So LGBT is a personal life style choice — so what?

I think everyone here understands the meaning of "statistically more likely". And what manipulation of statistics?

 

Reminds me of the growing movement of people "coming out", "identifying" as fat. Viewing their obesity as an inherent trait. Their identity of who they are.

 

Nothing wrong with what you want to do in your personal life, just don't ask everyone else to have to change theirs to satisfy you.

 

Remember that christians

 

That goes for everybody, I dont care much for bible thumpers or other religious goofballs in my face with their BS either.

 

Rather quaint, 20th century view.

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

 

That isn't the section of your post I adressed.

I did google it, I saw only oneconsensus among research, more information needs to be gathered. If you googled you saw this also. So why cherry pick data clusters that suit your argument?

 

I agree with this. Speaking only of homosexuals i wouldn't think this would come up. But since we're all lumped into the lgbt category now, i guess we're all pigeon holed into "supporting any trans issue."

I don't like that label.

 

Pssh. Uppity "21st century (Western far left) view". 16 years in, and already ready to throw out thousands of years of human history as "quaint" because some liberal sociologists said it was okay. Every else has always been wrong, but we're so *******ned smart that we know better. There were also some societies in the 20th century that decided to rewrite the rulebook like that. It usually didn't work out too well.

 

No (*)(*)(*)(*). I knew you did.

No you only saw what you wanted to see because you are biased. All studies abstracts end with 'more research is needed' it's (*)(*)(*)(*)ing boiler plate for more money.

Look in the mirror and do an affirmation. Admit to yourself that you are hopelessly biased and will ignore anything contrary to your world view.

 

Time and time in this thread you have accused me of being deceitful. The projection is strong in you.

"I saw only oneconsensus among research, more information needs to be gathered"

The obvious implication in this statement is that you found studies to the contrary. But as any person smarter than you knows, had you found then you would have posted them. Every reputable study has found this. If there was one to the contrary thst you found you would have posted it. Without such evidence you engage in deceit implying that you found one or more when you didnt.

But this isn't your first diciet. For pages you pretended like you hadn't researched it yourself already. That is diciet. When you found I was correct you demanded I give you a source. Of course I'm smarter than you do I recognize the trap. There are many reputable sources that confirm this. However there are also irreputable sources. You had hoped I would use a source you could attack and pretend thst it was the only one when you know for a fact that there are many. This again is deceit.

 

I'm biased because I looked at more than one study? How does that make sense?

 

Actually I haven't once accused you of that. I pointed out that there are numerous studies and you picked one that you agreed with the conclusion of. That is exactly what you did.

I found quite a split on this topic.

You said I accused you if deceit which I haven't. And you trip over yourself to do it to me. That's a bit hypocritical.

 

Nothing quoted above contradicts those thousands of years of history. Homosexuality, as an inherent, immutable trait of an individual is a relatively recent invention.

 

I saw that coming the moment he demanded evidence. The gays and their supporters aren't phased by reality. Their ideology can overcome any contradiction with the real world.

 

"Science" also shows that there is man made climate change, which of course is the biggest fraud since the holocaust

 

I have no opinion on the nature vs. nurture thing really in the sense I just don't know, but it has only been in recent years that genetics has seen major scientific advancement and we have had the technology to study some of these issues more objectively and scientifically. Much will be learned in coming decades about humans that may confirm or refute some commonly held perceptions. Up until recently, humanity has had to rely on anecdotal evidence and statistical modeling on this particular issue, studying things like the relationship between birth order and homosexuality or the prevalence of homosexuality in identical twins. That in itself has been complicated by finding people willing to even disclose that about themselves because of the social stigma attached to non-heterosexual identities. I personally don't know that the answer to the nature vs. nurture debate really leads us anywhere as a society anyway, but at least I know enough to know I don't know much about the issue other than it is unsettled.

 

I know you did. There are multiple studies all showing the same thing. You are making as assertion that there isn't a concensus an the relationshop5whole showing no studies to the contrary that is deceit.

 

One of the weird ironies of the 2016 election....

is the preponderance of rightwing homophobes....who are also Trump supporters. A man who has clearly "hinted" that he is pro-gay rights and even attended a wedding of a gay couple.

 

Ive attended gay weddings and still opposed to gay marriage in the law and special privileges in the laws for homosexuals.
And no more ironic than hillarys current support of gay marriage and the many videos of her explicitly opposing gay marriage.

 

Really?
This is from the study you posted.

"These prospective findings provide tentative evidence of a link between childhood sexual abuse and same-sex sexual partnerships among men, although further research is needed to explore this relationship and to examine potential underlying mechanisms."

I don't have a clue what this means. Slow down when you type

 

Is that sarcasm?

 

There is no "you and yours" where I'm concerned - I am my own person. I don't control what other people post, and they don't control me. So you can consign that idea of trying to associate me with what other people do or don't say to the trash heap where it belongs.

People trot this kind of thing out on a regular basis, as if it proves something about gay people. It doesn't. I don't have an obligation to comment on everything you bring up. I'll argue what I think is important. You don't get to dictate that to me. Complaining that I "ignored" it is just a case of whining.

It's also your strawman, as I haven't commented on it at all. I also haven't argued anything about gayness being genetic. So you've got nothing and are grasping at straws.

Statistical dependency doesn't tell you that there is a causative relationship. You're pretending not to argue that it does, but it's apparently the idea that you're trying to plant in people's minds. It's dishonest.

You don't know what I do or don't know. I do know enough to see right through this form of argument, though. If I were to make an educated guess at what you're up to, I think it's this:

It appears that you want people to believe that molestation, if not directly causal, nonetheless has a relationship to people ending up with a same-sex orientation. You apparently hope you can convince them it's a strong enough relationship, that they'll be persuaded to make the leap to discounting the possibility that same-sex orientation can arise from a combination of biological factors, or an interaction between biology and environment. Clearly, you're out to prove that same-sex orientation cannot possibly be innate. Statistical dependence doesn't get you there, though. You have to rely on people making that leap themselves, so that you can practice plausible deniability.

But go ahead: Tell us without obfuscation what it is you're trying to prove.

 

With regard to assigning someone an opinion they haven't expressed, yes - you're making it up. That's a nice way of putting it. And you're about to do the same thing to me. Witness below:

Not what I said, and not suggested by anything I said. So again - you're making up an opinion for me that I don't hold and haven't expressed. That's dishonest.

You are the one who should be ashamed.

 

Wait - so now you're calling me a pedophile?!? Based on an opinion I don't hold and didn't express? One you dishonestly assigned me. That's beyond the pale

You and I are done. Anything else I would say at this point wouldn't be fit for polite company.