Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!

BTW, you might not see me back until tuesday...
(Well, in fact you might not see me back here at all, that will entirely depend on your next post...)

You have already apologized a number of times to me for false statements.

I'd rather not call you out on it again, but look...I have said it before, I KNOW there is a chance that it is genetic, I have said that this whole time!

BUT, since it's a 50/50 shot, I just personally dont think it is.

It's the same way as how I am a Christian. I acknowledge the fact that yes, I could be wrong about believing in God...but I personally dont think I am.

I believe 100% in Christ.
I believe 100% that homosexuality is not genetic.

I know I *could* be wrong, but since its a 50/50 shot for either example, you cant get mad at me for wholeheartedly believing in one side of the issue.

Hmm, I see another opportunity here to make you see...

You CAN believe for 100% that homosexuality is not genetic. At this point I really couldn't care less. However, you CANNOT back up that belief by making that statement because it DOES NOT EXCLUDE AT ALL that it is genetic.

Important part coming up! Please do not ignore!
If you are arguing with someone who knows even less about genetics than you do (if such a thing is possible) and he or she has not thought about whether it could be genetic or not, then they will believe that it is impossible that it is genetic if you give them that statement. I cannot let you do that, because that statement DOES NOT make it impossible that it is genetic. You withhold valuable information, information that is VERY important in order to be able to come to an objective and scientifically valid conclusion. Therefore it is misleading to the highest degree. (You should try a career as politician :rolleyes: )
The conclusion should be that you cannot use that statement in order to throw light on whether homosexuality is genetic or not.

I also think that you should finally show that you have "studied genetics". You have accused me of using "all that jargon" while in fact all the jargon I used was taught to me in secondary school. If you are not familiar with these words then it is safe for me to say that you know nothing about genetics.
I'll make it easy for you to prove that you have some knowledge of genetics: I have made a little exercise for you to make, and even if you were only taught genetics in secondary school, you should be able to solve it easily...
To keep it familiar, I'll be using the trait eye color...

Imagine three alleles coding for eye color. Blue, brown and grey. (There are more but let's assume that these are the only ones occuring in a certain population.) Blue is completely recessive. Brown and grey are co-dominant, a mix of them both gives light brown eyes.
Now, imagine the following couple :
The man has grey eyes.
The woman has brown eyes.

Knowing that both are heterozygote for the trait eye color :
1. What are all the possible eye colors that their kids could have?
2. Calculate the percentage of "magical appearances".


My crystal ball tells me you are going to try to dodge this question :rolleyes:

Saying you think a genetic basis for homosexuality is 50/50 and then saying you don't think there is a genetic basis for homosexuality is a complete and utter contradiction.

By saying you don't think that homosexuality is genetic you are by definition saying you think the odds of it being genetic are lower than the odds of it not being genetic.

You should really sit down and think about your reasoning process.

For both nunatax and moonbat,

Have you read anything I said, especially recently? How many times do I have to say it in order for you to understand?

Right now, since there is no proof on either side, its a 50/50 shot. I personally don't believe it is genetic, not because its a 50/50 shot, but because *if* it was genetic, I see it as too important, critical, and identifiable a gene to be controlled by the same mechanism that controls say, eye color. I see it being controlled by the same type of mechanism that controls the behavior of say, skin color.

Again, the fact that I 'just don't see it happening' is only one of many reasons why I think its a psychological disorder as compared to the alternative belief that it is a genetic disorder.

This is the SAME way as how I believe in God. There is no evidence (that is universally supported) that God exists, yet I believe it is. In the end its a 50/50 shot with that too, but I am wrong to believe one side of the coin?

You cant hold double standards as I'm sure you, nunatax and moonbat, have many beliefs in unsubstantiated topics that you simply believe one side of. That would be hypocritical, as would your selective discrimination that you have of other segments of the population that you wont let marry, nunatax. And since you dodged talking about that topic, I will return the favor and dodge your genetics quiz. I didn't major in genetics, but I have studied it and debated it for years. And its also 1:30am, and I don't feel like entertaining your hypocritical quizzing of some topics when you fail to engage in certain discussions that I want you to put your input in. Then again, you are used to selectively entertaining certain notions while ignoring others. After all, you don't even HAVE an opinion about the topic of psychological or genetical disfunction as the origin of homosexuality.

<font size=7 face="arial black" color=red>STOP KICKING THIS THREAD UP!</FONT>

NAK, your wish is about to come true
(BTW, no one is forcing you to read this...)



Yes I have, I have also told you that I didn't care (at this point), because it didn't matter (at this point). Your statement is simply misleading and incorrect.



Right... You didn't major in genetics, you seem to understand nothing of the most basic jargon, you dodge a simple exercise and yet you have no problem making statements like that...
Too important, critical and identifiable a gene to be controlled by a mechanism like that of eye color? Man, your statements are becoming more ridiculous everyday... I have no further comments :rolleyes:

It will probably come as a surprise to you when I say that the two mechanisms that I explained to you here are just the tip of the iceberg...




Like I have told YOU numerous times : AT THIS POINT I DON'T CARE WHY YOU THINK IT IS PSYCHOLOGICAL!!! AT THIS POINT I ALSO DON'T CARE THAT YOU THINK IT IS PSYCHOLOGICAL!!!

What I care about is that you back up that belief with that statement and that is MISLEADING, WRONG, RIDICULOUS, BAD SCIENCE, etc... You must be utterly foolish if you don't see that...

You are if you don't know anything about the other side of the coin... And you obviously don't... :rolleyes:



Incest couples have a high probability of having children with handicaps >>> unethical >>> no marriage...
Polygamists >>> they can always marry two by two >>> no special arrangements necessary

Now it's only fair that you answer my "quiz"...
(Uh oh, my crystal ball tells me you are going to come up with yet another farfetched argument in order to dodge it... )

And by the way, your pandora's box still hasn't opened here in Belgium... So far the consequences of allowing gay marriage have only been positive. Feel free to keep an eye on Belgium to see whether eventually this issue causes utter chaos and death here...

Ah, so now you're also sure that if it is genetic, it is a disfunction without a doubt???
You really need to expand your thinking urgently...

If I don't get a decent answer (read : if you don't show you can use your brains and your next post turns out to be yet another fabulous dodge) then I'm giving up...
I'm sick and tired of your ignorance. However, I want you to know that if I see you trying to mislead anyone with another one of your ridiculous statements, then I'll be there...
(With which I do not mean that I think most of the people here are unable to see through foolish statements like that themselves...)

You don't understand the words you are using, there is not "proof" in science only evidence and based on the evidence the odds are stacked in favour of atleast a partial genetic basis.

Furthermore you seem to be labouring under the impression it is an "either or" scenario simpy genetic or psychological, it's not, there are many other possible hypothesis for example the hormonal environment in the womb.

Finally IF your argument regarding genetics were valid then the probability of a genetic cause would definitively fall below 50%. IF given the nature of genetics and given the pattern of inheretance displayed by the homosexual phenotype it were impossible for homosexuality to have genetic roots then by definition the probability would be zero, if instead homosexuality was unlikely to have genetic roots again the probability falls below 50%.

You cannot claim the odds are 50/50 on a genetic basis and then say but you don't think it has a genetic basis without contradicting yourself.

This thread, which I have skimmed (why read carefully about an argument that is irrelevant to the objective in mind? Homosexual marriage), was supposed to be about terrorists and GWB.

But it isn't now. OK, so be it.

People who are going to stand in the way of homosexual marriage DO NOT CARE why someone is homosexual.

People who DISBELIEVE in the claims of ANY theory that postulates as all but proved that one species can EVOLVE from another, don't care about genetics, and in fact a few of us think that genetics offers less proof for natural selection as a mechanism than more evidence for design and in any case is irrelevant to a discussion of evolution, and NO I'm not interested in debating Darwinism here or anywhere else. The fact is that I do not have to believe it and I have a right to dissent and claim that it is nothing but a bad theory used for deliberate reasons (from its very inception) to foist a view of life that cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.

To quote the Emperor, "you are passionate Moonbat, but you do not persuade."

As to homosexual marriage it is analogous to giving a blind man (or woman) a driver's license. There are people who society deems unworthy of certain key responsibilities. Marriage has a specific definition, always has and always will, and homosexuals are disqualified. Now a suitable political settlement can be reached whereby society offers a limited kind of union to homosexual couples. But if they are not willing to be reasonable, then they may end up getting nothing.

Great movie. Anyone wanna guess which movie that quote is from?

Amadeus.

I told you before that I will answer your quiz as soon as you answer my selective discrimination question. Fair is fair and I asked you first, we need to stay in order here!

Incest marriage doesn't necessarily mean having kids, it just means marriage, are you going to allow that or not? Fair is fair!

Your polygamous answer? Two by two? What are you talking about...will you or will you not let them marry as many people as they want? Fair is far, nunatax.

You didn't answer any of the other "rights" that a small segment of the population wants that "dont hurt anyone." Please address that.

and when you said:

It's obviously a disfuction, disorder, whatever you want to call it. A disorder isn't always "bad", but being a homosexual is certainly without a doubt a disorder. If you are blind, you have a sight disorder. If you are retarded you have a mental disorder. If you are attracted to the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what humans are supposed to be attracted to, its a disorder.

So answer my questions that I posed first before I entertain your little quiz. Fair is fair.

NAK, you dont like E.T. but you thought Amadeus was a "GREAT MOVIE"???

I guess you are entitled to your opinion...

Fair enough, though i would add that in order to persuade one has to have an audience who is persuadable.

Posted by the 89th key:
Even though you've been told(by at least me and I should think at least one or more here)that the American Psychiatric Association long ago DROPPED THAT DESIGNATION.

So why you persist in holding on to that archaic viewpoint is beyond us!

Unless of course, you suffer some kind of newly classified "judgement" disorder. :rolleyes:

The APA dropped it as a 'psychological disorder' in the late 70's or sometime, but only from political pressure. Here's another nugget of info: There still is no evidence showing it is genetic, which is still on the record to this day as scientific organizations keep coming out and stating that they still have no evidence that it is genetic.

And the whole point of the my post, that you were just replying to, was the fact that someone was saying calling it a genetic disorder is wrong. When, whether it's genetic or psych, it is obviously a disorder. Read the rest of that post if you want more information please.

That is such nonsense, there is quite clearly documented evidence in the scientific literature.

Amongst others this abstract is of relevence:

Stop saying there is no evidence WHEN THERE IS.

Infact here's some more:

Note that it is NOT evidence for a solely genetic basis (infact it is evidence against that) but it IS evidence for a partial genetic basis.

Moonbat, did you read what you wrote?

"It may have", "suggests"...

The scientific community has many pieces of evidence for many areas that are TRUE. Temperature, heart disease, animal cloning from DNA, etc...

But they simply do not have any evidence that will say that homosexuality IS genetic. There is tons of evidence supporting a theory of a genetical or psychological disorder, but neither have any concrete facts.

If it is genetic, and they cant help it, how come they have girlfriends while in highschool before coming out, or have wives later on after reorientation and reject their sinful desires?

You see, I dont care HOW against the norm it is to be attracted to and have physical relations with a woman it is. I simply could NOT force myself to have sex with a man, just because society says its better? Thusly, homosexuals shouldn't be able to have sex with women at points in their life, when at other points claim to be gay. It doesn't add up.