Gay Penguins discovered in aquarium

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Sammie@Dec 30 2004, 09:59 PM
Why don't you just give us the empirical proof that gays are born gay? Then we won't waste so much time talking in circle. You don't have any proof? Why am I SO surprised?

You first.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Dec 30 2004, 11:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Dec 30 2004, 11:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Sammie@Dec 30 2004, 09:59 PM
Why don't you just give us the empirical proof that gays are born gay? Then we won't waste so much time talking in circle. You don't have any proof? Why am I SO surprised?

You first.[/b][/quote]
You weaseled out of proving your point by passing the buck the last time. This time it's your turn to go first. Convince me.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Sammie+Dec 30 2004, 10:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Dec 30 2004, 10:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

You first.

You weaseled out of proving your point by passing the buck the last time. This time it's your turn to go first. Convince me. [/b][/quote]
Laugh. Where did I weasel out? If you think I weaseled out of something then ask again and I'll gladly answer it.

Correct me if I'm wrong Sammie but aren't you a religious person? If so, you might want to rethink this "I need scientific proof" angle because it won't do you any favors down the line.

I'll admit though that I can't "prove" my opinion on the matter that homosexuality is inherent but I think it is. Nobody has "proven" it either way as far as I can tell.

Can you prove your side?

[ricosuave]

why cant homosexuality be a product of BOTH environment and genes? or that sometimes it tips the scale one way or another in different cases?

does everything HAVE to be black and white?

rico

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by ricosuave@Dec 30 2004, 10:48 PM
why cant homosexuality be a product of BOTH environment and genes?

Maybe it is? Who knows?

Genes and environment are different from "it's a choice" though, which is what this argument has come to.

[Skyceman]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Dec 30 2004, 10:29 PM
Good one. Kinda hard to argue with some of that but of course I will.

There is equal anecdotal evidence that would argue the opposite.

I respect the "choices" those people made but I don't know, a lot of that sounds more like "I accepted being gay" as opposed to "I chose it". Some of it doesn't though and sounds like a conscious choice but it is just beyond me as to how someone could make that choice so I'm skeptical.

I understand what you're saying, Rouge. I can't ignore the fact that many queers do openly admit to it being their choice.

So what do we have - two groups:

Group A - explains they were always this way.

Group B - explains they made a choice.

Thinking out loud: Is group A borrowing strength on the "born that way" theory to rationalize their choice? If you "feel" born that way - what a great way to get it more accepted. Or is group B a more courageous minority being more open and honest?

A few more quotes worth noting:

I'm amazed that it's taken this long to destroy what is obviously a totally implausible theory. It is a choice and we should be glad it's that way and celebrate it for ourselves.
—Peter Tatchell, co-founder of the British ACT UP and founder of the British queer rights direct action group OutRage!, commenting on the Ebers & Rice study that refuted evidence for the "gay gene" theory, 1999

I'm fond of the concept of choice as the basis for sexual orientation. This point of view is unpopular in an era in which every claim for gay rights is based on pseudoscientific sulking about how we can't help being queer; we're just born that way. Thanks, but I don't want to receive my civil rights as charity bequeathed on me by my genetic superiors.
—Patrick Califia-Rice, "Snips and Snails and Puppy Dog Tails," introduction to Rough Stuff: Tales of Gay Men, Sex, and Power, edited by Simon Sheppard and M. Christian, 2000

The failure of queer politics here in Massachusetts—where gay "leaders" shun and scorn the victims of homophobia and campaign for the oppressors—illustrates the fallacies inherent in "identity" politics. Contemporary gay and lesbian political movements are not based on ideas or a commitment to principles of individual freedom. Freedom, especially sexual freedom, is in fact now denounced because it might embarrass the "community." Instead our politics are now based on the dubious genetic notion that we are born that way, can't help it, and therefore must beg the state for protection from discrimination based on our unchosen "orientation." Rights now belong not to individuals but to the "community," and those who do not conform to the values and beliefs of the community—as defined by self-anointed "leaders"—find that they have no rights at all.
—Bob Chatelle, "The Limits to Free Expression and the Problem of Child Pornography"

Perhaps you've seen the posters that say "I chose to be myself" and continue "I chose to be..." things like "rejected by my friends," "kicked out of my house," "ridiculed," "harassed," "persecuted by religion," "to lose my civil rights," "be beaten," and "killed," and ends "I chose to be gay," with the obvious implication that "no one would choose all this sh*t, obviously being gay isn't a choice." At the same time, it occurs to me that all of the above statements would have been equally true of the early Christians. But then, no one CHOSE to be a Christian, either.—John Sherck, "Thought of the Day," December 9, 1998

A queer FAQ on myths:

Myth: You've never met anyone who felt their queerness was a choice.
Reality: Anyone who says "I've never met a queer by choice person before in my life" is making just as ignorant a statement as those who say "I've never met a queer person before in my life." Of course you've met some of us—we comprise about 8% of the queer community, according to the 1997 Internet Survey of Queer and Questioning Youth conducted by OutProud and Oasis Magazine. We are everywhere around you—you just didn't recognize us as queer by choice. We usually do not wear stickers on our foreheads saying "I chose to be queer." Many of us are very active members of the queer community, but unless someone brings up the topic of choice in our presence or specifically asks us if we had a choice, most of our queer friends may never even find out that we consider ourselves queer by choice. In fact, most of us are well aware of the hostile reactions that some members of the queer community have toward any mention of choice, and as a result, many of us are downright uncomfortable talking about our choices with our queer friends until we know them well enough to be very sure that talking about our experience of choice won't cause them to attack us.

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Sammie+Dec 31 2004, 05:07 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Dec 31 2004, 05:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

You first.

You weaseled out of proving your point by passing the buck the last time. This time it's your turn to go first. Convince me. [/b][/quote]
Go talk to a gay person, I gave you a real world example of a friend of mine earlier in this thread.

If you don't beleive it then call me a liar.

[Daradon]

Skyceman - Your last quote says that the 'queer by choice' group comprises about 8% of the total. That's a pretty small amount. And I can't disagree that I don't know people that haven't experimented and ended up liking it, especially women. But that's only 8% give or take.

And doing my thinking out loud. Even if it was a choice for everyone (which I don't think anyone here will admit it is for 100%, but let's say what if) why would that matter? Who are they hurting? Why does it matter?

Can't pull the 'nature' card, that's how this thread was started, showing it's pretty normal in nature.

Don't agree with the 'slippery slope' card. The one that argues legalizing these unions and calling them marriage will open the door to beastiality and incest and pedeophelia. One huge difference between the two. Gay marige is between two consenting adults. Animals can't consent, and there are laws in place to protect children that will never be overturned because we know people can't make certain decisions at younger ages. Someone here keeps arguing the brother/sister (or two opposite sex partners closely related) of legal age scenario, but that's such an obsense small part of the equation, it's not right or fair to judge one groups right on the rights of another. And there are no statistics to show that this is a growing group either or that it has even been significantly large.

The 'family' card is a bunch of bunk. Divorce rate is over 50%. Fathers abuse, mothers abandon (or both vice versa). Drugs, Alcohol, Violence. The family was in bad shape long ago. This won't add to it's problems. In my view point it might actually help beacuse we got two people who actually care enough about each other to fight for it.

So really? What does it matter? Who really cares? Why is it a bad thing? It's not corroding our 'morals', just changing rules placed by man long ago. To me morals are such things as love, forgiveness, TOLERANCE. Morals are not rules one person or god (see person acting on 'god's' behalf) made up.

[Kidder]

Your examples are a joke Skyceman, as you seem to be using quanitity to prove your point, 'look at all these people who say being gay is a choice'. Yet as Daradon points out, even one of you pro-choice examples pegs the number at less than 10%. So for every 1 of your examples, there will be at least 9 saying they were born that way. That's a pretty staggering majority. Quantitevly pro-choice is beat out handily.

Twin studies have revealed that if one identical twin is homosexual, there is an approximately 50% chance that the other twin will be homosexual- even when reared apart. This rate is much higher than the 11% rate of homosexuality for fraternal twins or non-twin siblings of homosexuals. (Bailey et al., 1993; Bailey & Pillard, 1993).

evidence is accumulating that sexual orientation is at least partly determined by biological factors (Crooks & Baur, 2002; Gladue 1994)

Pretty big cases for the Nature & Nurture theory.

So two identical twins who share the exact same genes, if one of them is gay, the other will have a 50/50 chance of being gay, even if they never meet or hear of their gay brother. To me thats strong evidence for the genes and environment theory.

No one would refute the fact that there are people attracted to both sexes, at least partially, who might choose one sex over the other exclusively. But again, none of you who claim its a choice, have answered the question: when did you choose to be straight?

[Sammie]

Originally posted by Daradon@Dec 31 2004, 01:07 AM
Skyceman - Your last quote says that the 'queer by choice' group comprises about 8% of the total. That's a pretty small amount. And I can't disagree that I don't know people that haven't experimented and ended up liking it, especially women. But that's only 8% give or take.

And doing my thinking out loud. Even if it was a choice for everyone (which I don't think anyone here will admit it is for 100%, but let's say what if) why would that matter? Who are they hurting? Why does it matter?

Can't pull the 'nature' card, that's how this thread was started, showing it's pretty normal in nature.

Don't agree with the 'slippery slope' card. The one that argues legalizing these unions and calling them marriage will open the door to beastiality and incest and pedeophelia. One huge difference between the two. Gay marige is between two consenting adults. Animals can't consent, and there are laws in place to protect children that will never be overturned because we know people can't make certain decisions at younger ages. Someone here keeps arguing the brother/sister (or two opposite sex partners closely related) of legal age scenario, but that's such an obsense small part of the equation, it's not right or fair to judge one groups right on the rights of another. And there are no statistics to show that this is a growing group either or that it has even been significantly large.

The 'family' card is a bunch of bunk. Divorce rate is over 50%. Fathers abuse, mothers abandon (or both vice versa). Drugs, Alcohol, Violence. The family was in bad shape long ago. This won't add to it's problems. In my view point it might actually help beacuse we got two people who actually care enough about each other to fight for it.

So really? What does it matter? Who really cares? Why is it a bad thing? It's not corroding our 'morals', just changing rules placed by man long ago. To me morals are such things as love, forgiveness, TOLERANCE. Morals are not rules one person or god (see person acting on 'god's' behalf) made up.

Where are you getting the statistics on gays from? Do you have any reason why the statistics on family violence and breakup are so high over the last twenty years compared to the generations before?

It's obvious you don't have a clue what morals are. Let me give you the dictionary meaning of Morals:"good in character or conduct; virtuous according to civilized standards of right and wrong; capable of understanding right and wrong; having to do with character or with the difference between right and wrong; based on principles of right conduct rather than on law or custom; teaching a good lesson; having a good influence. Ethical. In agreement with a standard of what is right and good in character or conduct. Right and good according to the customary rules and accepted standards of society. He leads a moral life. Agreement with principles of right conduct or good living expressed in a system or code, especially of the branch of philosophy dealing with moral conduct or of a profession or business."

While we're at it let's examine the dictionary meaning of the word, tolerate: "Allow, permit, bear, endure, put up with. Endure or resist the action of a drug or poison."

You have to admit Christians in North America are a very tolerant group since they strongly voice their objections to the gay lifestyle, yet there is no ground-swell movement to persecute gays. Look at all the different religious groups that have always been allowed to co-exist with Christians throughout the history of Canada, the United States, and Europe under Christian governments. Try practicing gay, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist lifestyles in Iran or Saudi Arabia and see what happens.

[JiriHrdina]

"You have to admit Christians in North America are a very tolerant group since they strongly voice their objections to the gay lifestyle, yet there is no ground-swell movement to persecute gays."

Wow. Congrats. You're right. We should all thank the Christians in North America for allowing people to live their own lives according to how they see fit. What a great argument. Yes, North American Christians are indeed more tolerant than some of the other nations you mention. So what?

"Do you have any reason why the statistics on family violence and breakup are so high over the last twenty years compared to the generations before?"

No I don't. Do you? Please enlighten us.

[Skyceman]

Originally posted by Kidder@Dec 31 2004, 03:00 AM
Your examples are a joke Skyceman, as you seem to be using quanitity to prove your point, 'look at all these people who say being gay is a choice'.# Yet as Daradon points out, even one of you pro-choice examples pegs the number at less than 10%.# So for every 1 of your examples, there will be at least 9 saying they were born that way.# That's a pretty staggering majority.# Quantitevly pro-choice is beat out handily.

Twin studies have revealed that if one identical twin is homosexual, there is an approximately 50% chance that the other twin will be homosexual- even when reared apart.# This rate is much higher than the 11% rate of homosexuality for fraternal twins or non-twin siblings of homosexuals. (Bailey et al., 1993; Bailey & Pillard, 1993).#

evidence is accumulating that sexual orientation is at least partly determined by biological factors (Crooks & Baur, 2002; Gladue 1994)

Pretty big cases for the Nature & Nurture theory.

So two identical twins who share the exact same genes, if one of them is gay, the other will have a 50/50 chance of being gay, even if they never meet or hear of their gay brother.# To me thats strong evidence for the genes and environment theory.

No one would refute the fact that there are people attracted to both sexes, at least partially, who might choose one sex over the other exclusively.# But again, none of you who claim its a choice, have answered the question: when did you choose to be straight?

Ok lets examine your Bailey study of which you claim shows STRONG evidence for gene/nature:

Fact 1: It was a word of mouth advertising study - not a registry study. Bailey has even now retracted the number you're using as he admits the numbers are biased on the high side because of the volunteer effect. Even with those flawed numbers he altered the very presentation of them:

This is made very clear by Jones and Yarhouse (8) and others:

"This clarifies that even in the earlier research, the report of 52% probandwise concordance for identical twin males did not mean that half of all identical twin pairs where one member was gay would find the other twin gay as well. Instead of 29 twin pairs out of 56 total sharing the trait of homosexuality, the apparent meaning of "29/56" is that there were 13 twin pair concordant for homosexuality, one triplet trio that was concordant and 27 twin pairs that were not concordant for homosexuality. So there were a total of (13+1+27 =) 41 pairs, of which both were homosexual in 14 pairs. Fourteen divided by 41 equals 34%; so 34% of the pairs were concordant for homosexuality in the original study [i.e. word of mouth advertising not a registry study] by the common understanding of "concordant", and even that turns out to be an inflated estimate by a factor of three. The original studies actually suggested that about a third of male identical twin pairs were concordant, but the new, superior study suggests that the actual concordance rate (as that term is commonly used) for male identical twin pairs is only about 11%."

This means that if one member of an identical twin pair is homosexual, there is only about an 11% chance the co-twin is also homosexual. He usually won't be, in other words.

Fact 2: Interestingly the study was conducted by a gay researcher. Yet why have the 97% of the scientists who are heterosexual never replicated his numbers of the study. Hershberger used a US twin registry study and found 0% genetic contribution to male homosexuality and 48% contribution to female. This study should have been more reliable than the volunteer studies. In summary, all the other registry studies and volunteer studies conducted, all contradict each other.

Fact 3: For the twin gene theory to be made fact, there should never be a case where one identical twin is heterosexual and one is homosexual. It's genetically impossible since both identical twins share 100 percent of the same genes. If sexual orientation is genetic, then both identical twins will always be either heterosexual or homosexual. Bailey and Pillard's findings of only 52 percent discredits their own hypothesis. In fact, their findings show that nongenetic factors play a significant part in shaping sexual preference.

Fact 4: A study on alcoholism used the Swedish registry which includes separated twins, confirmed that genetic estimates may be overestimated because of genetic effects on the body and complex interaction with the environment. This confirms research is moving in the direction of somewhat decreasing calculated genetic effects based on twin studies.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Sammie@Dec 31 2004, 08:32 PM

You have to admit Christians in North America are a very tolerant group since they strongly voice their objections to the gay lifestyle, yet there is no ground-swell movement to persecute gays. Look at all the different religious groups that have always been allowed to co-exist with Christians throughout the history of Canada, the United States, and Europe under Christian governments. Try practicing gay, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist lifestyles in Iran or Saudi Arabia and see what happens.

All hail our great christian overlords, mercifully allowing us heathens to not only exist but to breath their rareified air.

In other news, the above quote comment is the dumbest thing I've ever seen on the OT board.

Happy New Year!

[Sammie]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Jan 1 2005, 05:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Jan 1 2005, 05:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Sammie@Dec 31 2004, 08:32 PM

You have to admit Christians in North America are a very tolerant group since they strongly voice their objections to the gay lifestyle, yet there is no ground-swell movement to persecute gays. Look at all the different religious groups that have always been allowed to co-exist with Christians throughout the history of Canada, the United States, and Europe under Christian governments. Try practicing gay, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist lifestyles in Iran or Saudi Arabia and see what happens.

All hail our great christian overlords, mercifully allowing us heathens to not only exist but to breath their rareified air.

In other news, the above quote comment is the dumbest thing I've ever seen on the OT board.

Happy New Year! [/b][/quote]
Is that how you dismiss truths you don't want to accept? Call them "the dumbest thing I've ever seen on the OT board"? That's being tolerant!

Happy New Year!

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Some points to think about:

I'm in agreeance with Rico, it's not black, and white. I believe there are some people who are born gay, I think there are some people who choose to be gay. What the percentage of each is I dunno? But if you admit that some gay people choose to live a straight life, why can't the opposite be true?

How much does God (if you believe in God) control our lives? If he has 0 direct control of our lives, who would he/she have control over the biological interactions of our bodies? While we don't have control over what DNA is used to make children, it is our bodies that determine this.

Is sex a choice or an instinct? Logically sex is not needed to live/survive, it's not like breathing, but... our bodies tell us its needed/wanted. To flip the coin, is the desire to have sex (be it gay or straight) a choice?

Is what religous types say the word of the Lord? I never understood how the Pope (being elected at that) is considered "the voice of God". Head of the Church, and the center of the Roman Catholic policy making, but voice of God? Doesn't that take away form the freedom of choice that we have?

How clear is the bible on homosexuality? How can one Christian Church (United) say it's ok, and another (Roman Catholic) say it's not? I was arguing this one day, and asked where the Bible says that it's wrong to be homosexual. He went over to one of my book shelves and picked up the Bible and started thumbing through. He knew the passage (I don't recall) but searched the book (of the Bible not the whole thing) three or four times, and couldn't find it. He then went to an internet site and searched for it, found it. But here (and this I didn't know) it was in another version of the Bible, and not the Good News version. The rehtoric was different. Having the Good News Bible, the King James Bible, and how many other versions, with a changing of rhetoric the meanings change; what are we to believe? Translations are 100% accurate, so having multiple versions in the same language then translated into others... how many versions of the Bible are there really? How many accepted versions and by who?



I'm a religous person, but I'm critical of my beliefs as well. I'm critical of everything I believe in. Is there proof that there is a God? No. Is there proof there isn't? No. I take comfort in thinking that there is, but I'm not going to preach my viewpoints, my beliefs. I'll offer them, but no where do I try and force them on anyone.

I watched the movie King Arthur last week, I thought it was a great movie, atleast in the religous aspect of things. Arthur was kind and accepting of non-Christians, considered them people and gave them the same treatment/rights that he gave others. Isn't that what the underlying message is? In the movie Arthur kills in the name of Rome, didn't that go against the Roman doctrine of the time... though shall not kill?


I don't pretend to know the answers to these questions, but I've kept them fairly neutral I think. Something to think about, consider, and maybe chew on.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Sammie@Jan 1 2005, 04:37 PM
Is that how you dismiss truths you don't want to accept? Call them "the dumbest thing I've ever seen on the OT board"? That's being tolerant!

Happy New Year!

Yeah, I really dismissed a truth. Point out which truth I dismissed please.

Other groups and religions have "been allowed to co-exist" by christians? The arrogance in that statement leaves me almost speechless. Who do you think you are?

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Jan 2 2005, 12:48 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Jan 2 2005, 12:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Sammie@Jan 1 2005, 04:37 PM
Is that how you dismiss truths you don't want to accept? Call them "the dumbest thing I've ever seen on the OT board"? That's being tolerant!

Happy New Year!

Yeah, I really dismissed a truth. Point out which truth I dismissed please.

Other groups and religions have "been allowed to co-exist" by christians? The arrogance in that statement leaves me almost speechless. Who do you think you are? [/b][/quote]
Sammie something you need to consider:

Being More tolerent of gays than other religious groups by a slim margin still doesn't make that group "right".

Otherwise you are seriously a nutjob.

[Sammie]

This discussion is deteriorating is nonsense and personal attacks rather than an honest discussion. Are you loosing the argument or just your cool?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Sammie@Jan 1 2005, 07:14 PM
This discussion is deteriorating is nonsense and personal attacks rather than an honest discussion. Are you loosing the argument or just your cool?

Cop-out.

[CaramonLS]

Originally posted by Sammie@Jan 2 2005, 02:14 AM
This discussion is deteriorating is nonsense and personal attacks rather than an honest discussion. Are you loosing the argument or just your cool?

Stop going "christian overlord of Morality" on us and we can resume this.