Same-sex couples begin marrying

My opinion? My off the record opinion that embodies my dislike of homosexuality? A summary:

I think its a waste; a sign of blatent waste and excess. Its like the guy who owns a car for every day of the week, except a homosexual doesn't nesscessarily have the money, prestige, power, or influence to lord over you (but even this is a flawed analogy).
Instead he increasingly has political agenda that involves tactics first successfully used by various fascists (and later the communists); developed in the Western World by fascists and deployed in the hiccup of universial suffrage.



My official debate is best summed up like this

My debate, the one proven in this thread:
The essence is that we are free to choose our behavior. In order to empirically study homosexuality we have to define it as a behavior, which is already the definition of it. Who you feel attracted to is a moot point, and any other chemicals in your body (i.e. emotions) are not important because no matter how we feel we have complete control over our actions, whether or not we exercise it.

I think the issue needs to be pushed. We need to clarify that homosexuality is a choice. From there, with it established that you can choose, we can then sort the issue out.

--------------

Homosexuality is a choice.

Why is it a choice?

Well, by defining the concept of homosexuality we are setting a definition. One that, if it is to carry any real, scientific weight, has to be based on the empirical (what we can observe). That's behavior. We can't use 'I felt attracted to him,' or,'I felt like a man in a woman's body'; these aren't objective or measurable to a reliable extent.

Can you tell me, to a reliable, concise, and accurate degree, how much you love your significant other? How physically turned on they make you? You can't not in a way I can use to judge every other member of that gender. But you can describe behaviors, can't you? Because behaviors are visible and measurable.

So, we can define homosexuality wherever on the spectrum of behaviors (kissing, hand holding, fondling, sodomy, w.e. you choose). Now, once you engage in the agreed behavior (and for the sake of this exercise let's put it at fondling or better) you are engaging in homosexual behavior and thus scientifically definable as a homosexual at that moment.

Now, did anyone force you to engage in such behavior? No? Well what if they had a gun to your head and said they would kill you if you didn't? Then are you forced?

This is where Aristotle's idea of indeterminism and free will come into play. Don't worry; we've been using the foundations of his works in the formation of our ideals almost since they were first put forth.

Indeterminism and Aristotle

The gist of it is that, even with a gun you are not forced to do anything. You choose to.

You chose to make the decisions you make today, and they shape tomorrow, in which you are free to choose again your own decisions. Who you are is a direct result of who you were and what choices you made.

"But gay is who I am!"

No. Being a gay is not who you are. It's your self identity. You identify with homosexuality, and thus you attempt to meet that schema (mental image) in aspects of your daily life. You choose to believe you are gay, you choose to engage in gay behavior; you chose to be gay by definition.

Okay, so far so good.
But, what about genetics? The gay genes made me this way!

Aside from skirting responsibility again, this is not true. For all the research done, there is no identified gay gene. I doubt there will be. However, it has been shown that there are genetic predispositions towards homosexuality. Anyone familiar with cancer or diabetes knows what that means, and I use these examples because they are the most prominent in our society. You have an increased likelihood of being at risk for homosexual tendencies.

Like any biological factor, the environment plays a fairly large role in it too. If you take a child from a family known to be tall and malnourish it chances are it will not grow to their full (height) potential. If you take a child with a predisposition towards homosexuality and fill him with a high level of sexual anxiety (caused by either extreme sexual repression or over-exposure to sex) then you are exasperating his risk, just like sitting in a tanning booth for a few hours a week will increase the risk of skin cancer.

This is stupid. You say I'm gay because of my actions and not how I feel? My feelings are chemical reactions and thus scientific! I feel attracted to men, so I'm gay, I can't help it! Anyone can choose to go out and get sodomized! Do you choose not to be gay? When did you realize you felt attracted to men?"

The first of a long line of emotional appeals laid bare; and attacking me personally to boot! Like any good scientist would do, we define homosexuality not off subjective emotions or feelings of attraction (which are indeed chemicals, triggered by environmental conditioning. In other words, your body releases chemicals because of signals from your mind, which was conditioned by your experience) but off of empirical and measurable behavior.

We explain how free will works, and how freedom of expression works. You were not forced to be gay. You are not guaranteed to be gay by genetics, the same way that genetics cannot force you to be creative or force you to be aggressive. Personality traits are conditioned after (and before) birth, although there are dispositions for them in the genes.

We explain that they are simply appealing to emotion. Society is capable of being swayed by emotion, and the media tends to support this with filtered reports only conveying one side of a story. But reality is objective, not subject to emotional appeal. Science simply attempts to follow.

But you were there for this, trololoing away as usual. I personally find you less bearable not because you are gay, but because you insist on trolling around instead of stating opinions in a rational manner. Never mind fact, just opinion I'd be happy with; if it was within constraint. You act like a 13 year old and then get pissed others treat you like one. Or even better when others act in the exact same manner as you. ILA mostly seems to respond to you in the same way as you him, just he's a bit nastier and raw.


Throughout life one must occasionally deal with those he doesnt nesscessarily agree with, and I believe it is your right to define yourself gay. but isnt it time you stopped trying to make people accept and even exhault your fagdom? Its our right not to.

I see... you're just another ignorant, uneducated bigot. Pick up your marbles and go home to mommy. You're not smart enpugh for this playground.
 
Not a word you type phases me, Whiz Kid. You haven't the intellectual balls to discuss anything. Finding and quoting obscure "studies" made to be biased is cowardly.

Emotional appeals, Howey. I find it more and more tempting to terminate attempts at meaningful communication with you. Your only defence is to whine about my sources? I don't need sources to prove that you have no debate, no real position set up.

I'll tell you like I've told anyone else who denied the legitimacy of my arguement. Prove it. Prove to me my arguement is flawed or otherwise wrong. Forget my studies, prove to me this

The essence is that we are free to choose our behavior. In order to empirically study homosexuality we have to define it as a behavior, which is already the definition of it. Who you feel attracted to is a moot point, and any other chemicals in your body (i.e. emotions) are not important because no matter how we feel we have complete control over our actions, whether or not we exercise it.

I think the issue needs to be pushed. We need to clarify that homosexuality is a choice. From there, with it established that you can choose, we can then sort the issue out.

--------------

Homosexuality is a choice.

Why is it a choice?

Well, by defining the concept of homosexuality we are setting a definition. One that, if it is to carry any real, scientific weight, has to be based on the empirical (what we can observe). That's behavior. We can't use 'I felt attracted to him,' or,'I felt like a man in a woman's body'; these aren't objective or measurable to a reliable extent.

Can you tell me, to a reliable, concise, and accurate degree, how much you love your significant other? How physically turned on they make you? You can't not in a way I can use to judge every other member of that gender. But you can describe behaviors, can't you? Because behaviors are visible and measurable.

So, we can define homosexuality wherever on the spectrum of behaviors (kissing, hand holding, fondling, sodomy, w.e. you choose). Now, once you engage in the agreed behavior (and for the sake of this exercise let's put it at fondling or better) you are engaging in homosexual behavior and thus scientifically definable as a homosexual at that moment.

Now, did anyone force you to engage in such behavior? No? Well what if they had a gun to your head and said they would kill you if you didn't? Then are you forced?

This is where Aristotle's idea of indeterminism and free will come into play. Don't worry; we've been using the foundations of his works in the formation of our ideals almost since they were first put forth.

Indeterminism and Aristotle

The gist of it is that, even with a gun you are not forced to do anything. You choose to.

You chose to make the decisions you make today, and they shape tomorrow, in which you are free to choose again your own decisions. Who you are is a direct result of who you were and what choices you made.

"But gay is who I am!"

No. Being a gay is not who you are. It's your self identity. You identify with homosexuality, and thus you attempt to meet that schema (mental image) in aspects of your daily life. You choose to believe you are gay, you choose to engage in gay behavior; you chose to be gay by definition.

Okay, so far so good.
But, what about genetics? The gay genes made me this way!

Aside from skirting responsibility again, this is not true. For all the research done, there is no identified gay gene. I doubt there will be. However, it has been shown that there are genetic predispositions towards homosexuality. Anyone familiar with cancer or diabetes knows what that means, and I use these examples because they are the most prominent in our society. You have an increased likelihood of being at risk for homosexual tendencies.

Like any biological factor, the environment plays a fairly large role in it too. If you take a child from a family known to be tall and malnourish it chances are it will not grow to their full (height) potential. If you take a child with a predisposition towards homosexuality and fill him with a high level of sexual anxiety (caused by either extreme sexual repression or over-exposure to sex) then you are exasperating his risk, just like sitting in a tanning booth for a few hours a week will increase the risk of skin cancer.

This is stupid. You say I'm gay because of my actions and not how I feel? My feelings are chemical reactions and thus scientific! I feel attracted to men, so I'm gay, I can't help it! Anyone can choose to go out and get sodomized! Do you choose not to be gay? When did you realize you felt attracted to men?"

The first of a long line of emotional appeals laid bare; and attacking me personally to boot! Like any good scientist would do, we define homosexuality not off subjective emotions or feelings of attraction (which are indeed chemicals, triggered by environmental conditioning. In other words, your body releases chemicals because of signals from your mind, which was conditioned by your experience) but off of empirical and measurable behavior.

We explain how free will works, and how freedom of expression works. You were not forced to be gay. You are not guaranteed to be gay by genetics, the same way that genetics cannot force you to be creative or force you to be aggressive. Personality traits are conditioned after (and before) birth, although there are dispositions for them in the genes.

We explain that they are simply appealing to emotion. Society is capable of being swayed by emotion, and the media tends to support this with filtered reports only conveying one side of a story. But reality is objective, not subject to emotional appeal. Science simply attempts to follow.

is wrong. Go on, Howey. This also applies to his cheerleaders, or anyone who may come to actually debate. The rules really arent that complex. Use logic and sound debate to prove your point, or concede defeat.
 
Emotional appeals, Howey. I find it more and more tempting to terminate attempts at meaningful communication with you. Your only defence is to whine about my sources? I don't need sources to prove that you have no debate, no real position set up.

I'll tell you like I've told anyone else who denied the legitimacy of my arguement. Prove it. Prove to me my arguement is flawed or otherwise wrong. Forget my studies, prove to me this

The essence is that we are free to choose our behavior. In order to empirically study homosexuality we have to define it as a behavior, which is already the definition of it. Who you feel attracted to is a moot point, and any other chemicals in your body (i.e. emotions) are not important because no matter how we feel we have complete control over our actions, whether or not we exercise it.

I think the issue needs to be pushed. We need to clarify that homosexuality is a choice. From there, with it established that you can choose, we can then sort the issue out.

--------------

Homosexuality is a choice.

Why is it a choice?

Well, by defining the concept of homosexuality we are setting a definition. One that, if it is to carry any real, scientific weight, has to be based on the empirical (what we can observe). That's behavior. We can't use 'I felt attracted to him,' or,'I felt like a man in a woman's body'; these aren't objective or measurable to a reliable extent.

Can you tell me, to a reliable, concise, and accurate degree, how much you love your significant other? How physically turned on they make you? You can't not in a way I can use to judge every other member of that gender. But you can describe behaviors, can't you? Because behaviors are visible and measurable.

So, we can define homosexuality wherever on the spectrum of behaviors (kissing, hand holding, fondling, sodomy, w.e. you choose). Now, once you engage in the agreed behavior (and for the sake of this exercise let's put it at fondling or better) you are engaging in homosexual behavior and thus scientifically definable as a homosexual at that moment.

Now, did anyone force you to engage in such behavior? No? Well what if they had a gun to your head and said they would kill you if you didn't? Then are you forced?

This is where Aristotle's idea of indeterminism and free will come into play. Don't worry; we've been using the foundations of his works in the formation of our ideals almost since they were first put forth.

Indeterminism and Aristotle

The gist of it is that, even with a gun you are not forced to do anything. You choose to.

You chose to make the decisions you make today, and they shape tomorrow, in which you are free to choose again your own decisions. Who you are is a direct result of who you were and what choices you made.

"But gay is who I am!"

No. Being a gay is not who you are. It's your self identity. You identify with homosexuality, and thus you attempt to meet that schema (mental image) in aspects of your daily life. You choose to believe you are gay, you choose to engage in gay behavior; you chose to be gay by definition.

Okay, so far so good.
But, what about genetics? The gay genes made me this way!

Aside from skirting responsibility again, this is not true. For all the research done, there is no identified gay gene. I doubt there will be. However, it has been shown that there are genetic predispositions towards homosexuality. Anyone familiar with cancer or diabetes knows what that means, and I use these examples because they are the most prominent in our society. You have an increased likelihood of being at risk for homosexual tendencies.

Like any biological factor, the environment plays a fairly large role in it too. If you take a child from a family known to be tall and malnourish it chances are it will not grow to their full (height) potential. If you take a child with a predisposition towards homosexuality and fill him with a high level of sexual anxiety (caused by either extreme sexual repression or over-exposure to sex) then you are exasperating his risk, just like sitting in a tanning booth for a few hours a week will increase the risk of skin cancer.

This is stupid. You say I'm gay because of my actions and not how I feel? My feelings are chemical reactions and thus scientific! I feel attracted to men, so I'm gay, I can't help it! Anyone can choose to go out and get sodomized! Do you choose not to be gay? When did you realize you felt attracted to men?"

The first of a long line of emotional appeals laid bare; and attacking me personally to boot! Like any good scientist would do, we define homosexuality not off subjective emotions or feelings of attraction (which are indeed chemicals, triggered by environmental conditioning. In other words, your body releases chemicals because of signals from your mind, which was conditioned by your experience) but off of empirical and measurable behavior.

We explain how free will works, and how freedom of expression works. You were not forced to be gay. You are not guaranteed to be gay by genetics, the same way that genetics cannot force you to be creative or force you to be aggressive. Personality traits are conditioned after (and before) birth, although there are dispositions for them in the genes.

We explain that they are simply appealing to emotion. Society is capable of being swayed by emotion, and the media tends to support this with filtered reports only conveying one side of a story. But reality is objective, not subject to emotional appeal. Science simply attempts to follow.

is wrong. Go on, Howey. This also applies to his cheerleaders, or anyone who may come to actually debate. The rules really arent that complex. Use logic and sound debate to prove your point, or concede defeat.

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.co...ice-set-at-birth-report/news/2011/06/02/21264
 

Thank you for the response.

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/category/religion

This is their 'religion' page.

15 - the number of times the word 'gay' is mentioned
11 - the number of times the word 'rights' is mentioned
9 - the number of times 'God' is mentioned
6 - the number of times the word 'fag' is mentioned
1 - the number of times 'religion' is mentioned

This site seems as biased as Upworthy (left) or the 'federal observer' (right) are. I wouldnt put my word behind anything I found here not also found on another (unbiased) site, the same treatment the extreme right sites get.


http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

I have my own querrels with the direction of psychology in general, but nothing on this page seems to contradict what I have said about homosexuality being a definitive choice. This simply seems to state what I have said in a more supportive ad fluffy way; more pc like.

How do people know if they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual?

According to current scientific and professional understanding, the core attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence. These patterns of emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction may arise without any prior sexual experience. People can be celibate and still know their sexual orientation-–be it lesbian, gay, bisexual, or heterosexual.

Different lesbian, gay, and bisexual people have very different experiences regarding their sexual orientation. Some people know that they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual for a long time before they actually pursue relationships with other people. Some people engage in sexual activity (with same-sex and/or other-sex partners) before assigning a clear label to their sexual orientation. Prejudice and discrimination make it difficult for many people to come to terms with their sexual orientation identities, so claiming a lesbian, gay, or bisexual identity may be a slow process.

What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

The APA knows better than to take a hard stance on something not definitively supported, and this article is more about the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder than whether or not it is a choice.
 
My opinion? My off the record opinion that embodies my dislike of homosexuality? A summary:

I think its a waste; a sign of blatent waste and excess. Its like the guy who owns a car for every day of the week, except a homosexual doesn't nesscessarily have the money, prestige, power, or influence to lord over you (but even this is a flawed analogy).
Instead he increasingly has political agenda that involves tactics first successfully used by various fascists (and later the communists); developed in the Western World by fascists and deployed in the hiccup of universial suffrage.



My official debate is best summed up like this

My debate, the one proven in this thread:
The essence is that we are free to choose our behavior. In order to empirically study homosexuality we have to define it as a behavior, which is already the definition of it. Who you feel attracted to is a moot point, and any other chemicals in your body (i.e. emotions) are not important because no matter how we feel we have complete control over our actions, whether or not we exercise it.

I think the issue needs to be pushed. We need to clarify that homosexuality is a choice. From there, with it established that you can choose, we can then sort the issue out.

--------------

Homosexuality is a choice.

Why is it a choice?

Well, by defining the concept of homosexuality we are setting a definition. One that, if it is to carry any real, scientific weight, has to be based on the empirical (what we can observe). That's behavior. We can't use 'I felt attracted to him,' or,'I felt like a man in a woman's body'; these aren't objective or measurable to a reliable extent.

Can you tell me, to a reliable, concise, and accurate degree, how much you love your significant other? How physically turned on they make you? You can't not in a way I can use to judge every other member of that gender. But you can describe behaviors, can't you? Because behaviors are visible and measurable.

So, we can define homosexuality wherever on the spectrum of behaviors (kissing, hand holding, fondling, sodomy, w.e. you choose). Now, once you engage in the agreed behavior (and for the sake of this exercise let's put it at fondling or better) you are engaging in homosexual behavior and thus scientifically definable as a homosexual at that moment.

Now, did anyone force you to engage in such behavior? No? Well what if they had a gun to your head and said they would kill you if you didn't? Then are you forced?

This is where Aristotle's idea of indeterminism and free will come into play. Don't worry; we've been using the foundations of his works in the formation of our ideals almost since they were first put forth.

Indeterminism and Aristotle

The gist of it is that, even with a gun you are not forced to do anything. You choose to.

You chose to make the decisions you make today, and they shape tomorrow, in which you are free to choose again your own decisions. Who you are is a direct result of who you were and what choices you made.

"But gay is who I am!"

No. Being a gay is not who you are. It's your self identity. You identify with homosexuality, and thus you attempt to meet that schema (mental image) in aspects of your daily life. You choose to believe you are gay, you choose to engage in gay behavior; you chose to be gay by definition.

Okay, so far so good.
But, what about genetics? The gay genes made me this way!

Aside from skirting responsibility again, this is not true. For all the research done, there is no identified gay gene. I doubt there will be. However, it has been shown that there are genetic predispositions towards homosexuality. Anyone familiar with cancer or diabetes knows what that means, and I use these examples because they are the most prominent in our society. You have an increased likelihood of being at risk for homosexual tendencies.

Like any biological factor, the environment plays a fairly large role in it too. If you take a child from a family known to be tall and malnourish it chances are it will not grow to their full (height) potential. If you take a child with a predisposition towards homosexuality and fill him with a high level of sexual anxiety (caused by either extreme sexual repression or over-exposure to sex) then you are exasperating his risk, just like sitting in a tanning booth for a few hours a week will increase the risk of skin cancer.

This is stupid. You say I'm gay because of my actions and not how I feel? My feelings are chemical reactions and thus scientific! I feel attracted to men, so I'm gay, I can't help it! Anyone can choose to go out and get sodomized! Do you choose not to be gay? When did you realize you felt attracted to men?"

The first of a long line of emotional appeals laid bare; and attacking me personally to boot! Like any good scientist would do, we define homosexuality not off subjective emotions or feelings of attraction (which are indeed chemicals, triggered by environmental conditioning. In other words, your body releases chemicals because of signals from your mind, which was conditioned by your experience) but off of empirical and measurable behavior.

We explain how free will works, and how freedom of expression works. You were not forced to be gay. You are not guaranteed to be gay by genetics, the same way that genetics cannot force you to be creative or force you to be aggressive. Personality traits are conditioned after (and before) birth, although there are dispositions for them in the genes.

We explain that they are simply appealing to emotion. Society is capable of being swayed by emotion, and the media tends to support this with filtered reports only conveying one side of a story. But reality is objective, not subject to emotional appeal. Science simply attempts to follow.

But you were there for this, trololoing away as usual. I personally find you less bearable not because you are gay, but because you insist on trolling around instead of stating opinions in a rational manner. Never mind fact, just opinion I'd be happy with; if it was within constraint. You act like a 13 year old and then get pissed others treat you like one. Or even better when others act in the exact same manner as you. ILA mostly seems to respond to you in the same way as you him, just he's a bit nastier and raw.


Throughout life one must occasionally deal with those he doesnt nesscessarily agree with, and I believe it is your right to define yourself gay. but isnt it time you stopped trying to make people accept and even exhault your fagdom? Its our right not to.

Emotional appeals, Howey. I find it more and more tempting to terminate attempts at meaningful communication with you. Your only defence is to whine about my sources? I don't need sources to prove that you have no debate, no real position set up.

I'll tell you like I've told anyone else who denied the legitimacy of my arguement. Prove it. Prove to me my arguement is flawed or otherwise wrong. Forget my studies, prove to me this

The essence is that we are free to choose our behavior. In order to empirically study homosexuality we have to define it as a behavior, which is already the definition of it. Who you feel attracted to is a moot point, and any other chemicals in your body (i.e. emotions) are not important because no matter how we feel we have complete control over our actions, whether or not we exercise it.

I think the issue needs to be pushed. We need to clarify that homosexuality is a choice. From there, with it established that you can choose, we can then sort the issue out.

--------------

Homosexuality is a choice.

Why is it a choice?

Well, by defining the concept of homosexuality we are setting a definition. One that, if it is to carry any real, scientific weight, has to be based on the empirical (what we can observe). That's behavior. We can't use 'I felt attracted to him,' or,'I felt like a man in a woman's body'; these aren't objective or measurable to a reliable extent.

Can you tell me, to a reliable, concise, and accurate degree, how much you love your significant other? How physically turned on they make you? You can't not in a way I can use to judge every other member of that gender. But you can describe behaviors, can't you? Because behaviors are visible and measurable.

So, we can define homosexuality wherever on the spectrum of behaviors (kissing, hand holding, fondling, sodomy, w.e. you choose). Now, once you engage in the agreed behavior (and for the sake of this exercise let's put it at fondling or better) you are engaging in homosexual behavior and thus scientifically definable as a homosexual at that moment.

Now, did anyone force you to engage in such behavior? No? Well what if they had a gun to your head and said they would kill you if you didn't? Then are you forced?

This is where Aristotle's idea of indeterminism and free will come into play. Don't worry; we've been using the foundations of his works in the formation of our ideals almost since they were first put forth.

Indeterminism and Aristotle

The gist of it is that, even with a gun you are not forced to do anything. You choose to.

You chose to make the decisions you make today, and they shape tomorrow, in which you are free to choose again your own decisions. Who you are is a direct result of who you were and what choices you made.

"But gay is who I am!"

No. Being a gay is not who you are. It's your self identity. You identify with homosexuality, and thus you attempt to meet that schema (mental image) in aspects of your daily life. You choose to believe you are gay, you choose to engage in gay behavior; you chose to be gay by definition.

Okay, so far so good.
But, what about genetics? The gay genes made me this way!

Aside from skirting responsibility again, this is not true. For all the research done, there is no identified gay gene. I doubt there will be. However, it has been shown that there are genetic predispositions towards homosexuality. Anyone familiar with cancer or diabetes knows what that means, and I use these examples because they are the most prominent in our society. You have an increased likelihood of being at risk for homosexual tendencies.

Like any biological factor, the environment plays a fairly large role in it too. If you take a child from a family known to be tall and malnourish it chances are it will not grow to their full (height) potential. If you take a child with a predisposition towards homosexuality and fill him with a high level of sexual anxiety (caused by either extreme sexual repression or over-exposure to sex) then you are exasperating his risk, just like sitting in a tanning booth for a few hours a week will increase the risk of skin cancer.

This is stupid. You say I'm gay because of my actions and not how I feel? My feelings are chemical reactions and thus scientific! I feel attracted to men, so I'm gay, I can't help it! Anyone can choose to go out and get sodomized! Do you choose not to be gay? When did you realize you felt attracted to men?"

The first of a long line of emotional appeals laid bare; and attacking me personally to boot! Like any good scientist would do, we define homosexuality not off subjective emotions or feelings of attraction (which are indeed chemicals, triggered by environmental conditioning. In other words, your body releases chemicals because of signals from your mind, which was conditioned by your experience) but off of empirical and measurable behavior.

We explain how free will works, and how freedom of expression works. You were not forced to be gay. You are not guaranteed to be gay by genetics, the same way that genetics cannot force you to be creative or force you to be aggressive. Personality traits are conditioned after (and before) birth, although there are dispositions for them in the genes.

We explain that they are simply appealing to emotion. Society is capable of being swayed by emotion, and the media tends to support this with filtered reports only conveying one side of a story. But reality is objective, not subject to emotional appeal. Science simply attempts to follow.

is wrong. Go on, Howey. This also applies to his cheerleaders, or anyone who may come to actually debate. The rules really arent that complex. Use logic and sound debate to prove your point, or concede defeat.

Whoa there Nellie!

I just realized what the Whiz Kid is up to. Since there's no source for his bigoted words, could it be that he's using his own college writings as proof that homosexuality is a choice?

REALLY?


LOL...
 
Thank you for the response.

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/category/religion

This is their 'religion' page.

15 - the number of times the word 'gay' is mentioned
11 - the number of times the word 'rights' is mentioned
9 - the number of times 'God' is mentioned
6 - the number of times the word 'fag' is mentioned
1 - the number of times 'religion' is mentioned

This site seems as biased as Upworthy (left) or the 'federal observer' (right) are. I wouldnt put my word behind anything I found here not also found on another (unbiased) site, the same treatment the extreme right sites get.


http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

I have my own querrels with the direction of psychology in general, but nothing on this page seems to contradict what I have said about homosexuality being a definitive choice. This simply seems to state what I have said in a more supportive ad fluffy way; more pc like.

How do people know if they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual?

According to current scientific and professional understanding, the core attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence. These patterns of emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction may arise without any prior sexual experience. People can be celibate and still know their sexual orientation-–be it lesbian, gay, bisexual, or heterosexual.

Different lesbian, gay, and bisexual people have very different experiences regarding their sexual orientation. Some people know that they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual for a long time before they actually pursue relationships with other people. Some people engage in sexual activity (with same-sex and/or other-sex partners) before assigning a clear label to their sexual orientation. Prejudice and discrimination make it difficult for many people to come to terms with their sexual orientation identities, so claiming a lesbian, gay, or bisexual identity may be a slow process.

What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

The APA knows better than to take a hard stance on something not definitively supported, and this article is more about the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder than whether or not it is a choice.

EXCEPT THAT IT STATES IT IS NOT A CHOICE, selective reading much?
 
EXCEPT THAT IT STATES IT IS NOT A CHOICE, selective reading much?

How do people know if they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual?

According to current scientific and professional understanding, the core attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence. These patterns of emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction may arise without any prior sexual experience. People can be celibate and still know their sexual orientation-–be it lesbian, gay, bisexual, or heterosexual.

Different lesbian, gay, and bisexual people have very different experiences regarding their sexual orientation. Some people know that they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual for a long time before they actually pursue relationships with other people. Some people engage in sexual activity (with same-sex and/or other-sex partners) before assigning a clear label to their sexual orientation. Prejudice and discrimination make it difficult for many people to come to terms with their sexual orientation identities, so claiming a lesbian, gay, or bisexual identity may be a slow process.

What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

Mayhap you missed the word sensed. attention to detail, ma'me.
 
Whoa there Nellie!

I just realized what the Whiz Kid is up to. Since there's no source for his bigoted words, could it be that he's using his own college writings as proof that homosexuality is a choice?

REALLY?


LOL...

I'm done with you Howey. I get this is a passionate issue for you, but come back with some real ammo or stay away from the real discussions. Now you're only floundering around to save face and acting for your liberal friends.
 
I'm done with you Howey. I get this is a passionate issue for you, but come back with some real ammo or stay away from the real discussions. Now you're only floundering around to save face and acting for your liberal friends.

Oh, brother...
 
Bawhahahaha, whoosh over your head

Would you like me to explain what they mean?

Do I really have to explain that the phrase
most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
is equatable to 'they felt like they had no option'.

Do I have to draw an analogy to the man who kills another in a blood feud, who felt he had no option, that he was honor bound? Of course he did, and of course homosexuals do.

Do I have to explain that thats apolitical move on their part; that they are saying, we can't prove its not a choice, but we can't say its not a choice without pissing some people off".

Its the science of rhetoric.

With all due respect, unless you have serious retorts for me, I feel we are done here as well.
 
"Potential for homosexual response is prevalent and genetic," Santtila P et. al.; Department of Psychology, Abo Akademi University.

"Genetic investigations provide strong evidence for a heritable component to male and female sexual orientation," Rahman Q et. al.; School of Psychology, University of East London.

"Genetic research using family and twin methodologies has produced consistent evidence that genes influence sexual orientation," Mustanski BS et. al.; Department of Psychology, Indiana University.

"The survival of a human predisposition for homosexuality can be explained by sexual orientation being a polygenetic trait that is influenced by a number of genes," Miller EM.; University of New Orleans.

"Human sexual orientation has a heritable component," Pillard RC et. al.; Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine.
Source(s):
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?i…
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/n…
http://www.livescience.com/health/080617…
http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Pregna…
 
1. All four of your links were bad. 404'd.



Human sexual orientation has a heritable component
For all the research done, there is no identified gay gene. I doubt there will be. However, it has been shown that there are genetic predispositions towards homosexuality.

The survival of a human predisposition for homosexuality can be explained by sexual orientation being a polygenetic trait that is influenced by a number of genes
A theory. Much like what I have.

Genetic research using family and twin methodologies has produced consistent evidence that genes influence sexual orientation
This has actually been my experience. Almost all twin studies seem to support at least a 1/3 nature factor. Of course the twins tend to be raised in similar conditions, and the other 2/3 . . .

Potential for homosexual response is prevalent and genetic

The word potential is in the title. What does 'response' mean?

- - - - - - - - - -

All your doing is throwing links at me. These provide little in the way of debate. Besides, I'm not saying genetics have no components. Im saying they cant predict homosexuality reliably enough to call them gay genes. They at best only affect predispositions. Nature and Nuture.
 
1. All four of your links were bad. 404'd.




For all the research done, there is no identified gay gene. I doubt there will be. However, it has been shown that there are genetic predispositions towards homosexuality.


A theory. Much like what I have.


This has actually been my experience. Almost all twin studies seem to support at least a 1/3 nature factor. Of course the twins tend to be raised in similar conditions, and the other 2/3 . . .



The word potential is in the title.

- - - - - - - - - -

All your doing is throwing links at me. These provide little in the way of debate. Besides, I'm not saying genetics have no components. Im saying they cant predict homosexuality reliably enough to call them gay genes. They at est only affect predispositions. Nature and Nuture

All you are doing is twisting things to meet your opinions.
 
:rolleyes:

I'm pointing out that these studies do not say, specificly, GAY GENES PROVEN! ONLY GENETICS AFFECTS HOMSEXUALITY RATES!

Until they do words like potential and heretible and other sneaky little words like that are only suggesting a correlation.

See?

suggest=imply, not prove

correlation=possible link, not causation
 
I'm done with you Howey. I get this is a passionate issue for you, but come back with some real ammo or stay away from the real discussions. Now you're only floundering around to save face and acting for your liberal friends.

Tell the class there, pretty boy Pisskop-the-Lonely...

DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT JUST USE A COLLEGE PAPER OF YOURS AS PROOF OF A THEORY?


(PSST...I already know the answer)

Would you like me to explain what they mean?
With all due respect, unless you have serious retorts for me, I feel we are done here as well.

Talk about running off...

babyb.gif
 
Tell the class there, pretty boy Pisskop-the-Lonely...

DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT JUST USE A COLLEGE PAPER OF YOURS AS PROOF OF A THEORY?


(PSST...I already know the answer)

I actually I wrote that summation just yesterday for a conservative site I frequent. Though my primary focus in school is on deviancy in the American population (thus gays, sociopaths, etc) I have never tried to promote philosophical logic into a psychological class. What a silly thing that would be!

And I actually used pisskop the lonely as a gamertag back when I was a kid, how did you know? :)
 
Back
Top