The Secret Gay Agenda

If YOU can prove that homosexual-orientation is "genetic", that would be world-class BREAKING NEWS!!

LMSWCSAO

 

Your responses are diminishing with every post.

2. You don't seem to know the difference between sexual orientation, and sexual behavior. Which is kind of like the difference between climate and weather.

4. I'm not gay.

 

First...it doesn't have to be genetic...it just has to be involuntary.

Here...check this out....the PhD's who did this study are way smarter than you or I....and they clearly land on the side where sexual orientation is NOT a choice, and the professors who contributed to the paper weren't gay.

http://news.stanford.edu/pr/95/950310Arc5328.html

And there is now way you're LMSWCSAO.....

 

2. Don't know what gave you that impression.
4. So you love militant gays.

 

Interesting read. But all of the bullet points could also be explained by nurture, not nature, with the exception of the DNA thing, and even that had a "however" qualifier.

 

so that's a no then?

 

I feel no need to prove that normal is normal.

 

You seem to argue along the lines of "nature vs nurture" which is almost certainly an oversimplification. It is much more likely that homosexuality, like every other aspect of human personality, is a "nature and nurture" situation. A lot of people seem to believe that intelligence is a genetic disposition when it is also significantly influenced by environment. Furthermore, even the concept of intelligence, which has been the object of research for decades, is not yet completely understood and there are at least a dozen credible theories on how intelligence exactly works and how it can be classified. Homosexuality and its development has not been the centre of research for nearly as long and therefore we know even less about it as of yet. So anybody who presumes anything definite about homosexuality is oversimplifying things. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence)

Edit: I'm sorry but did you actually read the article? It plainly states at the beginning: "Research into the biological basis of sexual orientation "presents a clear double message. Yes, genetics plays a part. No, it is not all genetics," [...]
"This shouldn't be too surprising because that is what all kinds of behavioral studies indicate. Genes determine everything. The environment affects everything. Then there is this big area where the two interact," she added. [...]"

They said at the very beginning of the article that both nature AND nurture played a part in regards to homosexuality. You just reduced it back to nurture without anything to support this thesis. If you can find unbiased support of this thesis then please enlighten us so that we can actually start a serious discussion about the nature and nurture of homosexuality. As long as you don't do that I'm afraid you just seem to deny what is right in front of your eyes for whatever reason.

 

You do realize that article wasn't documentation of actual research, but a summation of others' research, in effect, an editorial, don't you?

 

I accept your surrender

 

That's hilarious.

 

What behavior would that be, and how is it relevant in placing them behind heterosexual couples?

That would depend on whether the bias toward a particular behavior has a foundation in fact, and whether those facts are relevant to the context in which the bias operates.

If you think you're going to escape through the trap door of employing pointlessly vague generalizations, think again. If all you have in your arsenal is this sort of crap, then I can easily predict that my indulgence of you isn't going to last much longer. I have better things to do than waste my time on weaselers.

 

You're right. So have a look at this then: http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

This is a brief summary of all major theories, both biological and social, concerning homosexuality. And the site fulfills all scientific standards as far as a reliable source is concerned.

 

You could have the scientists standing right in front of them explaining all the research, and they would still find ways to weasel out.

It should be enough that all the major medical groups world wide accept that homosexuality is an orientation, just like heterosexuality. However, people will ignore or dismiss this fact. It's unacceptable to them, so they can not comprehend it.

 

Another summary?

 

Preference, orientation, whatever. It's not genetic, but learned behavior.

 

That is it, right there. Less than 1% of people would FULLY understand all of the scientific data anyway. And one can bet that IF the science were not good (or peer-reviewed)... it is virtually certain that would be pointed out readily by many qualified to do so.

Even so, it shouldn't matter anyway. This discrimination and singling-out of homosexuality and homosexual people, is something that should not be pursued as it is.

Heterosexuals (and others) have problems amongst themselves that they should be working out; all this vilification and attempted marginalizing of homosexuals is a promotion or expression of fear, hatred, bigotry and ignorance.

 

You don't 'know' what you are talking about; you are stating what you think/believe. (And you're welcome to it.)

People need to know the difference.

 

If you have the time than feel free to have a look at the sources cited by the summary. That is one of the reasons why this summary fulfills, in fact, all of the scientific criteria to be considered a reliable source.

If you want to believe that, fine. You're free to believe whatever you want. However, unless you find me some unbiased, reliable source, which you have not done so far, than you won't sway me in my opinion at all.

 

Again, its not up to me to find a source that proves the obvious, that behavior is learned.

 

If you'd like to argue like that than I could argue the same: It's not my responsibility to find sources that explain the current theories regarding homosexuality. Still I did exactly that because I'm interested in having a real discussion here. I get the feeling that you are not, in fact, interested in having a real discussion. Just because you close your eyes and deny what is right in front them, doesn't make it go away.

 

You could argue that, except my position is the status quo that has existed for centuries, up until fairly recently when the APA became politicized and "preference" suddenly became "orientation". So again, it's not my responsibility to prove the obvious.

 

Citation?

You do realize that the failure to prove one theory doesn't constitute proof for another, right?

 

It is your responsibility, however, to support YOUR claim that homosexuality is a learned behavior and not an inborn orientation.

 

You can spout your unsupported opinions about what you allege to be obvious all you like, but no one has any obligation to take those claims at face value.

Clearly you aren't interested nor prepared to engage in an honest discussion or serious debate of the issues. So I'm done with you.