molested or have undergone regressive therapy to ferret out that they're acting out against the opposite gender that once abused them in other ways?

That I will agree to...


Then when you factor in that many victims of molestation have blacked-out memory of the abuse...then you really get into some mired statistics..

Things are not as cut and dried as "homosexuals are genetically predisposed.". I say genetic predisposition, if it exists at all, occurs in the vast minority of cases of homosexuality. It's wishful thinking to try to justify compulsive behavior as a result of a childhood trauma as "genetic".

Truthfully... and I'm not trying to be picky here... but your "animals can be tricked into being gay so humans can too" was a better argument and it was way way out there on it's own.

Gays are gays because of "blacked out molestation". Think about how many people in the world both male & female are gay? Do those numbers really add up in your mind... because they really really don't in anyway whatsoever.

A person would be just as likey... probably more likely to turn out a major gay basher if that happend...

UH-OH... sorry.