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

#176
#176
CSpindizzy said:
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.
Click to expand...

actually i specifically said i beleive a percentage of bi people chose to be gay, like a percentage of bi people chose to be straight. and yes some crazy people do chose to be different even if they will experience massive abuse, but that is a very small minority of the population and most "grow out of it" and there is no evidence gay people grow out of it. nor is there any evidence whatsoever that gay people can be turned straight.

and you still haven't explained how it is driving politics that it is genetic. i'm waiting. i fail to see why this makes you so very angry? why do you care?
 
#177
#177
droski said:
and you still haven't explained how it is driving politics that it is genetic. i'm waiting. i fail to see why this makes you so very angry? why do you care?
Click to expand...

I've yet to see your scientific proof but I guess that doesn't matter. Driving politics - Obama's town hall for the MTV crowd for one. He was insistent on the aspect of people being born that way as part of his argument on repealing DADT. Valerie Jarrett earlier in the week had to retract her statement about a "lifestyle choice" because she was mobbed by a 'voice' insisting this is not true and that this is a birth issue.

This whole discussion here on DADT is driven by the genetic vs choice argument. Those insisting on changes in law and policy all are uniform on the source of this. If you cannot see this you clearly aren't in touch with the discussion.

If you seriously cannot differentiate the weight of an argument on genetics as opposed to a choice, you are seriously lacking in understanding any sort of debate.

The fact that on here the only arguments being made on one side say this is genetic but yet no proof being offered proves my point. I am supposed to succumb to a viewpoint because people insist something is true based on no supporting evidence? And then I have to deal with being called a religious intolerant, bigot, etc. because I base my opinion on seeing no supporting evidence from the other side?
 
Last edited:
#178
#178
I don't know if there is a gay gene. There doesn't have to be for someone to still be born gay. Frankly, I don't care if they are born gay or become so later.

BUT-- if there were a genetic cause to homosexuality, there is no reason that it would have to be a gay "gene." Most likely, it would be a combination of genes that would cause it or a predisposition to it. I say that because if it were just a single recessive one, I would think it would have easily been bred out of the population to at least much less common than it obviously is in the human population. If it's a combination of genes that must come together to cause it, it would make sense that it has hung around in the human population for as long as history itself.

But maybe it isn't even genetic at all. I don't know. I do know that I didn't choose to be straight, so I don't think someone chose to be gay. And why would they, in this culture?
 
#180
#180
Are you saying people should not choose something based on it being a minority in their culture? Are you saying why would anyone choose to be X when over 90% of the culture is Y?
 
#182
#182
I personally don't believe there is any one reason for homosexuality. I know people from both ends of the spectrum being discussed as well as those who were in long standing relationships with people of the opposite sex who later decided they would rather be with the same sex. Perhaps there is some genetic cause that would lead people to be more likely to be attracted to their own sex but it seems to me unlikely that this would apply to all homosexual men and women.
 
#183
#183
CSpindizzy said:
I've yet to see your scientific proof but I guess that doesn't matter. Driving politics - Obama's town hall for the MTV crowd for one. He was insistent on the aspect of people being born that way as part of his argument on repealing DADT. Valerie Jarrett earlier in the week had to retract her statement about a "lifestyle choice" because she was mobbed by a 'voice' insisting this is not true and that this is a birth issue.

This whole discussion here on DADT is driven by the genetic vs choice argument. Those insisting on changes in law and policy all are uniform on the source of this. If you cannot see this you clearly aren't in touch with the discussion.

If you seriously cannot differentiate the weight of an argument on genetics as opposed to a choice, you are seriously lacking in understanding any sort of debate.

The fact that on here the only arguments being made on one side say this is genetic but yet no proof being offered proves my point. I am supposed to succumb to a viewpoint because people insist something is true based on no supporting evidence? And then I have to deal with being called a religious intolerant, bigot, etc. because I base my opinion on seeing no supporting evidence from the other side?
Click to expand...

i completely disagree. the reason why choice vs genetics is even brought up is in reaction to the religious wackjobs. obviously evidence of genetics puts to rest the theory that jesus thinks homosexuality is evil assuming you believe that all children are without sin. i fail to see how it being a choice matters when it comes to gay marriage or DADT. You have to put YOUR morals on it and that is why they respond to the genetic argument. no one is forcing you to believe anything. just accept people as they are as long as it doesn't directly effect you. that is all.

and it's absurd to argue there is no supporting evidence whatsover. Have Scientists Found the 'Gay Gene'? - FoxNews.com there is no CONCLUSIVE evidence and there may never be any. there is a difference you know.
 
#185
#185
You can disagree all you want. It's brought up to justify policy. Those advocating for repeal of DADT, gay marriage, etc. all use it as a basis of reasoning. They use genetics as the reason. If a reason to advocate for laws, policies, etc. has no fact to it, why use it as part of the argument?

Droski, you really disappoint me. For someone always arguing over proof, logic, etc. you now say it is ok to push for laws and policies that affect people based solely on belief rather than proof. These people use "being born that way" as their basis for legitimizing their issue. THAT IS THEIR ARGUMENT. It cannot be any clearer.

You use an article with the title asking a question. The article does not support the conclusion. Read the whole thing. I don't know why you cannot understand this. All of the "evidence" is not conclusive. If you cannot conclude something you cannot definitively say it is fact.
 
#186
#186
droski said:
i very much doubt that any piece of research will convince you otherwise.
Click to expand...

Clearly major medical and psychological orgs' assessments matter little to you but yet you conclude differently from them. As it stands now matters nothing to you. Your point?
 
#187
#187
CSpindizzy said:
Are you saying people should not choose something based on it being a minority in their culture? Are you saying why would anyone choose to be X when over 90% of the culture is Y?
Click to expand...

I'm saying why would someone choose to put them into a position where they are discriminated against, ridiculed, thought to be deviants, are shunned by family members, their churches, etc? Why would they choose that?

What man would CHOOSE to not find breasts awesome? Seriously?
 
#189
#189
I honestly don't care if it is a choice or genetics. it doesn't effect me or my future children. it's my belief it is genetic, but even if it was proved otherwise I would support repealing dadt and be pro gay marriage. the base of their argument is that they should have the same rights as their straight brothers. i very much fail to see how the argument falls apart if there isn't proof of being born that way. if i could chose to be black or white would racism then be ok?
 
#190
#190
CSpindizzy said:
Clearly major medical and psychological orgs' assessments matter little to you but yet you conclude differently from them. As it stands now matters nothing to you. Your point?
Click to expand...

please link me the major medical organization that has proven that genetics is no factor in homosexuality. thanks much.
 
#191
#191
IPorange said:
I'm saying why would someone choose to put them into a position where they are discriminated against, ridiculed, thought to be deviants, are shunned by family members, their churches, etc? Why would they choose that?

What man would CHOOSE to not find breasts awesome? Seriously?
Click to expand...

You do realize anyone could list dozens of situations where people choose things while risking those same outcomes above right? Why would someone born into a Muslim family in a Muslim country convert to Christianity or Hinduism? Why would a white kid growing up in a Klan family choose to marry a black girl and have kids? Why would someone in a nice cozy situation in life join the military and risk dying on the battlefield? I mean I could get diverse in all sorts of examples crossing all sorts of boundaries here.
 
#192
#192
droski said:
please link me the major medical organization that has proven that genetics is no factor in homosexuality. thanks much.
Click to expand...

Do you bother reading? I mentioned AAoP and APA are two big ones who state their is nothing conclusive warranting such claim.
 
#193
#193
CSpindizzy said:
Do you bother reading? I mentioned AAoP and APA are two big ones who state their is nothing conclusive warranting such claim.
Click to expand...

that isn't anywhere close to saying it isn't a factor. have you taken a statistics class before? do you know what scientifically significant means? This study shows a correlation: Is There a 'Gay Gene'? but not a high enough one to be "scientifically significant." i.e. it's possible random chance is the reason they got that outcome. that doesn't mean it's probable or absolute taht random chance was the reason. if so they would have seen zero correlation at a significant level.
 
#194
#194
droski said:
that isn't anywhere close to saying it isn't a factor. have you taken a statistics class before? do you know what scientifically significant means? This study shows a correlation: Is There a 'Gay Gene'? but not a high enough one to be "scientifically significant." i.e. it's possible random chance is the reason they got that outcome. that doesn't mean it's probable or absolute taht random chance was the reason. if so they would have seen zero correlation at a significant level.
Click to expand...

Um, I deal with statistics on a daily basis. Do you know anything about scientific research and peer review as well? When a study has made the rounds questioning said data and means to obtaining data, arguments for that data being "significant" at ANY level are put to the test. If you take a study's results and not put it through scrutiny, you've failed the science. Throwing an article that may have concluded one thing and not showing the review of that research shows you have little grasp involved in research.

With your logic I can ask have you or anyone else disproven a creator of the universe? Or I can ask endless other examples. The "possible" chance comes into doubt when reviewed by peers. Yes, there could be a chance. There could be a chance of a lot of things with humans. There could be a lot of chance out there. But for some people who have a history on this board of saying chance isn't enough on certain things but is on this is a little puzzling.
 
#195
#195
your argument appears to be that they have proven no correlation. that is an absurd argument.
 
#196
#196
There is no definitive proof concluding genetics. There are too many questions on the data that even comes close to indicating this. The data linking genetics is suspect. This was the conclusion of peer review. Not me. If you have a problem with my argument you have a problem with the process of research and the scientific community. I am merely using what they say on the matter. Coming to me with a article on a study and acting as if this is fact is absurd. If you repeated your argument before a review committee or even a pool of research scientists you'd be laughed out of the room. Call me absurd all you want.
 
#197
#197
i never said it was fact. I already said there was no definitiive proof. And i don't really understand why the lack of difinitive proof is proof of anything to you.
 
#198
#198
CSpindizzy can you tell me where the straight gene is and what it is called?

If not, at what age did you choose to be heterosexual? Did you give homosexuality a shot?
 
#199
#199
I don't know, all the homosexual people I know have been that way their whole life, and all straight people I know have never gone the other way. Seems to me there has to be at least a possibility of a genetic component.
 
#200
#200
rjd970 said:
I don't know, all the homosexual people I know have been that way their whole life, and all straight people I know have never gone the other way. Seems to me there has to be at least a possibility of a genetic component.
Click to expand...

Of the 3 that I know. 2 where married, one of them had 2 kids, and had been married for 20 years before leaving his wife.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top