I liked Ron Paul until I heard he supports gay marriage.

Wow, you did a fantastic job there of wriggling out of your baseless assertion. Well done.

How have I admitted I have no evidence? There is plenty of evidence for genetic and biological factors playing a part in homosexuality. That's why nearly every scientist agrees to the aforementioned consensus that it's a combination of all of those things (plus environment, naturally). No reputable psychologist believes it to be a choice either, so I have mainstream biology and psychology on my side.. As well as the testimony from the vast, vast majority of gay people. You have, what, testimony from ex-gay ministries? Wow.

Annnd I suppose you're going to tell me the establishment is biased and their consensus politically motivated? Yep, sure.. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Try reading the Wikipedia article on 'Biology and sexual orientation':
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

 

Thats because you dont even comprehend what your study means, let alone its application to homosexuality being a choice.

The claim is that people are BORN with their homosexuality.

 

Nice wriggling out of your baseless assertion. Your claim was that brain asymmetry as an adult is evidence they were born gay.

 

Whose claim?

The initial charge had to do with someone implying that the homosexual orientation is a "choice" and asking for proof to the contrary. That evidence was provided, as well as a Wikipedia article chocked full of sources and information.(*)

 

I never once used the words "born gay". Nice strawman.

 

It is suggestive that someone, a homosexual, has not only "mental" reasons for being gay, but biological and pysiological ones, which lends a lot of credence to the idea of it not being a "choice" or something easily changeable.

 

Youve gone from

to "factors playing a part in homosexuality". So full of it. And I dont doubt that there are people who fail to fully develope their genders, but that doesnt make them gay. Some effeminate males become heterosexuals, some become homosexuals.

 

...the emergence of "plastic sexuality," "confluent love," and the "pure relationship" as democratic and desirable alternatives to a sexuality harnessed to reproduction, love based on addictive or co-dependent relationships, and the rights and obligations of traditional marriage. The separation of sexuality from procreation entails its freedom from heterosexuality and its emergence as an individual attribute, something individuals can develop, enjoy, change or project as part of their changing definition of the self. Sexuality becomes plastic because the self itself has broken the bounds of traditional institutional expectations and it is now free to constitute and reconstitute itself in a series of narratives answering to nothing else but the growing freedom of individuals to develop their potential
http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/work/GIDDENS.TXT

 

Oh Gawd...44 pages of this tired old war-horse...

People...

WHO CARES IF HOMOS ARE BORN OR DEVELOP?!

Who cares if one of your best friends is gay...and who cares if you think homosexuality is a sin. None of this makes 1 iota of difference.

Gay people...ARE PEOPLE! And as such, they get lonely and need company...they need companionship...they need love...and they need to have their love-based unions RECOGNIZED as legal with all the benefits of said legality. You can call it "Civil Unions" or whatever floats yer boats...but by denying these PEOPLE the accepted rights of a couple, you deny these PEOPLE the rights of...PEOPLE!

 

Actually if you take it a little bit further back than what you quoted and get to his initial assertion:

(*)

This was the point to which I was responding. That sexual orientation is a "choice". I never stated anything anywhere about being "born gay", because obviously the identical twin studies show that environment plays a part in it (or perhaps as explained by the Wikipedia article I quoted - being exposed to different chemicals in the womb).

Are people born more likely to be gay? Yes, I believe the evidence plainly shows biological factors in play.

A combination of genes, prenatal conditions and environment is the general scientific consensus. Sexuality may be somewhat mutable as an adult, and there is some evidence suggesting this, but the point is that people don't make the conscious decision to be attracted to member of their own sex. There are factors in play that are beyond their control in terms of what's happening biologically.

The "evidence" from those investing their time in attempting to "convert" people is anecdotal and unscientific; all it shows it that you can physically DO whatever you want, perform any action - i.e. marry a woman, but changing how your mind works is another matter. And it's quite telling that the vast majority of those relationships end in failure/psychological harm.

 

People may be effeminate simply due to their upbringing, or due to biological/pre-natal hormones, or any combination of the two. The cause isn't going to be the same all-round. Sexuality and gender appear to be linked, and I guess it would depend on which part of the brain is affected if there are biological factors involved, and to what degree.

But the fact that the majority of openly gay males exhibit perhaps some degree of femininity - at least at a proportion significantly higher than heterosexual males - seems to be consistent with that stipulation. I personally believe transsexualism involves a similar mechanism.

 

Your generalization about openly gay males is based on a farcical notion and has no statistical basis.

 

You quoted his statement above in your response.

"Show proof they are born that way." TO WHICH YOU RESPONDED

"Well, there's several studies."

But I completely understand why you want to now run from that assertion.

 

Poor Dixon... desperately clutching at straws as usual to defend his gross misrepresentation of the facts. Next time if you insist on dredging back a few pages to show who said what, at least do it properly.

He said it was a choice.

I asked him if he really believed gay people actually choose their sexual orientation.

He replied by saying "show me proof they were born that way", a notion which, due to the nature of my question, he apparently believes to be interchangeable with the question of choice.

So I gave some of the main biological evidence for sexual orientation having been caused by factors which are pre-determined.

You claimed it was my assertion that people are "born gay" when in fact no such comment was ever made, and my evidence was presented to address the choice issue.

 

Agree with you so far

aaand there is where you lose me. I could at least understand an argument that any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry, but whats the justification for special treatment for gays? Their eagerness to ape their heterosexual counterparts doesnt create a right to a long list of tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage

 

I'm certainly not saying all male homosexuals are feminine, merely that feminine behaviour is more prevalent. And in my own experience, it is. I think to say there are proportionally as many "feminine" heterosexual males would be a fairly hard thing to accept.

But you're welcome to disagree. It's simply what I personally believe.

 

His qouted claim and your quoted response, isnt straws. Its reality you cant contend with.

 

Probably more "feminine" heterosexual males than there are feminine homosexual males. likely indicating that factors OTHER than biological influences have more to do with determining ones sexuality.

 

You quoted his statement above in your response.

"Show proof they are born that way." TO WHICH YOU RESPONDED

"Well, there's several studies."

But I completely understand why you want to now run from that assertion.

 

Why not?
You believe...essentially...that the right of a married couple should be protected. Yet your definition of a married couple is a sociological and financial union between a man and a woman. Change that to a sociological and financial union between 2 consenting adults...and the problem is mute.

No Gawd that I would ever even acknowledge, would entertain the idea that homosexuality should prove detrimental to our rights as PEOPLE.

If Gawd Is Love...then its the love of a man and a woman...of a man and a man...and a woman and a woman.

 

The same reason sterile and barren couples are afforded those rights...

Because the government are honouring a type of relationship - a stable, committed one that can and does provide children with stable homes. Which the government has an interest in supporting. And if anything else, simply rewards the kind of commitment and pair bonding which strengthens society in very much the traditional way - it is after all what we as human beings by and large feel an innate, biological need to do; to form bonds. It is fairly instrinsic to our happiness, and the government should not forsake that aspect of a person's well-being, since we have long since transcended as a society and civilisation the raw need to increase our numbers and it's now about improving conditions and increasing freedoms and quality of life. Keeping gay people as second class citizens may make you feel good but it certainly isn't good for their own well-being.

 

Homosexuals would be correct by default in this context, since they know more about their own feelings and history than you do.

If you are saying they are wrong about their claims of their own history and feelings, then YOU are the one required to provide the evidence. They are not lying by default.

If someone is born predisposed towards homosexuality, then they were really born that way. His statement would be accurate.

I have seen no conclusive proof presented by anyone showing it is a conscious decision to become homosexual. Given the stigma attached to homosexuality in our society, this concept is, frankly, quite retarded. There is a HUGE disincentive in our society to be a homosexual.

The two examples are not similar. One has to do with biology. The other has to do with situation. Feelings = biology. Poverty = situation.

 

Nope, you just wasn't paying attention to the full discussion we were having. He asked for evidence for something I did not in fact claim, but he was seemingly using the "it's a choice" and "they're not born that way" points interchangeably, so I gave evidence for my assertion and my assertion only. Nice irrelevant semantics debate you've established here though. When all else fails, distraction is the best policy, no?

 

The cause of the feminine behaviour can't be determined, but any hormonal pre-natal conditions affecting gender (and hence behaviour) may also affect sexual orientation too. And(*)given the number of gay males who are feminine (my opinion), it would seem to me that a feminine disposition has a far greater likelihood of correlating with homosexuality.

 

Unfortunately, sweety, that's not what you said.
You said the majority of openly gay men are effeminite.
Since you knew the statement was stupid, you are now changing your statement, but it isn't that easy when your actual statement is only one page away.