Defending the Truth

Jefferson · 10-20-2006, 11:54 AM

A funny thing - even as reported in Wikipedia...

Quote:

Physiological differences in homosexual persons

Several recent studies, including pioneering work by neuroscientist Simon LeVay demonstrate that there are notable differences between the physiology of a heterosexual male and a homosexual male. These differences are primarily noted in the brain, inner ear and olfactory sense. 1. LeVay discovered in his double-blind experiment that approximately 10% of homosexual male brains were physiologically different from their heterosexual counterparts, some people take this as showing that people are born as homosexuals, however in LeVay's own words:

"It's important to stress what I didn't find. 2. I did not prove that homosexuality was genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. INAH-3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than a part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women's sexual behavior...Since I looked at adult brains we don't know if the differences I found were there at birth, or if they appeared later"[5]

3. LeVay's work has come under criticism for not taking into account the fact that all of the brains of homosexual men he studied were from homosexual men who had died of AIDS, which was not equally true of the heterosexuals whose brains he studied. When comparisons were made of the INAH-3 measurements in only the brains of those in each group who died from complications due to AIDS (albeit a small sample), similar size differences were found. It should also be noted that, to date, no evidence has been found to suggest that HIV or the effects of AIDS would results in changes in INAH-3 size.

4. Studies in women have not produced similar findings to date.

5. Some recent studies have tied a correlation between the number of older brothers a man has and his likelihood of being homosexual. Blanchard and Klassen (1997) reported that each older brother increases the odds of being gay by 33%. This is now “one of the most reliable epidemiological variables ever identified in the study of sexual orientation” (Blanchard, 1997). To explain this finding, it has been proposed that male fetuses provoke a maternal immune reaction that becomes stronger with each successive male fetus (Blanchard and Klassen, 1997). 6. Male fetuses produce HY antigens which are “almost certainly” involved in the sexual differentiation of vertebrates (Blanchard and Klassen, 1997). It is this antigen which maternal H-Y antibodies are proposed to both react to and ‘remember’. Successive male fetuses are then attacked by H-Y antibodies which somehow decrease the ability of H-Y antigens to perform their usual function in brain masculinisation. This is now known as the fraternal birth order effect. In a study comparing the effects of being raised with older "brothers" and having biological older brothers, published July 26, 2006 in PNAS, Bogaert found that there was a link to homosexuality only if the older brothers were biologically related and even when they were not raised together. 7. Interestingly, this relation seems to hold only for right-handed males. 8. There has been no observable equivalent for women.

1. So... there were differences in only 10% of the homosexuals' brains. This is hardly convincing!

2. How interesting that the researcher himself admits that he really didn't prove anything - especially that there's a genetic cause to homosexuality.

3. Yet another dagger in the heart of the "homosexuality is caused by genetics" argument.

4. You mean there's no genetic "anything" found in homosexual women? The heck!

5. Excellent! 10-year old research that isn't finding anything genetic - but largely environmental, and even at that, controversial and non-convincing.

6. Ahhh yes. Now we're saying "almost certainly"! Now THAT is convincing!

7. Hmmmm... Even more variables that simply cannot be explained away.

8. And yet there's no connection for females. Strange. Interesting.

foundit66 · 10-20-2006, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Only because you do not want them to be. But that exposes YOUR hypocrisy, in that YOU are making a judgment call - which is exactly what you are screaming about others doing.
Getting married and "getting the benefits" would force the co-habitating couple to do something they might not want to do.

"hypocrisy"?
I want EQUALITY.

Equality:
A straight couple can CHOOSE to get married, and thus get marriage benefits.
A gay couple can CHOOSE to get married, and thus get marriage benefits.

A straight couple can choose to NOT marry, and thus they don't get marriage benefits.
A gay couple can choose to NOT marry, and thus they don't get marriage benefits.

Your argument is just plain stupid.
If Archie Bunker wants to get hydrated but doesn't want to drink, then he's an idiot.
If a straight couple want MARRIAGE benefits, but doesn't want to MARRY to get them, then they are being idiots when they CAN MARRY and get them.

It's a difference of choosing TO marry, and NOT GETTING THE CHOICE to marry.

The ONLY thing stopping Dick and Jane from getting married IS THEIR CHOICE NOT to marry.
The thing stopping Bob and Ed from marrying IS THE LAW.

Can you imagine approaching the interracial marriage issue from this angle?
Telling Jim Black and Jane White that they can't marry, and then try to justify the discrimination by pointing to Jeff White and Carrie White who CHOOSE NOT to marry???

Boggles the mind!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jefferson

Care to carry on with your hypocrisy and double-speak?

Go ahead.
You're proving yourself quite adept at it.

foundit66 · 10-20-2006, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jefferson

A funny thing - even as reported in Wikipedia...
1. So... there were differences in only 10% of the homosexuals' brains. This is hardly convincing!
2. How interesting that the researcher himself admits that he really didn't prove anything - especially that there's a genetic cause to homosexuality.
3. Yet another dagger in the heart of the "homosexuality is caused by genetics" argument.
4. You mean there's no genetic "anything" found in homosexual women? The heck!
5. Excellent! 10-year old research that isn't finding anything genetic - but largely environmental, and even at that, controversial and non-convincing.
6. Ahhh yes. Now we're saying "almost certainly"! Now THAT is convincing!

7. Hmmmm... Even more variables that simply cannot be explained away.
8. And yet there's no connection for females. Strange. Interesting.

1) I quoted MORE RECENT studies, which you haven't even tried to broach.
2) Your tactic is like saying "See? Jeff's experiment didn't prove that the earth is round" to ignore OTHER EXPERIMENTS WHICH DO prove that the earth is round.
You're ignoring the studies I HAVE GIVEN by pointing to other studies which I am not quoting.
That's like me trying to epitomize Christianity by pointing to Hitler!
3) The studies I quoted INCLUDED studies on the female brain.
4) "Largely environmental"? I challenge you to show me ANY research which shows an "environmental" link.

alias · 10-20-2006, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

And the lies keep on coming...
1) Tell me, under the law, can I adopt in all 50 states like you can?
2) Under the law, is it legal for me to serve in the military like you can?

Don't give me this "you already have equality" crap.
It's one of your lamest lies to date.

Oh yeah.
And interracial couples ALSO had that "right"...
So obviously those "miscegenation laws" didn't mean a thing.
< end sarcasm >

You can't disprove discrimination by pointing to the areas where there is no discrimination.
It's like telling a black man that there was no discrimination in voting, because they now had an equal right to freedom.

Actually, Jefferson, I can.
In many states, there are no laws against discrimination in employment or housing based on sexual orientation.
I believe "many" is actually "most", but I don't have a hard number on that right now.

Again, what a load of crap.
Ignoring what you said, do you even know what the law says about marriage and insurance?

That's the thing Jefferson.
I have "got a job, paid my taxes, and living my life".
Just like you are.

The point is that BEYOND that, the government DOES discriminate against homosexuals.
How about we flip the situation? How about for the next 100 years we say that gay couples get those rights previously denied, and its Christian couples who are left out in the cold?

Oh yeah. I'ld LOVE to see you tell them that you don't want to hear about their 'non-existent' discrimination complaints.
There is a group of them already claiming they are the "Jews of the 21st century"...

If someone doesn't want to rent to you because they don't like you, that's their business. It's their property and they can rent to who they want to. Stop forcing people to do what you want with what isn't yours. Whiner.

alias · 10-20-2006, 01:15 PM

Foundit: "hypocrisy"?
I want EQUALITY.

You have equality. You want special rights. Whine, whine, whine. You have every right that I have.

foundit66 · 10-20-2006, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

If someone doesn't want to rent to you because they don't like you, that's their business. It's their property and they can rent to who they want to. Stop forcing people to do what you want with what isn't yours. Whiner.

So if a person didn't want to rent to you because you are Christian or believe in the Bible, you would support that?

foundit66 · 10-20-2006, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

Foundit: "hypocrisy"?
I want EQUALITY.
You have equality. You want special rights. Whine, whine, whine. You have every right that I have.

You know, I see this tactic in your response and my observation is to wonder how many people are actually buying this stupid crap you're shovelling out.

No. I don't have equality.
1) Straight individuals and straight couples can adopt in all 50 states.
Gay individuals and gay couples cannot adopt in all 50 states.
That is not equality.

2) Straight individuals are allowed to join the military.
Gay individuals are expressly forbidden from joining the military.
That is not equality.

3) Straight couples can get married.
Gay couples are forbidden from marrying.
Straight couples can choose to marry and get over 1,000 benefits associated with marriage.
Gay couples cannot choose to marry. In fact, some state laws have a proposed interpretation that the 1,000 benefits associated with marriage CANNOT be given to gay couples under ANY name. Not just marriage, but the benefits themselves forbidden.
This is not equality.

I realize it makes you feel better to try and paint me as a whiner.
But quite frankly, I don't think your arguments are convincing anybody...

alias · 10-20-2006, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

So if a person didn't want to rent to you because you are Christian or believe in the Bible, you would support that?

Yep. Why would I want to force anyone to rent to me? It's their business. I go where I am welcome. I don't force anyone to do anything. It's called freedom. Something liberals don't understand.

alias · 10-20-2006, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

You know, I see this tactic in your response and my observation is to wonder how many people are actually buying this stupid crap you're shovelling out.

No. I don't have equality.
1) Straight individuals and straight couples can adopt in all 50 states.
Gay individuals and gay couples cannot adopt in all 50 states.
That is not equality.

2) Straight individuals are allowed to join the military.
Gay individuals are expressly forbidden from joining the military.
That is not equality.

3) Straight couples can get married.
Gay couples are forbidden from marrying.
Straight couples can choose to marry and get over 1,000 benefits associated with marriage.
Gay couples cannot choose to marry. In fact, some state laws have a proposed interpretation that the 1,000 benefits associated with marriage CANNOT be given to gay couples under ANY name. Not just marriage, but the benefits themselves forbidden.
This is not equality.

I realize it makes you feel better to try and paint me as a whiner.
But quite frankly, I don't think your arguments are convincing anybody...

Homos shouldn't be able to adopt. It confuses and embarrasses the child causing undue stress and harm among their peers. It is illegal for homos to get married. You were in the military. If I was a homo, I wouldn't be able to adopt either. I can't marry someone of my sex either. You have every right I have.

Jefferson · 10-20-2006, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

So if a person didn't want to rent to you because you are Christian or believe in the Bible, you would support that?

Would there be ANY kind of legal repercussions if that actually happened "because somebody was a Christian"?

No, there wouldn't. It would be laughed out of any courtroom.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode