[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by scarlet.starlet

So what do you think the data suggests?

I think it suggests nothing. Data is data, and I don't know enough to interpret it, but if it seems it does not conclusively cause gayness. Which leads me to whether the conclusions are premature.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by scarlet.starlet

Adultery, pedophilia, bestiality, fornication, and premarital sex are behavior. Homosexuality is a part of one's identity. You can be celibate and still be gay.

I think that is where we might deviate in our POV. What you do defines who you are in my view. Not the urges you do not follow.

[Rainer.]

Originally Posted by Thrash

I have no background, but to MY knowledge (which is limited in this factor), there has been no discovery of a "gay"gene.

This claim is a little ridiculous. There is no one gene that is going to code for most any trait a person will have. Especially when it comes to mental dispositions. If sexual orientation truly had a genetic basis at all, it would probably be a highly complex interaction of hundreds of genes and environmental biological factors that will be impossible to point to one and say "That one's the one!"

Genetic make-up isn't a list with a bunch of check marks on it, it's much more complex and unpredictable; the interaction's of a person's genetic machinery with their internal chemistry is something science has barely glossed the surface of.

[Thrash]

Exactly, which is why I find this claim ridiculous in the first place. Similar to those who say there is a "God" gene. It doesn't matter how ridiculous it is, as long as pop science and psychology gets hold of some concept like this it becomes proof with no basis.

[scarlet.starlet]

I agree with you guys; there's almost no human trait which has only one gene.

As far as fluid vs. static sexuality, I don't think there's been a lot of research on it. My theory is that hormonal changes may make you interested in someone you wouldn't notice otherwise, but I'm definitely not sure.

[JerryLove]

If one man is homosexual, their identical twin is far more likely than the average to be homosexual. There is no measurable difference between identical twins raised in the same house and ones raised separately.

If one man is homosexual, there is a slight increase in the likelihood that their non-identical male sibling is homosexual. There is no measurable variation between male siblings raised in the same house and those raised separately.

If a man is homosexual and raised in the same house as another unrelated male: there is no statistically significant increase in the chance that other person will be homosexual.

Homosexuality does tend to clump genetically, but only slightly.

Regardless of all other factors, the more older male siblings (from the same womb), the more likely a man is to be homosexual.

There are various studies, with various merits and failings but none contradict these claims. These are an amalgamation of those studies.

This points strongly to an in-vetero cause of homosexuality. There's some indication that genetics may play a role (likely the mother's genetics more than any others).

As to the simple disproof that it's human cultural influence (good thing noli didn't bet): There are homosexual animals.

Moving away from the scientific research and more in the psychological observations: most people develop both gender identity and sexual orientation traits by a very young age. Despite lies to the contrary, there is no certainty of abuse (I know more homosexuals with good family childhoods than bad ones).

These gender identities and sexual orientations are not (usually) set in stone. They do indeed swing (in many) with age and with society and (dare I suggest) with the gender of the person they find themselves otherwise attracted to.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

I think it suggests nothing. Data is data, and I don't know enough to interpret it, but if it seems it does not conclusively cause gayness. Which leads me to whether the conclusions are premature.

Why are you Christians so upset about what people do behind closed doors? Who CARES if people are gay? You are only imposing your own insecurities on the populous. It's sad and pathetic. They have the right to do whatever they want. You make me ashamed of humans, you homophobes.. Leave other people alone. Please.

-T

[OiBoyz]

Travis, I find it amusing that the one quote you picked to have a hissy fit about is probably the least offensive one. All Bill is saying is that he doesn't know what the evidence means.

JerryLove, you stated:

Before I respond: let me point out that nolidad has a well established history of simply inventing facts, typically ones even he doesn't believe, often when they are easily disproven.

Yet you give no documentation to your "facts" in the post above. Pot calling the kettle black?

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Travis

Why are you Christians so upset about what people do behind closed doors? Who CARES if people are gay? You are only imposing your own insecurities on the populous. It's sad and pathetic. They have the right to do whatever they want. You make me ashamed of humans, you homophobes.. Leave other people alone. Please.

-T

Hi Travis,

I hope you are well. It's been a while.

Now, as you know, it would be tough for me to care less about breaking up the American homosexual community. At the same time, I don't quite understand your thought. Right here, you're saying that we should structure our ethical judgments/behavior around the modern public/private dichotomy. But in half of your other recent posts you've been incredibly angry at the politics of the State that is the outworking of that modern public/private dichotomy. Which is it? Whenever I read from hardline libertarians and/or their more extreme anarchist kin I get the sense that this central tension resonates throughout all their thought.

Peace,

John

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by OiBoyz

Yet you give no documentation to your "facts" in the post above. Pot calling the kettle black?

Before you accuse, you might want to actually get some context and some understanding of both of out posting histories. You may also wish to consider whether your accustion even makes sense, specifically:

No. The fact that I did not provide a cite in whatever instance you are referring to neither means I invented it, nor that I have a history of inventing it. It only means I did not provide a cite.

Now. If you would like to accuse me of providing a false fact: please go ahead. You are more likely to get me to respond if you have put effort into the discussion, or if you've provided counter support: but could likely get me to support a couple without either.

[OiBoyz]

JerryLove, why do I need to put effort into the discussion? The one making the assertion has the burden to prove it. I couldn't care less about posting histories. In the context of this discussion you may or may not have done just what you accused nolidad of doing. Both of you made assertions, neither of you attributed them. Just a matter of "he said/he said" as far as I can tell. (Assuming you're both male, which I don't know.)

And just because you say nolidad made up his facts, doesn't make it so. You'd have been better off asking him to back up his assertion.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Travis

Why are you Christians so upset about what people do behind closed doors? Who CARES if people are gay? You are only imposing your own insecurities on the populous. It's sad and pathetic. They have the right to do whatever they want. You make me ashamed of humans, you homophobes.. Leave other people alone. Please.

-T

I am assuming this is sarcasm, based on your past as a theonomist. Stoned anyone recently?

If not, please let me know, because I could respond, but do not wish to respond to trolling.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by OiBoyz

JerryLove, why do I need to put effort into the discussion?

You don't... unless you are trying to get me to put in effort to respond to you.

The one making the assertion has the burden to prove it.

Of course. Your challanege is getting me to care whether someone who popped on and resurrected a dead thread believes me or not.

In other words: whether I would waste my time doing easily done research for someone who has not advocated nor supported a position of his own, on a thread he was not involved in, for claims I long ago supported in front of the people who were invloved in it (part of that history you aren't interested in)

I couldn't care less about posting histories. In the context of this discussion you may or may not have done just what you accused nolidad of doing.

I accused Noli of having a history of inventing facts. The presence or lack of citations is irrellevent to whether the facts are true or invented; and one cannot validly assess a claim of historical trends while ignoring the history being discussed.

So you are free to care or not care about posting histories, but since you are responding to a comment I made about posting histories, it's pretty relevent.

Both of you made assertions, neither of you attributed them. Just a matter of "he said/he said" as far as I can tell. (Assuming you're both male, which I don't know.)

The question is: why do I care what it is to you?

And just because you say nolidad made up his facts, doesn't make it so. You'd have been better off asking him to back up his assertion.

No, I would not have. I already know full well where that leads. The fact that you falsely believe that to be the case is because of your willful ignorance of his posting history and my previous public discussions with him.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

If one man is homosexual, their identical twin is far more likely than the average to be homosexual. There is no measurable difference between identical twins raised in the same house and ones raised separately.

If one man is homosexual, there is a slight increase in the likelihood that their non-identical male sibling is homosexual. There is no measurable variation between male siblings raised in the same house and those raised separately.

If a man is homosexual and raised in the same house as another unrelated male: there is no statistically significant increase in the chance that other person will be homosexual.

Homosexuality does tend to clump genetically, but only slightly.

Regardless of all other factors, the more older male siblings (from the same womb), the more likely a man is to be homosexual.

There are various studies, with various merits and failings but none contradict these claims. These are an amalgamation of those studies.

This points strongly to an in-vetero cause of homosexuality. There's some indication that genetics may play a role (likely the mother's genetics more than any others).

As to the simple disproof that it's human cultural influence (good thing noli didn't bet): There are homosexual animals.

Moving away from the scientific research and more in the psychological observations: most people develop both gender identity and sexual orientation traits by a very young age. Despite lies to the contrary, there is no certainty of abuse (I know more homosexuals with good family childhoods than bad ones).

These gender identities and sexual orientations are not (usually) set in stone. They do indeed swing (in many) with age and with society and (dare I suggest) with the gender of the person they find themselves otherwise attracted to.

Moderate position for the win.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by OiBoyz

Travis, I find it amusing that the one quote you picked to have a hissy fit about is probably the least offensive one. All Bill is saying is that he doesn't know what the evidence means.

JerryLove, you stated:


Yet you give no documentation to your "facts" in the post above. Pot calling the kettle black?

Funny, I bet you wouldn't want to meet me in an alley.