What's crazy is they are just assuming straight parents are better than gay parents, when I am sure gay parents would love their children just as much as straight people... just absurd.
@douglaswitt Twit or twat is a suitable term, also you're, contraction of "you are". Why would you wish such a terrible thing? Have I said or done something that warrants such barbarism?
@Cyllid I was actually brought up thinking mixed couples were evil... like they were being lured by the devil to mix... people use religion to try to justify hatred all the time.
i laughed my ass off when it said "our kids will have to be taught a knew way of thinking" hahaha, oh no,not thinking! we can't let our kids think! or grow and mature! lol
@Mysticblue1212 Yeah, the USA is sadly far behind other counties in terms of acceptance of different people... I saw a French McDonalds ad that had a gay guy in it and Bill O Reilly flips his crap saying 'This will never be shown in America!"
It's no wonder you lump homosexuality in with these immoral acts. You have this preconceived notion that it's wrong, but it's as though you haven't actually thought about WHY you think it's wrong.
Its not a question of weather I think its wrong, Its not marriage. An apple is not an orange. that does not mean I think an apple is wrong, its not an orange. You keep asking me what is morally wrong with an apple.
the fact is you don't want to know the answers to you questions or you would not keep rephrasing them and changing the subject. You are a closed minded and stupid child who just wants to have her own way. you are pathetic
Society promotes the nuclear family. Man, Woman and children. That is why tax breaks are given to promote nuclear families. Maybe when the life expectancy was about 40 people were encouraged to marry earlier. And society determined that poligamy was not in the best interest dispite freedom of religion. so poligamy was not a civil rights issue either.
In this example, the people of California voted to define marriage as a Man and a Woman. In Vermont, the people define it in a way to include same sex couples begining Sept 1st. 2009. I don't believe I have ever argued for "tradition"
My main point is that the opposition to gay marriage has a legitimate argument against it as long as science cannot prove that homosexuality is biological as it can with heterosexuality. If homosexuality is a behavior or choice it is not a civil rights issue and using the civil rights analogies are dishonest.
We can identify the area of the brain that makes us heterosexual, but science has not found anything that makes us homosexual. If someday they do find the "gay gene" so to speak, then that would take choice or behavior out of the equation and gays would be entitled to civil rights protection. Until then the question of behavior is still in play and I think society has a legitimate claim to define what constitutes marriage as it has with poligamy
No,Brain scans show differences in the shape and structure of the brain in children with autism versus neuro-typical children. I would call that a biological factor. You are not suggesting that homosexuality is a form of mental retardation and should be protected under the Americans with disabilities act are you?
Haha, I knew that was coming. No, I'm not, though you've compared homosexuality with necrophilia and stealing, so I'm not sure why you even brought it up.
No, seriously though, that's a good start. Are you aware, then, that research has shown differences in amygdalic structure and cerebral hemispheric symmetry between homosexuals and heterosexuals?
I am not aware of that, and I have done quite a bit of research. If that proves to be the cause of homosexuality then I would say that it is biological and gays would be entitled to civil right protection. I have seen many biological claims that turn out to be manipulated science. It seems that there would be some publicity to that hypothesis if there was anything to it. (my point is that necrophilia and stealing are behaviors that are not accepted, I have also compared it to smoking)
On its face, it could be a good start to determining a biological cause. Sample size of 20 to 25 subjects seems abit small, but if it is valid science it should be testable and repeatable. As of now I would not call it difinative proof, other "Gay brain" claims have not held up to scrutiney, but we shall see.
One irony in this study is that, in essence, all it is saying is that the brains of homosexual men are more feminine that those of heterosexual men, and the brains of homosexual women are more masculine than those of heterosexual women. But dont homosexual activists object to that as stereotyping? I thought they liked to claim that sexual orientation and gender identity are two completely different things
Yes, and the study doesn't contradict that. The differences are based on orientation, otherwise they would be the same between similar genders.
Saying that they're "more masculine/feminine" is simplifying things quite a bit, especially since OTHER studies have found that parts of the brain, different from our aforementioned study, are the same between transmen/women and biological men/women respectively, regardless of sexual orientation.
Human biology is exceedingly complicated, it seems.
If there were a genetic or biological factor which could fix and determine for all time that a person would be homosexual, then you would expect that factor to be present in every homosexual and in no heterosexual. Thats not what you find in this study, or in any of the similar studies. While there may be a difference is the average level of cerebral asymmetry, for example, theres also considerable overlap between members of the homosexual and heterosexual sample.
No, that's not necessarily true. There are instances of genetically identical twins where only one of the two twins will develop autism. As well, not all autistic individuals experience the disorder in the same way, nor have the same brain structures between them. Autism isn't diagnosed by brain scans alone.
Now you are becoming dangerously close to making the argument that homosexuality is a disorder and worthy of finding a cure. sounds like you want your cake and eat it too. Is it a natural state of humans like skin color or is it a defect?
Is that a trick question? Even if it was a defect (and I make no such claim, lawl), it would still be a "natural state". A great many autistic individuals will express great offense at being called "defective" and needing a "cure," by the way (frankly, some would be offended by the word 'disorder'). You're showing a pretty strong misunderstanding of both.
YOU can't insist on 100% homogeneity in homosexuals without insisting on 100% homogeneity in autistics, too. It just doesn't work that way.
The Autism Society of America calls it a disorder defined by a set of behaviors. So you don't believe we should cure autism? are you sure you want to go down that slippery slope? 1973 Dr. Robert Spitzer got homosexuality removed from the list of mental disorders and it sounds like you would like to put it back. Now he claims that it can be cured. You chastised me for my comparisons, yet you are reckless with your own
You sure are reading strange things into my statements, and I'm pretty sure you're doing it on purpose. :) I have to wonder why.
If you actually read the study, by the way: "HeM and HoW had significantly asymmetrical hemispheric volumes, with larger right hemisphere (P=0.0063
for HeM and P=0.001 for HoW; paired t tests). In contrast, no asymmetry was detected in HeW (P=0.6054) or in HoM (P=0.8749). ... No difference was found between the HeM
asymmetry in HeM was significant in relation to HeW (P=0.0005) and HoM (P=0.0010). Likewise, the asymmetry index in HoW was significant in relation to HeW and HoM (P=0.0244 and P=0.0344, respectively)."
... the postcentral gyrus, with putamen, and the parietal cortex (inferior parietal lobe and the posterior cingulate) compared with both HeW and HoM (Tables 4 and 5 and Fig. S2). No significant differences were detected between the HeW and HoM, nor between the HeM and HoW."
If only biology were as clear-cut and simple as you want it to be.
You seem to be the one who wanders off the reservation. You keep making comparisons to retardation and then deny the comparison. Studies like this are invariably reported as providing evidence that people are born gay and cant change, when they dont provide anything of the kind. All they show is a limited correlation between certain biological markers and homosexuality, but one of the first principles of statistics and science is that correlation is not causation.
Autism isn't retardation, for one thing -- call Einstein a retard, or the several aspies and autistics that have genius or near-genius IQs -- and for another, you are the one DELIBERATELY reading claims of "defects" and "cures" and "diseases" where there aren't any, in some weird attempt to make it seem like I have some nasty agenda, which wouldn't invalidate my point even if I did.
Statistic significance is "limited"? By your own logic, autism is behavioral and they're all faking it.
No, You keep making the comparison to autism, which by defintion is a disorder. And try to demonise me for calling it that. You are the one that is holding up a study that used only 20 gay men and 20 gay women as absolute proof. I am perfectly open to accept homosexuality as a natual biological state, and I can accept that it is an unnatural abnormality that can be changed. If I sense dishonesty from either side I get snyical and play the role of devils advocate.
Actually, I stated that it was a disorder, and that some autistic folk would be offended by calling it that. Somehow, you twisted that into me not wanting to cure autism and calling homosexuality a defect deserving of a cure. That's a pretty big discrepancy. :)
I never said it was absolute proof, either. You, on the other hand, are stating that because there isn't 100% homogeneity in the results, then it means nothing.
Here's the reason why I make the analogy: Autism is a mystery, its origins are a mystery, there is no single known source (we don't even have a gene), it affects its sufferers in varied ways, and there isn't a single "model" found yet that can encompass the group, 100%, in the brain or otherwise.
These are exactly the reasons why the "homosexuality is a choice" people claim that homosexuality is a choice. :)
Autism may be a mystery, but we do know that it is a physical disorder of the brain. You can't cherry pick your comparison like that. If you want to pick the rose, you have to take the thorns. Maybe this is why this study has not recieve a lot of publicity from the gay rights advocates, maybe there is a reason that you don't hear the "autism" comparison. Dr. Spitzer, who got homosexuality of the DSM also says that you can change your orientation. Is he anti gay too?
Yes, these areas of the brain do appear in homosexuals too. They have studied them for 20 years and the results have been "inconclusive". The point I was making about Spitzer is that he is "pro gay" and when he successfully removed homosexuality form the DSM, he was a Gay hero and an icon. When he began his study on where gays can change their orientaion, he expected to prove that they could not. When his study proved him wrong, he was demonized by gay activist for being a homophobe.
The only thing that that I have gleamed is that there may be a difference in size in some "post mortum" homosexuals, but that the "differences" were inconclusive.
Although I suspect change occurs, I suspect its very rare. Is it 1 percent, 2 percent? I dont think its 10 percent.
If some people can change and I think they can its a pretty rare phenomenon.
I understand that you are publicizing my statement that sexual orientation can be changed. I ask that you do not do this unless you also add my belief that such change is probably extremely rare.
Seems Spitzer is rather irked that people are misconstruing his study in the manner you are.
I did not misconstrue his study, I reported his findings. Did Spitzer find that people can change their orientation or not. Is Spitzer predesposed to believe that homosexuality is fixed or is he anti gay? Can people with Autism quit if they are highly motivated? What is your point? I can quite smoking if I am highly motivated, was I born a smoker? I don't know why you wasted your time with that post. This is the dishonesty that makes me skeptical of the gay activist
People with autism can, with help and training, appear to be otherwise normally functional, yes.
The only thing that Spitzer's study concluded is that, if a small group of people are REEEALLY motivated, are guilt-driven enough by their religious institution, and the possibility of bisexuality is thrown out the window, a small percentage can suppress their interest in the same sex enough to appear straight most of the time, and can claim so during a 60-minute phone call.
So Spitzer put 3 E's in really? or is that your manipulation of his report. The fact is despite his predisposistion to the contrary, he had to report that people did change thier orientation. Thats the bottom line regardless of you pathetic attempts to spin it. So science cannot prove that homosexuality is biological. Science has proved that people can change thier orientation. Remember, I am nuetral, I don't care one way or another. I am only persuaded by facts and the truth
After all, if you truly were a neutral party, interested only in facts, you wouldn't conclude that a small margin of REPORTED success, gathered by a single phone interview from non-random, hand-picked, self-reported homosexuals, who actually showed bisexual tendencies in most cases, all individually referred to from ex-gay ministries AFTER the fact, is conclusive scientific evidence that homosexuality is a choice.
Spritzer himself stated that it was "extremely difficult" to find subjects for the study, and concluded himself that the study DID NOT mean that homosexuality is a choice. Fancy that.
And yet, significant differences in brain scans aren't good enough for you, because there isn't 100% homogeneity?
You love to put words in my mouth and exagerate. I never said anything of the sort.I took his results at face value. I understand his bias, but his results are his results. No real science suggest that homosexuality is fixed. To many studies have been shown to be false, that claim it is. You are the one grasping at straws comparing it to mental disorders and spining gay activist own reports. You exagerate my words,
"If there were a genetic or biological factor which could fix and determine for all time that a person would be homosexual, then you would expect that factor to be present in EVERY homosexual and in NO heterosexual." Emphasis mine, of course. No, I don't exaggerate your words. You insist upon 100% homogeneity in one study that actually involves science, and yet accept a tiny fraction of results as norm in another study that is not scientific at all.
absolutely nuetrual. I see why you want to put homosexuality back on the DSM, so you can give it the same definition as autism. Heterosexuality has '100% homogeneity" shouldn't homosexuality? Unless it is a disorder or abnormality as you seem to want to claim. Can black people be cured of being black?
That didn't explain "Heterosexuality has 100% homogeneity" at all. Do you even know what you mean?
We know what areas of the brain make you heterosexual, through studies that you, yourself, admitted were "inconclusive"? "Misshapen brains"? So, homosexual brains ARE different from heterosexual brains after all?
Do you realize that claims of knowing what areas of the brain "make you heterosexual" implies they are different in the brains of homosexuals? You're defeating your own argument.
Sceince knows what part of the brain makes you homosexual. Studies have shown that on some post mortum gays, that area was smaller than on most heterosexuals. But so far the results of those studies have been inconclusive. how am I defeating my argument?
So, an inconclusive study means science KNOWS what part of the brain makes one heterosexual?
First you said it was the same in all people, then you said "some" brains in gays were different from "most" straights. So, which is it? Overlap wasn't good enough for you before. Where's that 100% homogeneity?
No, the study was on the part of the brain that makes us heterosexual, the results of the study have shown that on "some" postmortum gays, that area was smaller. "As a group, the heterosexual men had larger INAH 3 regions than either the homosexual men or the heterosexual women" It was the scientist themselves that said that their results were inconclusive. I am not a neuroscientist, I only know what they say
Ahh, funny, this seems to echo what I was putting forth a few days ago, except MY study had living people AND brain scans, and you were very quick to wave it off as inconsequential.
I also have to wonder how a study on the part of the brain that makes one heterosexual can come back inconclusive, and this means we KNOW. Generally, an inconclusive result means we DON'T know.
I never "waved it off", I said I could lead to proof that homosexuality is biological, and if it was valid, it would hold up to scutiney. Is it peer reviewed? has it been repeated, and tested? These are the usual scientic proceedures that "confirm" hypothosis'.
the only thing that was inconclusive is saying that that part of the brain also made people homosexual based on noted size differences
"If there were a genetic or biological factor which could fix and determine for all time that a person would be homosexual, then you would expect that factor to be present in every homosexual and in no heterosexual. Thats not what you find in this study, or in any of the similar studies."
In other words, "It doesn't meet my personal standards, whether or not these standards actually match up to scientific standards, thus it immediately fails."
Thats your interpretation, 20 subjects is a small sample and I was just making a comparison to other studies that made similar claims but did not stand up to scrutany. Thats why I mentioned the LeVay study. You are very selective in your reading comprehension skills
There were NINETY subjects, but the LeVay study you cited only had 41, so.
I just looked up that LeVay study, by the way. You're a bald-faced liar. The study was on the interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus, which had no known function, and the hypothalamus was known for emotion and sex drive, NOT AT ALL limited to heterosexuality.
As well, what was inconclusive was whether or not the differences caused homosexuality or were a result of homosexuality.
The sample of gay men was 20, not 90The Hypothalamus affects the endocrine system and governs emotional behavior, such as, anger and sexual activity. Several hypothalamic nuclei are sexually dimorphic, i.e. there are clear differences in both structure and function between males and females. males of most species prefer the odor and appearance of females over males, which is instrumental in stimulating male sexual behavior. You are down to name calling which tells me you are out of arguement
I'm calling a spade a spade. You said the study was on the part of the brain that made people heterosexual. The study stated the function of that part of the brain was unknown. And no, the hypothalamus doesn't cause heterosexuality either, unless you're stating that only straight people have sex drives. You stated the study was inconclusive. It was not; it found changes in the brain.
40 gay individuals, and 90 samples. And LeVay had 41. You liar.
Thank you for conceeding to me. You are the typical gay activist that only will see what they want to see. Nothing I have said has been a lie, and I have just been exposing the lies of you and the gay activists that made this video. You should look up the word "desembling" because that is what you have done this entire conversation. Good luck with spreading your propaganda to less gulible people. Maybe someday you will find a cure for your gay disorder. LOL
Oh, I'm not gay. :) Three guesses as to what my orientation is. You probably won't guess it. Not that it matters a lick.
That's okay; I knew I couldn't change your mind, because your mind has already been set. You claim neutrality and seeking only the truth, but every single post you have made here has shown otherwise. You're a liar, through and through, and you're just upset that I caught you.
Homosexuality is a choice like faith healing is a cure for cancer. We figured that out long ago. :)
You must have a shitty server, Mine gave me the corrected spelling "dissembling", You lost the debate, you might as well check for spelling errors. You lying gay propagandist
"the study was on the part of the brain that makes us heterosexual."
"Although scientists have yet to identify the precise function of the clump, called the [INAH3], the hypothalamus is known as the seat of the emotions and sexual drives."
"It was the scientist themselves that said that their results were inconclusive."
"This proves that you can study sexual orientation at the biological level," LeVay asserts. "There are differences in the brains of adult gay and straight men."
I didn't lie, LeVay and other gay activist scientist like Dr. Dean Hamer have had their studies discredited on the merits of their work. Dishonesty is a constant theme of the gay activist, as is evident in this video. You would have to be insane to accept the swedish study with out testing it. If I am skeptical, its because we have been lied to too often on this same topic
And I showed you where you were wrong.(cherry picking again) Dr. Richard Nakamura, Dr. Anne-Fausto Sterling, Dr. Rochelle Klinger and a whole host of other scientist, As well as Levay himself. LeVay's study has yet to be fully replicated by another researcher.
By the way, your claim that LeVay's study wasn't replicated is outdated. William Byrne found in a study in 2001 that there was "a trend" of smaller INAH3 in homosexual brains, too.
LeVay engaged in same-gender sex himself, and lost his partner to AIDS. Further, according to a Newsweek cover story in 1992, he stated: . . . if I didnt find anything, I would give up a scientific career altogether (Gelman et al., 1992). LeVay also seemed to understand the impact that his study would have on society. Its important to educate society. I think this issue does affect religious and legal attitudes.
"My comment to Newsweek simply indicated that in 1990 I was ready to give up laboratory science in favor of other pursuits. This I in fact did after my 1991 research study was published—even though I did in fact 'find something'." --Simon LeVay, on his website
"The observations cannot be easily attributed to perception or behavior.... Whether they may relate to processes laid down during the fetal or postnatal development is an open question.... These observations motivate more extensive investigations of larger study groups and prompt for a better understanding of the neurobiology of homosexuality.''
Portions of a statement from researchers at the Sweden's Karolinska Institute" (Reuters)
Which might be relevant, were that the point of the study. The point was to find physical differences in the brain, and they were indeed found. You can put your red herring away now.
You showed me where I was wrong? By saying, "LeVay is gay and was discredited?"
LeVay himself, hm? Funny, that's not what his website says. As for the others, they make comments that the study doesn't prove the size of the INAH3 causes homosexuality, which wasn't the point of the study. Reffing Dallas, by chance?
You really love the cherries don't you. Then you admit that other than physical differences which can be explained numerous ways, the study in and of itself has not much value.
Simon LeVay himself, admitted that the study was inconclusive in 2001, Its important to stress what I didnt find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didnt show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work."
As the point of the study was to find physical differences, yes, I can. :)
How does that show his study was inconclusive? It found exactly what it was looking for, and that was size differences. You are lying again, sir, and LeVay himself has responded to criticism aimed at that quote.
Your efforts to find fault in studies that you don't like is impressive.
You are hopeless. The entire scientific community calls Levays study worthless and you quote his own website to defend him. I have proved my point numerous times and all you do is cherry pick and dissemble. You are the exact reason people cant trust the gay activists. Nothing but liars
"If one looks at the totality of research now available, including my study, the evidence points strongly to the idea that genes and non-genetic biological factors strongly influence a persons sexual orientation..."
"This [survey of 3,826 same-gender twin pairs in Sweden] puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single 'gay gene' or a single environmental variable which could be used to 'select out' homosexuality - the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex."
"Twin resemblance was moderate for the 3,826 studied monozygotic and dizygotic same-sex twin pairs. Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18.19 for genetic factors, .16.17 for shared environmental, and 64.66 for unique environmental factors."
Pfffhahaha, how much they look alike. The "resemblance" refers to their sexual behavior and orientation, silly.
"Overall, genetics accounted for around 35 per cent of the differences between men in homosexual behaviour and other individual-specific environmental factors (that is, not societal attitudes, family or parenting which are shared by twins) accounted for around 64 per cent. In other words, men become gay or straight because of different developmental pathways, not just one pathway."
Laugh all you want, but you are the dumbass with the communication disorder. How the hell is anyone suppose to know that in the context that you gave, biometrics refers to the measurements of parts of the body (look it up) You don't reference what study you are refering to, You just pull out some stats without giving any context to what the hell you are talking about. You only demonstrat how stupid you are by trying to be smart.
1 a : the quality or state of resembling; especially : correspondence in appearance or superficial qualities b : a point of likeness : similarity
Biometrics refers to methods for uniquely recognizing humans based upon one or more intrinsic physical or behavioral traits. In information technology, in particular, biometrics is used as a form of identity access management and access control
Take careful note of definition B, and the words "behavioral traits". Kind of important. :)
And it's called feeding quotes into a Google search, which I was forced to do when you "referenced" that LeVay study, thank you kindly. It wouldn't be hard to find, considering it's the only sexual study that I know of that uses over 7,600 subjects.
You're supposed to be RESEARCHING, which doesn't involve scouring anti-gay internet publications, by the way. Nice use of Wikipedia again, too.
All my research shows that homosexuality is not genetic or fixed and is enviromental. But I don't cherry pick and quote discredited gay activist, Funny that Byrne et al 2001 study is no where to be found except Levays webpage. I guess he just wants us to take his word for it. LOL
That's funny, I found it very easily on Google, published in Hormones and Behavior.
All YOUR research may show it, but the SCIENTIFIC research seems to show otherwise. :)
"This study looked at 3,826 same-gender twin pairs (7,652 individuals), who were asked about the total numbers of opposite sex and same sex partners they had ever had. The findings showed that 35 per cent of the differences between men in same-sex behaviour ... is accounted for by genetics."
The INAH3 size of the homosexual men was apparently smaller than that of the heterosexual men and larger than that of the heterosexual women, though neither difference quite reached statistical significance.
Hey, it's the Wikipedia entry again. :D I just read that an hour ago.
His abstract, interestingly, said there was indeed "a trend" in smaller INAH3 in homosexual males, which is what LeVay was pointing out anyway. It also forced Byne to retract his criticism, which was that INAH3 could be affected by AIDS, after he found it wasn't.
"though neither difference quite reached statistical significance" and "but found no trend related to sexual orientation." Seems like the operative conclution, not the AIDS factor. Keep spinning, you may convince yourself of your own lies
One of those quotes is referring to size, and the other is referring to neuron count. I hope that wasn't a deliberate attempt to mislead. :) There is a difference, especially considering LeVay's study was on the size and not the cell count.
"Although there was a trend for INAH3 to occupy a smaller volume in homosexual men than in heterosexual men, there was no difference in the number of neurons within the nucleus based on sexual orientation."
Because your eyes would tell you what you don't want to believe...and of course "not reach statistical significance" means nothing to you because you have a way just deleting that "inconvienient" data from your predisposed beliefs. This of course, I see all the time from the gay activists. This was not as easy a study to find as LeVay's, I guess because it did not really vindicate LeVay's discredited original study.
And this means they lie? Ooookay, whatever you say, dude.
Or maybe it's because anti-gay people are so eager to point out that LeVay's study doesn't prove predisposition or genetic causes, despite that never being the claim or the point of the study. Sheesh, talk about missing the point. Or you didn't Google hard enough.
It's weird, though, that you positively cite an article when it appears to support your argument, and then when it's shown otherwise, it's suddenly discredited and false. :)
By the way, your perseverance with LeVay's study is amusing; you're acting as though it's the singular, all-encompassing proof that homosexuality isn't a choice, when all the study shows is that LeVay found significant differences in INAH3. Even if it was complete and total bunk, this wouldn't support your assertion at all.
Surprise surprise, there have been more studies since 1993, and more evidence against choice. You are like a creationist screaming that there are no transitional fossils.
If you recall, I only listed LeVays' study as one of several claims by gay activists that prove that homosexuality was genetic it was you that fought so hard to prove correct. I had to find the actual study and quote it to you to prove that LeVay was only trying to rewrite his legacy as a discredited researcher. I won't gloat because I know how hard this must be for you
Just proven what, exactly? That you used it as evidence for "Heterosexuality has 100% homogeneity," or that heterosexuality "has 100% homogeneity"? (Seriously, can you explain that?)
If so, neither you, nor Byne have confirmed no such thing. Even LeVay's critics are quick to point out that some heterosexual INAH3s were SMALLER than the homosexual ones. I daresay you've proved nothing. :)
Well, except that you're a desperate conniver and not as neutral as you claim. Just come clean already.
It seems that you are the deparate one. You are the one married to the term "100% homogeniety". You have thrown that out numerous times and I only used it once with " " around it to indicate "your words". (which you have failed to reapply while "quoting me", more dishonesty) It seems that you were laying some sort of vocabulary trap and now you are trying to sping it. I don't play those cheap little debating games. If you can't argue the subject, surrender.
So says the person who repeatedly yelled at me because you misunderstood "resemblance".
I'm "married" to the term because you insist that evidence is only credible if it's true 100% of the time (if it doesn't support you, anyway), despite the fact that this is rarely true in medical science (hence the need for p<0.05). And to demonstrate you have no idea what you're talking about.
Nooo... You don't play cheap debate games at all. You just throw around logical fallacies and insane accusations.
Well, I hope for your sake that they don't reclassify it as a disorder as they do gender identity. You really got me thinking with the whole autism comparison
That's okay, they won't reclassify it. It can only be a disorder if it causes clinical distress, and the only reason it would cause clinical distress is because of arrogant fundies who think their religious beliefs give them license to torment people for shit that isn't their business to begin with.
So you believe in God, but you don't believe that he created the heavens and the earth? Whats his deal then? Lead vocals for Lynyrd Skynyrd? no wait, thats Ronnie Van Zant,
So there are religions that worship Sir Isacc Neuton and Albert Einstein? Any other scientists being worshiped out there? How about Stephen Hawkings? Has he got any worshipers yet?
Ha, I can't believe he took me seriously. Literally, I could not believe it. Just goes to show that no matter how low fundies get, they can still go lower.
(As an aside, a serious thanks for the comment. I'd been looking for this video and couldn't remember where it was.)
"be logical."? Why don't you try to be coherent. I don't know what the hell you are talking about and with all the blanks in your statement, you don't either. Here's an idea, try to have a point when you post. It makes it so much more interesting for the reader.
you concluded that makyui was a godless heathen because he criticized religion. i was mocking your reasoning skills. clearly in addition to having poor reasoning you lack critical thinking skills, otherwise you would have been able to comprehend the point i was making.
No, I asked questions of a silly person that could not defend their position and made up silly answers to reasonable questions. The point you were making was based on a false conclusion that you drew while reading a 6 month old conversation. You seem to have poor reading comprehension skills. You clearly are an idiot.
I do argue forcefully, but not derisively or bitterly (sorry to hear that you are derisive and bitter, maybe some counseling would help you). I am not wrong, I have backed up everything I have said. It was Makyui that had to resort to making up crap because he ran out of facts
@bluegsp What scientific research are you referring to? From what I have read prenatal hormones in the womb during fetus development plays a role (but certainly not the only) in determining one's sexuality, straight, bi or gay.
The SIMILARITY (reading the whole definition is important) is in the BEHAVIORAL TRAITS that can be realized very easily if one actually reads the abstract at the very LEAST.
Now, are you going to actually address the study, or are you going keep making irrelevant picking at words because of your own misunderstanding?
William Byne and colleagues attempted to replicate the differences reported in INAH 1-4 size using a different sample of brains from 14 HIV-positive homosexual males, 34 presumed heterosexual males (10 HIV-positive), and 34 presumed heterosexual females (9 HIV-positive). They found a significant difference in INAH3 size between heterosexual men and women.
Byne and colleagues also weighed and counted numbers of neurons in INAH3, tests not carried out by LeVay. The results for INAH3 weight were similar to those for INAH3 size; that is, the INAH3 weight for the heterosexual male brains was significantly larger than for the heterosexual female brains, while the results for the gay male group were between those of the other two groups but not quite significantly different from either.
You couldn't change my mind because you don't operate in the world of truth. You cherry pick science to fit you needs and disregard the rest. When real science proves that homosexuality is fixed, I will believe it, but I don't fall for liars like you who bastardise science to fit your agenda
* To assume that it shows that homosexual orientation is changeable for most highly motivated individuals
* To dismiss the value to some conflicted homosexuals of a shift in sexual identity and unwanted sexual behavior, even when sexual orientation is not substantially changed
* To justify coercive treatment and the denial of civil rights"
Oh, yes, I am the one spinning it. Absolutely. Totally. Yes. Definitely. Yes.
In 2001, Spitzer delivered a controversial paper at the 2001 annual APA meeting arguing that highly motivated individuals could successfully change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. The APA immediately issued an official disavowal of the paper, noting that it had not been peer reviewed
Two years later, the paper was peer reviewed and published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior.
And speaking of Spitzer (because I ran out of room again): "I did anticipate, and in my presentation warn, that it would be a mistake to interpret the study as implying that any highly motivated homosexual could change if they were really motivated to do so. I suspect that the vast majority of gay people even if they wanted to would be unable to make substantial changes in sexual attraction and fantasy and enjoyment of heterosexual functioning that many of my subjects reported.
And -- forgive me, I'll let you reply in peace after this -- I have to wonder how it can possibly be "unnatural," even if it was an "abnormality that can be changed". Are they being influenced by Satan or some Gay God, or something?
Natural =/= "normal". Evolution is chock full of natural abnormalities. Yet another parallel for autism, too, unless you're implying that autism is unnatural.
The reason I want to know this is to show you that there's a REASON why certain 'relationships' are not legally recognized. There's a good reason why incest, rape, bigamy, beastiality, etc are not legally recognized. They are all harmful, in some way or another. Homosexuality poses no direct harm to anyone.
So, if all you can tell me is that it's "common sense" as to why incest is wrong, and that's all you can tell me, then I see that you lack logical reasoning.
Telling me to go read a number of scientific journals is not providing me with evidence. That's just telling me to go prove it to myself. No. I'm asking you to prove it to me. I am certainly not, nor have I ever been intellectually lazy.
I'd also like to know what circular logic or strawman argument I have presented.
The reason I ask questions is to try to find out your way of reasoning. All I wanted to know was why you thought incest was morally wrong.
So what if heterosexuals experiment with homosexual behavior? Is that wrong? What exactly is your point?
As far as my opinions go, not a lot of people would probably care on youtube what my opinions are. But, I'm still going to state what I think. Who cares what your opinions are?
What's crazy is they are just assuming straight parents are better than gay parents, when I am sure gay parents would love their children just as much as straight people... just absurd.
S0Iari 1 month ago
@S0Iari just craziness
S0Iari 1 month ago
haha, that's messed up but that is seriously how a lot of people think. Sad.
S0Iari 1 month ago
@S0Iari "God created Adam and Eve" so old fashion, XD
S0Iari 1 month ago
black dicks 9in>whit dicks 7in
nuff said
fucktardickis 7 months ago
your a twitt... or is it a twat... I wish trash like you could still be burnt at the stack...
douglaswitt 8 months ago
@douglaswitt Twit or twat is a suitable term, also you're, contraction of "you are". Why would you wish such a terrible thing? Have I said or done something that warrants such barbarism?
ThetaOmega 8 months ago
You don';t understand, mixed marriages are okay because I was brought up with them.
But gay marriages are bad, because I wasn't brought up with them. It's new and strange, and I don't like it.
WHY DOES MY PERCEPTION OF REALITY NEED TO CHANGE, MY BRAIN HURTS.
Cyllid 1 year ago
@Cyllid I was actually brought up thinking mixed couples were evil... like they were being lured by the devil to mix... people use religion to try to justify hatred all the time.
S0Iari 1 month ago
i laughed my ass off when it said "our kids will have to be taught a knew way of thinking" hahaha, oh no,not thinking! we can't let our kids think! or grow and mature! lol
1metallica1 2 years ago
@1metallica1 nope, gotta keep them in a bubble of self praise and oppressing others not like us. :P
S0Iari 1 month ago
Excellent video. It brings up the real issue. Change isn't easy for close minded people. This generation has to change as well
Mysticblue1212 2 years ago 10
@Mysticblue1212 Yeah, the USA is sadly far behind other counties in terms of acceptance of different people... I saw a French McDonalds ad that had a gay guy in it and Bill O Reilly flips his crap saying 'This will never be shown in America!"
It's just sad.
S0Iari 1 month ago
It's no wonder you lump homosexuality in with these immoral acts. You have this preconceived notion that it's wrong, but it's as though you haven't actually thought about WHY you think it's wrong.
steph6159 2 years ago
Its not a question of weather I think its wrong, Its not marriage. An apple is not an orange. that does not mean I think an apple is wrong, its not an orange. You keep asking me what is morally wrong with an apple.
the fact is you don't want to know the answers to you questions or you would not keep rephrasing them and changing the subject. You are a closed minded and stupid child who just wants to have her own way. you are pathetic
bluegsp 2 years ago
Who or what has set the definition of marriage as one man and one woman?
Did you know that, not too long ago, marriage was defined as a man and a young girl? Or a man and several girls/women?
How is "one man, one woman" more traditional than that?
Makyui 2 years ago
Society promotes the nuclear family. Man, Woman and children. That is why tax breaks are given to promote nuclear families. Maybe when the life expectancy was about 40 people were encouraged to marry earlier. And society determined that poligamy was not in the best interest dispite freedom of religion. so poligamy was not a civil rights issue either.
bluegsp 2 years ago
You didn't really answer my question.
Who or what has set the definition of marriage as one man and one woman?
How is "one man, one woman" more traditional than "one MAN, one twelve-year-old girl" or "one man, 700 women" (King Solomon)?
Or is "society" your answer?
Makyui 2 years ago
In this example, the people of California voted to define marriage as a Man and a Woman. In Vermont, the people define it in a way to include same sex couples begining Sept 1st. 2009. I don't believe I have ever argued for "tradition"
bluegsp 2 years ago
So, "society" is your answer.
Makyui 2 years ago
yep
bluegsp 2 years ago
So, all that needs to be done is for society to change the definition of marriage, and same-sex marriage is okay.
Makyui 2 years ago
it ok with me
bluegsp 2 years ago
And you've already admitted that this is being done.
So, what's the problem?
Makyui 2 years ago
My main point is that the opposition to gay marriage has a legitimate argument against it as long as science cannot prove that homosexuality is biological as it can with heterosexuality. If homosexuality is a behavior or choice it is not a civil rights issue and using the civil rights analogies are dishonest.
bluegsp 2 years ago
Hm, but I don't see anything in the definition of marriage that involves biological sources.
How would you define a "proof of biological source" of homosexuality?
Makyui 2 years ago
We can identify the area of the brain that makes us heterosexual, but science has not found anything that makes us homosexual. If someday they do find the "gay gene" so to speak, then that would take choice or behavior out of the equation and gays would be entitled to civil rights protection. Until then the question of behavior is still in play and I think society has a legitimate claim to define what constitutes marriage as it has with poligamy
bluegsp 2 years ago
Currently, there is no "autism gene".
Would you consider autism a choice or behavior?
(For the record, I think banning polygamy is just as dumb as banning gay marriage.)
Makyui 2 years ago
No,Brain scans show differences in the shape and structure of the brain in children with autism versus neuro-typical children. I would call that a biological factor. You are not suggesting that homosexuality is a form of mental retardation and should be protected under the Americans with disabilities act are you?
bluegsp 2 years ago
Haha, I knew that was coming. No, I'm not, though you've compared homosexuality with necrophilia and stealing, so I'm not sure why you even brought it up.
No, seriously though, that's a good start. Are you aware, then, that research has shown differences in amygdalic structure and cerebral hemispheric symmetry between homosexuals and heterosexuals?
Makyui 2 years ago
I am not aware of that, and I have done quite a bit of research. If that proves to be the cause of homosexuality then I would say that it is biological and gays would be entitled to civil right protection. I have seen many biological claims that turn out to be manipulated science. It seems that there would be some publicity to that hypothesis if there was anything to it. (my point is that necrophilia and stealing are behaviors that are not accepted, I have also compared it to smoking)
bluegsp 2 years ago
It came out of Sweden just last year. It's very easy to find on Google, if you want to see for yourself.
Makyui 2 years ago
On its face, it could be a good start to determining a biological cause. Sample size of 20 to 25 subjects seems abit small, but if it is valid science it should be testable and repeatable. As of now I would not call it difinative proof, other "Gay brain" claims have not held up to scrutiney, but we shall see.
bluegsp 2 years ago
Actually, it was ninety subjects (fifty heterosexuals and forty homosexuals), but yes.
Makyui 2 years ago
One irony in this study is that, in essence, all it is saying is that the brains of homosexual men are more feminine that those of heterosexual men, and the brains of homosexual women are more masculine than those of heterosexual women. But dont homosexual activists object to that as stereotyping? I thought they liked to claim that sexual orientation and gender identity are two completely different things
bluegsp 2 years ago
Yes, and the study doesn't contradict that. The differences are based on orientation, otherwise they would be the same between similar genders.
Saying that they're "more masculine/feminine" is simplifying things quite a bit, especially since OTHER studies have found that parts of the brain, different from our aforementioned study, are the same between transmen/women and biological men/women respectively, regardless of sexual orientation.
Human biology is exceedingly complicated, it seems.
Makyui 2 years ago
If there were a genetic or biological factor which could fix and determine for all time that a person would be homosexual, then you would expect that factor to be present in every homosexual and in no heterosexual. Thats not what you find in this study, or in any of the similar studies. While there may be a difference is the average level of cerebral asymmetry, for example, theres also considerable overlap between members of the homosexual and heterosexual sample.
bluegsp 2 years ago
No, that's not necessarily true. There are instances of genetically identical twins where only one of the two twins will develop autism. As well, not all autistic individuals experience the disorder in the same way, nor have the same brain structures between them. Autism isn't diagnosed by brain scans alone.
Human biology is EXCEEDINGLY complicated.
Makyui 2 years ago
Now you are becoming dangerously close to making the argument that homosexuality is a disorder and worthy of finding a cure. sounds like you want your cake and eat it too. Is it a natural state of humans like skin color or is it a defect?
bluegsp 2 years ago
Is that a trick question? Even if it was a defect (and I make no such claim, lawl), it would still be a "natural state". A great many autistic individuals will express great offense at being called "defective" and needing a "cure," by the way (frankly, some would be offended by the word 'disorder'). You're showing a pretty strong misunderstanding of both.
YOU can't insist on 100% homogeneity in homosexuals without insisting on 100% homogeneity in autistics, too. It just doesn't work that way.
Makyui 2 years ago
The Autism Society of America calls it a disorder defined by a set of behaviors. So you don't believe we should cure autism? are you sure you want to go down that slippery slope? 1973 Dr. Robert Spitzer got homosexuality removed from the list of mental disorders and it sounds like you would like to put it back. Now he claims that it can be cured. You chastised me for my comparisons, yet you are reckless with your own
bluegsp 2 years ago
You sure are reading strange things into my statements, and I'm pretty sure you're doing it on purpose. :) I have to wonder why.
If you actually read the study, by the way: "HeM and HoW had significantly asymmetrical hemispheric volumes, with larger right hemisphere (P=0.0063
for HeM and P=0.001 for HoW; paired t tests). In contrast, no asymmetry was detected in HeW (P=0.6054) or in HoM (P=0.8749). ... No difference was found between the HeM
and HoW, or between HeW and HoM."
Makyui 2 years ago
"Fishers post hoc test revealed that the
asymmetry in HeM was significant in relation to HeW (P=0.0005) and HoM (P=0.0010). Likewise, the asymmetry index in HoW was significant in relation to HeW and HoM (P=0.0244 and P=0.0344, respectively)."
Makyui 2 years ago
HeW, as well as HoM, showed a greater connectivity with the contralateral amygdala
and the cingulate cortex compared with both HeM and HoW. In relation to HoW, HoM showed, in addition, a greater connectivity
with the cerebellum, as did HeW in relation to HeM. HeM and HoW, on the other hand, showed significantly more pronounced
connections with the frontal lobe cortex including ...
Makyui 2 years ago
... the postcentral gyrus, with putamen, and the parietal cortex (inferior parietal lobe and the posterior cingulate) compared with both HeW and HoM (Tables 4 and 5 and Fig. S2). No significant differences were detected between the HeW and HoM, nor between the HeM and HoW."
If only biology were as clear-cut and simple as you want it to be.
Makyui 2 years ago
You seem to be the one who wanders off the reservation. You keep making comparisons to retardation and then deny the comparison. Studies like this are invariably reported as providing evidence that people are born gay and cant change, when they dont provide anything of the kind. All they show is a limited correlation between certain biological markers and homosexuality, but one of the first principles of statistics and science is that correlation is not causation.
bluegsp 2 years ago
Autism isn't retardation, for one thing -- call Einstein a retard, or the several aspies and autistics that have genius or near-genius IQs -- and for another, you are the one DELIBERATELY reading claims of "defects" and "cures" and "diseases" where there aren't any, in some weird attempt to make it seem like I have some nasty agenda, which wouldn't invalidate my point even if I did.
Statistic significance is "limited"? By your own logic, autism is behavioral and they're all faking it.
Makyui 2 years ago
No, You keep making the comparison to autism, which by defintion is a disorder. And try to demonise me for calling it that. You are the one that is holding up a study that used only 20 gay men and 20 gay women as absolute proof. I am perfectly open to accept homosexuality as a natual biological state, and I can accept that it is an unnatural abnormality that can be changed. If I sense dishonesty from either side I get snyical and play the role of devils advocate.
bluegsp 2 years ago
Actually, I stated that it was a disorder, and that some autistic folk would be offended by calling it that. Somehow, you twisted that into me not wanting to cure autism and calling homosexuality a defect deserving of a cure. That's a pretty big discrepancy. :)
I never said it was absolute proof, either. You, on the other hand, are stating that because there isn't 100% homogeneity in the results, then it means nothing.
Hold on, I'm running out of room...
Makyui 2 years ago
Here's the reason why I make the analogy: Autism is a mystery, its origins are a mystery, there is no single known source (we don't even have a gene), it affects its sufferers in varied ways, and there isn't a single "model" found yet that can encompass the group, 100%, in the brain or otherwise.
These are exactly the reasons why the "homosexuality is a choice" people claim that homosexuality is a choice. :)
Makyui 2 years ago
Autism may be a mystery, but we do know that it is a physical disorder of the brain. You can't cherry pick your comparison like that. If you want to pick the rose, you have to take the thorns. Maybe this is why this study has not recieve a lot of publicity from the gay rights advocates, maybe there is a reason that you don't hear the "autism" comparison. Dr. Spitzer, who got homosexuality of the DSM also says that you can change your orientation. Is he anti gay too?
bluegsp 2 years ago
And we now know that here are significant differences found in the brain between homosexual individuals and their heterosexual peers. :)
Maybe Spitzer was, maybe he wasn't. What does it matter? If he was right or wrong, his political/moral/whatever stance wouldn't affect that.
Question: You said earlier that "Areas that trigger heterosexual behavior can be identified in the brain."
Do these areas appear in homosexual brains, too? If so, are they triggered in homosexual brains?
Makyui 2 years ago
Yes, these areas of the brain do appear in homosexuals too. They have studied them for 20 years and the results have been "inconclusive". The point I was making about Spitzer is that he is "pro gay" and when he successfully removed homosexuality form the DSM, he was a Gay hero and an icon. When he began his study on where gays can change their orientaion, he expected to prove that they could not. When his study proved him wrong, he was demonized by gay activist for being a homophobe.
bluegsp 2 years ago
Are they triggered in homosexual brains?
Makyui 2 years ago
The only thing that that I have gleamed is that there may be a difference in size in some "post mortum" homosexuals, but that the "differences" were inconclusive.
bluegsp 2 years ago
So, in other words, this can't be used as conclusive evidence that heterosexuality is hard-wired in the brain, while homosexuality is not?
Makyui 2 years ago
Although I suspect change occurs, I suspect its very rare. Is it 1 percent, 2 percent? I dont think its 10 percent.
If some people can change and I think they can its a pretty rare phenomenon.
I understand that you are publicizing my statement that sexual orientation can be changed. I ask that you do not do this unless you also add my belief that such change is probably extremely rare.
Seems Spitzer is rather irked that people are misconstruing his study in the manner you are.
Makyui 2 years ago
I did not misconstrue his study, I reported his findings. Did Spitzer find that people can change their orientation or not. Is Spitzer predesposed to believe that homosexuality is fixed or is he anti gay? Can people with Autism quit if they are highly motivated? What is your point? I can quite smoking if I am highly motivated, was I born a smoker? I don't know why you wasted your time with that post. This is the dishonesty that makes me skeptical of the gay activist
bluegsp 2 years ago
People with autism can, with help and training, appear to be otherwise normally functional, yes.
The only thing that Spitzer's study concluded is that, if a small group of people are REEEALLY motivated, are guilt-driven enough by their religious institution, and the possibility of bisexuality is thrown out the window, a small percentage can suppress their interest in the same sex enough to appear straight most of the time, and can claim so during a 60-minute phone call.
Did you read the study?
Makyui 2 years ago
So Spitzer put 3 E's in really? or is that your manipulation of his report. The fact is despite his predisposistion to the contrary, he had to report that people did change thier orientation. Thats the bottom line regardless of you pathetic attempts to spin it. So science cannot prove that homosexuality is biological. Science has proved that people can change thier orientation. Remember, I am nuetral, I don't care one way or another. I am only persuaded by facts and the truth
bluegsp 2 years ago
So, you didn't read the report.
After all, if you truly were a neutral party, interested only in facts, you wouldn't conclude that a small margin of REPORTED success, gathered by a single phone interview from non-random, hand-picked, self-reported homosexuals, who actually showed bisexual tendencies in most cases, all individually referred to from ex-gay ministries AFTER the fact, is conclusive scientific evidence that homosexuality is a choice.
Makyui 2 years ago
Spritzer himself stated that it was "extremely difficult" to find subjects for the study, and concluded himself that the study DID NOT mean that homosexuality is a choice. Fancy that.
And yet, significant differences in brain scans aren't good enough for you, because there isn't 100% homogeneity?
Makyui 2 years ago
You love to put words in my mouth and exagerate. I never said anything of the sort.I took his results at face value. I understand his bias, but his results are his results. No real science suggest that homosexuality is fixed. To many studies have been shown to be false, that claim it is. You are the one grasping at straws comparing it to mental disorders and spining gay activist own reports. You exagerate my words,
bluegsp 2 years ago
Might I quote you verbatim?
"If there were a genetic or biological factor which could fix and determine for all time that a person would be homosexual, then you would expect that factor to be present in EVERY homosexual and in NO heterosexual." Emphasis mine, of course. No, I don't exaggerate your words. You insist upon 100% homogeneity in one study that actually involves science, and yet accept a tiny fraction of results as norm in another study that is not scientific at all.
Neutral, sir?
Makyui 2 years ago
absolutely nuetrual. I see why you want to put homosexuality back on the DSM, so you can give it the same definition as autism. Heterosexuality has '100% homogeneity" shouldn't homosexuality? Unless it is a disorder or abnormality as you seem to want to claim. Can black people be cured of being black?
bluegsp 2 years ago
Oho, look who is exaggerating words. Perhaps you could quote me verbatim, where I said any of what you're accusing me of. :)
Heterosexuality has 100% homogeneity? Homogeneity in what? Perhaps you could explain that. You're becoming less and less clear.
Makyui 2 years ago
We know what area of the brain makes you heterosexual. We have identified it, its the same on all people. whats "less clear" about that?
You are the one that keeps making the comparisons to autism and misshaped brains in homosexuals, no exaggerating
bluegsp 2 years ago
That didn't explain "Heterosexuality has 100% homogeneity" at all. Do you even know what you mean?
We know what areas of the brain make you heterosexual, through studies that you, yourself, admitted were "inconclusive"? "Misshapen brains"? So, homosexual brains ARE different from heterosexual brains after all?
Do you realize that claims of knowing what areas of the brain "make you heterosexual" implies they are different in the brains of homosexuals? You're defeating your own argument.
Makyui 2 years ago
Sceince knows what part of the brain makes you homosexual. Studies have shown that on some post mortum gays, that area was smaller than on most heterosexuals. But so far the results of those studies have been inconclusive. how am I defeating my argument?
bluegsp 2 years ago
I wrote homosexual in my 1st sentence, when I meant to write heterosexual, and reversed them again in my 2nd sentence, I guess I am becoming confused
bluegsp 2 years ago
check that again, the 2nd sentence is how I intended it, it's been a long day.
bluegsp 2 years ago
So it should be "Science knows what part of the brain makes you heterosexual"? Fair enough.
Youtube is eating my replies. One moment.
Makyui 2 years ago
So, an inconclusive study means science KNOWS what part of the brain makes one heterosexual?
First you said it was the same in all people, then you said "some" brains in gays were different from "most" straights. So, which is it? Overlap wasn't good enough for you before. Where's that 100% homogeneity?
Makyui 2 years ago
No, the study was on the part of the brain that makes us heterosexual, the results of the study have shown that on "some" postmortum gays, that area was smaller. "As a group, the heterosexual men had larger INAH 3 regions than either the homosexual men or the heterosexual women" It was the scientist themselves that said that their results were inconclusive. I am not a neuroscientist, I only know what they say
bluegsp 2 years ago
Ahh, funny, this seems to echo what I was putting forth a few days ago, except MY study had living people AND brain scans, and you were very quick to wave it off as inconsequential.
I also have to wonder how a study on the part of the brain that makes one heterosexual can come back inconclusive, and this means we KNOW. Generally, an inconclusive result means we DON'T know.
Makyui 2 years ago
I never "waved it off", I said I could lead to proof that homosexuality is biological, and if it was valid, it would hold up to scutiney. Is it peer reviewed? has it been repeated, and tested? These are the usual scientic proceedures that "confirm" hypothosis'.
the only thing that was inconclusive is saying that that part of the brain also made people homosexual based on noted size differences
bluegsp 2 years ago
Yes, you did wave it off.
"If there were a genetic or biological factor which could fix and determine for all time that a person would be homosexual, then you would expect that factor to be present in every homosexual and in no heterosexual. Thats not what you find in this study, or in any of the similar studies."
In other words, "It doesn't meet my personal standards, whether or not these standards actually match up to scientific standards, thus it immediately fails."
Makyui 2 years ago
Thats your interpretation, 20 subjects is a small sample and I was just making a comparison to other studies that made similar claims but did not stand up to scrutany. Thats why I mentioned the LeVay study. You are very selective in your reading comprehension skills
bluegsp 2 years ago
There were NINETY subjects, but the LeVay study you cited only had 41, so.
I just looked up that LeVay study, by the way. You're a bald-faced liar. The study was on the interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus, which had no known function, and the hypothalamus was known for emotion and sex drive, NOT AT ALL limited to heterosexuality.
As well, what was inconclusive was whether or not the differences caused homosexuality or were a result of homosexuality.
Neutral and truth, my ass.
Makyui 2 years ago
The sample of gay men was 20, not 90The Hypothalamus affects the endocrine system and governs emotional behavior, such as, anger and sexual activity. Several hypothalamic nuclei are sexually dimorphic, i.e. there are clear differences in both structure and function between males and females. males of most species prefer the odor and appearance of females over males, which is instrumental in stimulating male sexual behavior. You are down to name calling which tells me you are out of arguement
bluegsp 2 years ago
Congratulations, you have discovered Wikipedia.
I'm calling a spade a spade. You said the study was on the part of the brain that made people heterosexual. The study stated the function of that part of the brain was unknown. And no, the hypothalamus doesn't cause heterosexuality either, unless you're stating that only straight people have sex drives. You stated the study was inconclusive. It was not; it found changes in the brain.
40 gay individuals, and 90 samples. And LeVay had 41. You liar.
Makyui 2 years ago
Thank you for conceeding to me. You are the typical gay activist that only will see what they want to see. Nothing I have said has been a lie, and I have just been exposing the lies of you and the gay activists that made this video. You should look up the word "desembling" because that is what you have done this entire conversation. Good luck with spreading your propaganda to less gulible people. Maybe someday you will find a cure for your gay disorder. LOL
bluegsp 2 years ago
Oh, I'm not gay. :) Three guesses as to what my orientation is. You probably won't guess it. Not that it matters a lick.
That's okay; I knew I couldn't change your mind, because your mind has already been set. You claim neutrality and seeking only the truth, but every single post you have made here has shown otherwise. You're a liar, through and through, and you're just upset that I caught you.
Homosexuality is a choice like faith healing is a cure for cancer. We figured that out long ago. :)
Makyui 2 years ago
By the way, I looked up "desembling" and this is what I got:
"The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary."
Makyui 2 years ago
You must have a shitty server, Mine gave me the corrected spelling "dissembling", You lost the debate, you might as well check for spelling errors. You lying gay propagandist
bluegsp 2 years ago
"the study was on the part of the brain that makes us heterosexual."
"Although scientists have yet to identify the precise function of the clump, called the [INAH3], the hypothalamus is known as the seat of the emotions and sexual drives."
"It was the scientist themselves that said that their results were inconclusive."
"This proves that you can study sexual orientation at the biological level," LeVay asserts. "There are differences in the brains of adult gay and straight men."
:)
Makyui 2 years ago
Yes, and you leave out that LeVays work has been decredited and that LeVay himself is a homosexual.
Biased...much
you are too clever by half XD
bluegsp 2 years ago
Which doesn't change the fact that you lied about the study, even if that were true. :)
I didn't know he was gay, though. Good on him, but I don't know how not resorting to Ad Hominem makes me biased. Do you even have proof that he's gay?
However, insisting that a doctor's sexual orientation is a bearing on the accuracy of his work shows your true colors so well. :)
Makyui 2 years ago
I didn't lie, LeVay and other gay activist scientist like Dr. Dean Hamer have had their studies discredited on the merits of their work. Dishonesty is a constant theme of the gay activist, as is evident in this video. You would have to be insane to accept the swedish study with out testing it. If I am skeptical, its because we have been lied to too often on this same topic
bluegsp 2 years ago
You did lie, and I showed you where. And your response was, "Yeah, well, LaVey was gay and his work was discredited."
Discredited by who, exactly? And one would have to be insane? So the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal is insane?
Makyui 2 years ago
And I showed you where you were wrong.(cherry picking again) Dr. Richard Nakamura, Dr. Anne-Fausto Sterling, Dr. Rochelle Klinger and a whole host of other scientist, As well as Levay himself. LeVay's study has yet to be fully replicated by another researcher.
bluegsp 2 years ago
By the way, your claim that LeVay's study wasn't replicated is outdated. William Byrne found in a study in 2001 that there was "a trend" of smaller INAH3 in homosexual brains, too.
Makyui 2 years ago
LeVay engaged in same-gender sex himself, and lost his partner to AIDS. Further, according to a Newsweek cover story in 1992, he stated: . . . if I didnt find anything, I would give up a scientific career altogether (Gelman et al., 1992). LeVay also seemed to understand the impact that his study would have on society. Its important to educate society. I think this issue does affect religious and legal attitudes.
LeVay, scientist or activist.
bluegsp 2 years ago
"My comment to Newsweek simply indicated that in 1990 I was ready to give up laboratory science in favor of other pursuits. This I in fact did after my 1991 research study was published—even though I did in fact 'find something'." --Simon LeVay, on his website
Makyui 2 years ago
"The observations cannot be easily attributed to perception or behavior.... Whether they may relate to processes laid down during the fetal or postnatal development is an open question.... These observations motivate more extensive investigations of larger study groups and prompt for a better understanding of the neurobiology of homosexuality.''
Portions of a statement from researchers at the Sweden's Karolinska Institute" (Reuters)
seems hardly the last word on the subject
bluegsp 2 years ago
Which might be relevant, were that the point of the study. The point was to find physical differences in the brain, and they were indeed found. You can put your red herring away now.
You showed me where I was wrong? By saying, "LeVay is gay and was discredited?"
LeVay himself, hm? Funny, that's not what his website says. As for the others, they make comments that the study doesn't prove the size of the INAH3 causes homosexuality, which wasn't the point of the study. Reffing Dallas, by chance?
Makyui 2 years ago
You really love the cherries don't you. Then you admit that other than physical differences which can be explained numerous ways, the study in and of itself has not much value.
Simon LeVay himself, admitted that the study was inconclusive in 2001, Its important to stress what I didnt find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didnt show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work."
bluegsp 2 years ago
As the point of the study was to find physical differences, yes, I can. :)
How does that show his study was inconclusive? It found exactly what it was looking for, and that was size differences. You are lying again, sir, and LeVay himself has responded to criticism aimed at that quote.
Your efforts to find fault in studies that you don't like is impressive.
Makyui 2 years ago
You are hopeless. The entire scientific community calls Levays study worthless and you quote his own website to defend him. I have proved my point numerous times and all you do is cherry pick and dissemble. You are the exact reason people cant trust the gay activists. Nothing but liars
bluegsp 2 years ago
The entire scientific community? Oh my!
You're a lark. :)
Makyui 2 years ago
"If one looks at the totality of research now available, including my study, the evidence points strongly to the idea that genes and non-genetic biological factors strongly influence a persons sexual orientation..."
"This [survey of 3,826 same-gender twin pairs in Sweden] puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single 'gay gene' or a single environmental variable which could be used to 'select out' homosexuality - the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex."
Makyui 2 years ago
"Twin resemblance was moderate for the 3,826 studied monozygotic and dizygotic same-sex twin pairs. Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18.19 for genetic factors, .16.17 for shared environmental, and 64.66 for unique environmental factors."
This is fun. Let's see how you pick this apart.
Makyui 2 years ago
now you are just copying jibberish that makes no sense. What does twins and how much they look alike have to do with anything?
bluegsp 2 years ago
Pfffhahaha, how much they look alike. The "resemblance" refers to their sexual behavior and orientation, silly.
"Overall, genetics accounted for around 35 per cent of the differences between men in homosexual behaviour and other individual-specific environmental factors (that is, not societal attitudes, family or parenting which are shared by twins) accounted for around 64 per cent. In other words, men become gay or straight because of different developmental pathways, not just one pathway."
Makyui 2 years ago
Laugh all you want, but you are the dumbass with the communication disorder. How the hell is anyone suppose to know that in the context that you gave, biometrics refers to the measurements of parts of the body (look it up) You don't reference what study you are refering to, You just pull out some stats without giving any context to what the hell you are talking about. You only demonstrat how stupid you are by trying to be smart.
bluegsp 2 years ago
Main Entry: re·sem·blance
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈzem-blən(t)s\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : the quality or state of resembling; especially : correspondence in appearance or superficial qualities b : a point of likeness : similarity
Biometrics refers to methods for uniquely recognizing humans based upon one or more intrinsic physical or behavioral traits. In information technology, in particular, biometrics is used as a form of identity access management and access control
bluegsp 2 years ago
Take careful note of definition B, and the words "behavioral traits". Kind of important. :)
And it's called feeding quotes into a Google search, which I was forced to do when you "referenced" that LeVay study, thank you kindly. It wouldn't be hard to find, considering it's the only sexual study that I know of that uses over 7,600 subjects.
You're supposed to be RESEARCHING, which doesn't involve scouring anti-gay internet publications, by the way. Nice use of Wikipedia again, too.
Makyui 2 years ago
All my research shows that homosexuality is not genetic or fixed and is enviromental. But I don't cherry pick and quote discredited gay activist, Funny that Byrne et al 2001 study is no where to be found except Levays webpage. I guess he just wants us to take his word for it. LOL
bluegsp 2 years ago
That's funny, I found it very easily on Google, published in Hormones and Behavior.
All YOUR research may show it, but the SCIENTIFIC research seems to show otherwise. :)
"This study looked at 3,826 same-gender twin pairs (7,652 individuals), who were asked about the total numbers of opposite sex and same sex partners they had ever had. The findings showed that 35 per cent of the differences between men in same-sex behaviour ... is accounted for by genetics."
And if you say so, dude. :)
Makyui 2 years ago
The INAH3 size of the homosexual men was apparently smaller than that of the heterosexual men and larger than that of the heterosexual women, though neither difference quite reached statistical significance.
bluegsp 2 years ago
Hey, it's the Wikipedia entry again. :D I just read that an hour ago.
His abstract, interestingly, said there was indeed "a trend" in smaller INAH3 in homosexual males, which is what LeVay was pointing out anyway. It also forced Byne to retract his criticism, which was that INAH3 could be affected by AIDS, after he found it wasn't.
It pays to read things.
Makyui 2 years ago
"though neither difference quite reached statistical significance" and "but found no trend related to sexual orientation." Seems like the operative conclution, not the AIDS factor. Keep spinning, you may convince yourself of your own lies
bluegsp 2 years ago
One of those quotes is referring to size, and the other is referring to neuron count. I hope that wasn't a deliberate attempt to mislead. :) There is a difference, especially considering LeVay's study was on the size and not the cell count.
"Although there was a trend for INAH3 to occupy a smaller volume in homosexual men than in heterosexual men, there was no difference in the number of neurons within the nucleus based on sexual orientation."
I guess it's Wikipedia versus the actual article.
Makyui 2 years ago
The size of INAH3 in homosexual males
(0.096 6 0.007, n 5 14) was intermediate between the
heterosexual males (0.121 6 0.007, n 5 31) and females
(0.073 6 0.005, n 5 34), but the differences did
not reach statistical significance relative to either
group
(actual study) Now who you gonna believe, LeVay? or your own lying eyes
bluegsp 2 years ago
Lawl, is that another trick question? If one's eyes are lying, why would one believe them? :)
Considering he agrees that there is size difference, I'd say both. :)
Makyui 2 years ago
Because your eyes would tell you what you don't want to believe...and of course "not reach statistical significance" means nothing to you because you have a way just deleting that "inconvienient" data from your predisposed beliefs. This of course, I see all the time from the gay activists. This was not as easy a study to find as LeVay's, I guess because it did not really vindicate LeVay's discredited original study.
bluegsp 2 years ago
And this means they lie? Ooookay, whatever you say, dude.
Or maybe it's because anti-gay people are so eager to point out that LeVay's study doesn't prove predisposition or genetic causes, despite that never being the claim or the point of the study. Sheesh, talk about missing the point. Or you didn't Google hard enough.
It's weird, though, that you positively cite an article when it appears to support your argument, and then when it's shown otherwise, it's suddenly discredited and false. :)
Makyui 2 years ago
By the way, your perseverance with LeVay's study is amusing; you're acting as though it's the singular, all-encompassing proof that homosexuality isn't a choice, when all the study shows is that LeVay found significant differences in INAH3. Even if it was complete and total bunk, this wouldn't support your assertion at all.
Surprise surprise, there have been more studies since 1993, and more evidence against choice. You are like a creationist screaming that there are no transitional fossils.
Makyui 2 years ago
If you recall, I only listed LeVays' study as one of several claims by gay activists that prove that homosexuality was genetic it was you that fought so hard to prove correct. I had to find the actual study and quote it to you to prove that LeVay was only trying to rewrite his legacy as a discredited researcher. I won't gloat because I know how hard this must be for you
bluegsp 2 years ago
You used it as evidence that "Heterosexuality has 100% homogeneity," whatever that means.
"We know what area of the brain makes you heterosexual. We have identified it, its the same on all people."
"Studies have shown that on some post mortum gays, that area was smaller than on most heterosexuals."
"the only thing that was inconclusive is saying that that part of the brain also made people homosexual based on noted size differences"
Makyui 2 years ago
exactly, and I have just proven that and Byrne confirmed it. thanks for finding the Byrne study. see I give you credit when you deserve it
bluegsp 2 years ago
Just proven what, exactly? That you used it as evidence for "Heterosexuality has 100% homogeneity," or that heterosexuality "has 100% homogeneity"? (Seriously, can you explain that?)
If so, neither you, nor Byne have confirmed no such thing. Even LeVay's critics are quick to point out that some heterosexual INAH3s were SMALLER than the homosexual ones. I daresay you've proved nothing. :)
Well, except that you're a desperate conniver and not as neutral as you claim. Just come clean already.
Makyui 2 years ago
It seems that you are the deparate one. You are the one married to the term "100% homogeniety". You have thrown that out numerous times and I only used it once with " " around it to indicate "your words". (which you have failed to reapply while "quoting me", more dishonesty) It seems that you were laying some sort of vocabulary trap and now you are trying to sping it. I don't play those cheap little debating games. If you can't argue the subject, surrender.
bluegsp 2 years ago
So says the person who repeatedly yelled at me because you misunderstood "resemblance".
I'm "married" to the term because you insist that evidence is only credible if it's true 100% of the time (if it doesn't support you, anyway), despite the fact that this is rarely true in medical science (hence the need for p<0.05). And to demonstrate you have no idea what you're talking about.
Nooo... You don't play cheap debate games at all. You just throw around logical fallacies and insane accusations.
Makyui 2 years ago
Glad to see you are not a sore loser. Cheer up! They may find that gay gene yet. or maybe it's viral.
bluegsp 2 years ago
Lawl, I was just wondering to myself when you were going to accuse me of gay eugenics, or something.
Good thing a singular gene isn't necessary to demonstrate it isn't a choice, so they may not have to find it. :)
Makyui 2 years ago
Well, I hope for your sake that they don't reclassify it as a disorder as they do gender identity. You really got me thinking with the whole autism comparison
bluegsp 2 years ago
Lawl, for my sake?
Makyui 2 years ago
Then what would you do with you time?
bluegsp 2 years ago
There're always creationists.
That's okay, they won't reclassify it. It can only be a disorder if it causes clinical distress, and the only reason it would cause clinical distress is because of arrogant fundies who think their religious beliefs give them license to torment people for shit that isn't their business to begin with.
Makyui 2 years ago
so you're a godless heathen as well?
bluegsp 2 years ago
What an odd conclusion to make.
Makyui 2 years ago
If you like to go after religious people, what other conclusion is there?
bluegsp 2 years ago
You have to be an atheist to disagree with fundies? Well, that's new.
Makyui 2 years ago
So you believe in God, but you don't believe that he created the heavens and the earth? Whats his deal then? Lead vocals for Lynyrd Skynyrd? no wait, thats Ronnie Van Zant,
bluegsp 2 years ago
You have to believe the universe is 6000 years old and all animals were poofed into existence in their current forms to be religious?
Makyui 2 years ago
so you are an evolutionist?
bluegsp 2 years ago
There's no such thing. I am a Neutonist, sir. Have you heard the Holy Gospel of Gravity?
Makyui 2 years ago
I have heard of the "law" of gravity, but not the Holy Gospel of Gravity.
bluegsp 2 years ago 5
Oh, that's a shame. I'll send you a pamphlet in the mail.
Wait, you're not one of those filthy Einsteinians, are you?
Makyui 2 years ago
So there are religions that worship Sir Isacc Neuton and Albert Einstein? Any other scientists being worshiped out there? How about Stephen Hawkings? Has he got any worshipers yet?
bluegsp 2 years ago
He's got a small following, but we expect him to pick up in popularity a hundred years or so after he martyrs himself in the name of the Holy Quark.
Makyui 2 years ago
@Makyui
filthy einsteinians.........
only in america
jumpyourbone 1 year ago
Ha, I can't believe he took me seriously. Literally, I could not believe it. Just goes to show that no matter how low fundies get, they can still go lower.
(As an aside, a serious thanks for the comment. I'd been looking for this video and couldn't remember where it was.)
Makyui 1 year ago
no problemoo
jumpyourbone 1 year ago
if you choose to criticize ______, you must be the antithesis of ______ and anything related to ______.
be logical.
jumpyourbone 1 year ago
"be logical."? Why don't you try to be coherent. I don't know what the hell you are talking about and with all the blanks in your statement, you don't either. Here's an idea, try to have a point when you post. It makes it so much more interesting for the reader.
bluegsp 1 year ago
@bluegsp
you concluded that makyui was a godless heathen because he criticized religion. i was mocking your reasoning skills. clearly in addition to having poor reasoning you lack critical thinking skills, otherwise you would have been able to comprehend the point i was making.
jumpyourbone 1 year ago
No, I asked questions of a silly person that could not defend their position and made up silly answers to reasonable questions. The point you were making was based on a false conclusion that you drew while reading a 6 month old conversation. You seem to have poor reading comprehension skills. You clearly are an idiot.
bluegsp 1 year ago
I do argue forcefully, but not derisively or bitterly (sorry to hear that you are derisive and bitter, maybe some counseling would help you). I am not wrong, I have backed up everything I have said. It was Makyui that had to resort to making up crap because he ran out of facts
bluegsp 1 year ago
you know, you argue the same way i do, derisively, forcefully and bitterly.
you're just on the wrong side.
jumpyourbone 1 year ago
@bluegsp You think gay people are made gay by their environment? So prenatal hormones in the womb I guess are environmental.
S0Iari 1 month ago
@S0Iari Science suggests that enviromental stimulie could lead to homosexuality. There is no evidence that homosexuality is biological.
bluegsp 1 month ago
Comment removed
S0Iari 1 month ago
@bluegsp What scientific research are you referring to? From what I have read prenatal hormones in the womb during fetus development plays a role (but certainly not the only) in determining one's sexuality, straight, bi or gay.
S0Iari 1 month ago
definition of resemblance came from Merriam
widipedia was the only one that had a definition biometric, the rest were biometrics and biometric systems of identification and verification
I only use wikipedia in a pinch. I never rely on it
bluegsp 2 years ago
Here is the rest of Merriam Websters definition of resemblanc
2 : representation, image
3 archaic : characteristic appearance
4 obsolete : probability
synonyms see likeness
Nothing about "behavioral traits" in the "resemblance" as you described.
you cant even keep it straight (so to speak)
bluegsp 2 years ago
The SIMILARITY (reading the whole definition is important) is in the BEHAVIORAL TRAITS that can be realized very easily if one actually reads the abstract at the very LEAST.
Now, are you going to actually address the study, or are you going keep making irrelevant picking at words because of your own misunderstanding?
Makyui 2 years ago
Hey I found something on Byrne er al
William Byne and colleagues attempted to replicate the differences reported in INAH 1-4 size using a different sample of brains from 14 HIV-positive homosexual males, 34 presumed heterosexual males (10 HIV-positive), and 34 presumed heterosexual females (9 HIV-positive). They found a significant difference in INAH3 size between heterosexual men and women.
bluegsp 2 years ago
Byne and colleagues also weighed and counted numbers of neurons in INAH3, tests not carried out by LeVay. The results for INAH3 weight were similar to those for INAH3 size; that is, the INAH3 weight for the heterosexual male brains was significantly larger than for the heterosexual female brains, while the results for the gay male group were between those of the other two groups but not quite significantly different from either.
bluegsp 2 years ago
The neuron count also found a male-female difference in INAH3, but found no trend related to sexual orientation.
Not exactly how ol' Simon described the study was it
bluegsp 2 years ago
@bluegsp interesting
S0Iari 1 month ago
You couldn't change my mind because you don't operate in the world of truth. You cherry pick science to fit you needs and disregard the rest. When real science proves that homosexuality is fixed, I will believe it, but I don't fall for liars like you who bastardise science to fit your agenda
bluegsp 2 years ago
Whatever you say, Jethro. :)
Makyui 2 years ago
From Spitzer's own presentation of the study:
"Misuse of Study Results:
* To assume that it shows that homosexual orientation is changeable for most highly motivated individuals
* To dismiss the value to some conflicted homosexuals of a shift in sexual identity and unwanted sexual behavior, even when sexual orientation is not substantially changed
* To justify coercive treatment and the denial of civil rights"
Oh, yes, I am the one spinning it. Absolutely. Totally. Yes. Definitely. Yes.
Makyui 2 years ago
In 2001, Spitzer delivered a controversial paper at the 2001 annual APA meeting arguing that highly motivated individuals could successfully change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. The APA immediately issued an official disavowal of the paper, noting that it had not been peer reviewed
Two years later, the paper was peer reviewed and published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior.
bluegsp 2 years ago
Is that a verbatim quote from me, or an explanation of "Heterosexuality has 100% homogeneity"? :)
Makyui 2 years ago
And speaking of Spitzer (because I ran out of room again): "I did anticipate, and in my presentation warn, that it would be a mistake to interpret the study as implying that any highly motivated homosexual could change if they were really motivated to do so. I suspect that the vast majority of gay people even if they wanted to would be unable to make substantial changes in sexual attraction and fantasy and enjoyment of heterosexual functioning that many of my subjects reported.
Fancy that.
Makyui 2 years ago
And -- forgive me, I'll let you reply in peace after this -- I have to wonder how it can possibly be "unnatural," even if it was an "abnormality that can be changed". Are they being influenced by Satan or some Gay God, or something?
Natural =/= "normal". Evolution is chock full of natural abnormalities. Yet another parallel for autism, too, unless you're implying that autism is unnatural.
Makyui 2 years ago
The reason I want to know this is to show you that there's a REASON why certain 'relationships' are not legally recognized. There's a good reason why incest, rape, bigamy, beastiality, etc are not legally recognized. They are all harmful, in some way or another. Homosexuality poses no direct harm to anyone.
So, if all you can tell me is that it's "common sense" as to why incest is wrong, and that's all you can tell me, then I see that you lack logical reasoning.
steph6159 2 years ago
Telling me to go read a number of scientific journals is not providing me with evidence. That's just telling me to go prove it to myself. No. I'm asking you to prove it to me. I am certainly not, nor have I ever been intellectually lazy.
I'd also like to know what circular logic or strawman argument I have presented.
The reason I ask questions is to try to find out your way of reasoning. All I wanted to know was why you thought incest was morally wrong.
steph6159 2 years ago
So what if heterosexuals experiment with homosexual behavior? Is that wrong? What exactly is your point?
As far as my opinions go, not a lot of people would probably care on youtube what my opinions are. But, I'm still going to state what I think. Who cares what your opinions are?
steph6159 2 years ago