Judge Bans Enforcement of Don't Ask Don't Tell

#152
#152
CSpindizzy said:
You questioned the ability for a 'straight' person to be 'gay' but then you say they can choose what they want. Which is it?
Click to expand...

A straight person has the ability to screw a man(I'm not sure why this would even happen). They don't have the ability to be gay.
 
#155
#155
VolBurgers said:
A straight person has the ability to screw a man(I'm not sure why this would even happen). They don't have the ability to be gay.
Click to expand...

Strange. Every definition of homosexuality out there says otherwise. So if a straight guy has sex with another straight guy they are both still straight?
 
#158
#158
Can you tell me where this "gay gene" is and what it is called? Because studies released even as recent as July of this year have not concluded anything as far as a specific gene.
 
#160
#160
VolBurgers said:
Scientific researchers specializing in human sexuality have shown that homosexuality is genetic. I am unaware of any study that has ever suggested that sexual orientation is a choice.
Click to expand...

No, obviously I can't.
Click to expand...


So without any scientific proof verifying this you still conclude 'scientifically' that you are born gay?
 
#161
#161
MontereyVol said:
We never hold hands or kiss at a military base regardless.

Something you may or may not know? a relatively new rule that you salute a superior officer if you are in uniform regardless of officer being in uniform or not (upon recognition).
Click to expand...

ow long has that been going on
 
#164
#164
VolBurgers said:
Yes. Based on all of the supporting evidence.

Show me an iota of scientific research that says sexuality is a choice.
Click to expand...

Simple. Google. The APA has quotes everywhere saying nothing is definitive. AAoP does as well. Peer responses of the studies you probably think are supportive of your case actually rebut the claims and say there is not enough conclusive evidence in that favor and too many flaws in the studies themselves.

The studies have flaws, no conclusive evidence, and no sign of a gay gene. Where is your proof?
 
#165
#165
CSpindizzy said:
Simple. Google. The APA has quotes everywhere saying nothing is definitive. AAoP does as well. Peer responses of the studies you probably think are supportive of your case actually rebut the claims and say there is not enough conclusive evidence in that favor and too many flaws in the studies themselves.

The studies have flaws, no conclusive evidence, and no sign of a gay gene. Where is your proof?
Click to expand...

there's absolute proof that it runs in families.
 
#166
#166
droski said:
there's absolute proof that it runs in families.
Click to expand...

Absolute? And purely genetic? Because that could just as easily be an environmental link.

If you cannot find a gene - a genetic link or identifier - how can you say 'absolute'?
 
Last edited:
#167
#167
i know a ultra catholic mexican family where the uncle and nephew are both gay. very machismo family. both showed signs of feminine traits at a very young age. like 2 or 3. hard to imagine what enviroment would encourage homosexuality there. i do believe it's genetic. but i think that some are born 100% gay, many bi (and these can be changed by environment to be straight or gay), and some 100% straight. i have some lesbian friends who didnt' figure out they were lesbians until later in life. many had abusive relationships or abusive fathers. i don't think it is impossible that they could have gone the other way. on the other hand i know many people who knew from an early age they were gay, grew up in a loving straight family, and had zero interest in the opposite sex. i'm not sure what environmental issues would result in that. just because the gay gene hasn't been proved that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. i don't for a second believe people get "cured" of homosexuality no matter what the religious organizations will argue. if you really reallly really want to be straight and it's a choice than why were go gay in the first place?
 
#168
#168
Ahhh. So our logic goes to "I know". If this is the bar we set, I know several gays who were all sexually abused when they were young by adult males. Every single one of them insists their preference is a choice and not that they were born with this. Each of them admits their rape and molestation probably has something to do with it. Some of them see shrinks for issues still remaining.

I work with two lesbians who both debated bisexuality or being strictly lesbian. Both refuse to say this is genetic. They say their choice is based on emotional needs being fulfilled they feel cannot be done solely by men.

We can all throw out our "gay connections" and our "experiences with gays" but to make claims of something as fact when science has not concluded one way or another without question AND not finding that "gay gene" is ludicrous.
 
#170
#170
CSpindizzy said:
Ahhh. So our logic goes to "I know". If this is the bar we set, I know several gays who were all sexually abused when they were young by adult males. Every single one of them insists their preference is a choice and not that they were born with this. Each of them admits their rape and molestation probably has something to do with it. Some of them see shrinks for issues still remaining.

I work with two lesbians who both debated bisexuality or being strictly lesbian. Both refuse to say this is genetic. They say their choice is based on emotional needs being fulfilled they feel cannot be done solely by men.

We can all throw out our "gay connections" and our "experiences with gays" but to make claims of something as fact when science has not concluded one way or another without question AND not finding that "gay gene" is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

and let me guess. all these people you know are in some sort of gay "rehabilitation" jesus freak organization you belong to? most gays haven't been abused. some have, but some straight people have too. i simply pointed out my examples as examples where it's hard to imagine the environment encouraging peopel to become gay. there is lots of real scientific evidence that homosexuality runs in certain families. and there is no evidence that these families sexually abuse people.
 
Last edited:
#171
#171
droski said:
and let me guess. all these people you know are in some sort of gay "rehabilitation" jesus freak organization you belong to? most gays haven't been abused. some have, but some straight people have too. i simply pointed out my examples as examples where it's hard to imagine the environment encouraging peopel to become gay. there is lots of real scientific evidence that homosexuality runs in certain families. and there is no evidence that these families sexually abuse people.
Click to expand...

Wrong. But thank you for playing. And I never said most gays were abused. I referenced one group from many I know. I also referenced other 'backgrounds' as well. I figured if you were using the "I have gay friends" card, I'd run with that as well showing non-genetic origins. I mean if you aren't offering anything scientific, I'll go along as well. Lots of real scientific evidence? I keep asking where but no one can seem to produce this. At the end of the day unless you can link that "gay gene" out there, we have nothing substantive and conclusive that this is genetic.

And this is the irony here. Nothing scientific that has been through thorough peer review and is very conclusive shows a genetic link. Nothing identifies a genetic source for being born this way. but yet we have a full agenda being forced as if it were true. There is a movement within the gay community and even among straight people forcing society to accept gays are born this way but offering no proof. Strange, but this argument is what a secular world argues against creation with. You won't accept creation because of a lack of scientific proof but yet you accept genetic gay origins with no genetic proof. Someone's logic and scientific reasoning is flawed here with allowing for "exceptions".

So in the meantime, while we're tracking down the "gay gene" let's just go with 'inconclusive and base policy on that rather than base policy on personal beliefs and inconclusive evidence. Because right now, this does not meet the bar set by even some on this board who are now saying that bar is out the door on this particular issue.
 
#172
#172
do you realize how hard it is to find a "gay gene?" you act like it's simple and therefore not finding it is some sort of evidence it doesn't exist. we haven't found the specific gene for thousands of things we KNOW are genetic. this isn't any different.

i don't need any agenda. i simply need common sense. i know humans generally like to fit in.
 
#173
#173
And scientifically they are all unproven. You cannot say something is genetic unless that genetic source is verified. As I said, the studies done even hinting at genetic origins all conclude there is no conclusion. Most of them have not made it through a peer review without holes all in the argument. The major scientific, medical, and psychological associations all agree on that. Unless you have more credibility than these sources, I'm more inclined to side with them.

As for your machismo Mexican family example, are you saying that because they are ultraorthodox Catholic all of the offspring cannot stray from that belief? You say it's hard to imagine what environment would encourage homosexuality. Fill in the blank. This logic means any strict religious familiy should not have a drug addict, a murderer, an atheist, etc. etc. That's a flawed argument as well.

A friend of mine grew up in a family with 6 sisters. He was dressed up as a child by his older sisters, forced to participate in tea parties, etc. As he became older, he fit all of the stereotypes of a gay male - voice, walk, dress, the usual. He was teased, bullied, etc. He went through the whole debate in his head while being pressured by some gays telling him he HAD to be. Their argument was that he exhibited 'traits' that had to be from birth with no mind of his environmental upbringing. When this 'convincing' by others showed flaws he came to the conclusion this was a farce. He has no doubts about being straight. He thought it sad that others tried to convince him based on no evidence and flawed logic.

My step dad has a cousin who is gay. He does not know his father and was raised by his grandparents. All throughout school he dealt with being fat, ugly, nerd, loner, etc. He didn't play sports. He was bullied and some called him gay. Over a period of years, he heard it enough to start questioning if he was. He started hanging around gays. He felt included and far different than he did before. Long story short, he says he's gay, he's in a relationship, and is committing to his partner next month. He'll even tell you that he felt he was driven to believe this.

We can go on and on about examples. Still it leaves questions. Still leaves nothing scientifically conclusive, especially to start basing nationwide policies on.
 
#174
#174
"This logic means any strict religious familiy should not have a drug addict, a murderer, an atheist, etc. etc."

No the two are not comparable. Your assumption is that the gay person has something "wrong with them" like a drug addict or murderer which is just horsecrap. I simply ask why a normal, bright, person would CHOSE to be gay if they grew up in a very anti gay culture. And yes these people do exist.

And how are we basing nationwhide policies on it being scientifically conclusive? even if it is a choice. how does that effect policy?
 
#175
#175
droski said:
"This logic means any strict religious familiy should not have a drug addict, a murderer, an atheist, etc. etc."

No the two are not comparable. Your assumption is that the gay person has something "wrong with them" like a drig addict or murderer which is just horsecrap.

And how are we basing nationwhide policies on it being scientifically conclusive? even if it is a choice. what does it matter to you?
Click to expand...

No. Actually you're wrong. You're concluding that the only way someone can be gay in a completely religiously orthodox (against homosexuality) environment is genetic. You are saying people cannot choose to be different than a strict environment. THAT is horsecrap. Your conclusion is flat out stupid. Fill in the blank with any behavior, life choices, etc. You conclude that you are locked into your environment. Any variation is based on genetics. There is no other way someone could choose to be gay in that sort of environment? That it HAD to be genetic? That's stupid.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top