What will become of marriage?

I did take into account the ones that didn't take a position. Okay, the thing about South Carolina and Texas is more plausible. That really confused me. I just did some research and that is what I found. I didn't rig it or anything, that was just what I researched.

Just for the record, it has nothing to do with the gay marriage issue. I am still depressed about Bush being reelected.

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

Why is it that people think I insult them when in fact I insult their inability to get the facts straight?I'm going to sit this one out for a little while to see where this is going.

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

I'm sorry, but I have to comment on this. This little paragraph alone is a perfect example of how ill informed you are of the real world. Genetics don't work like that.But since you think you know better than the rest of us on Genetics, perhaps you could publish a scientific paper on this topic for peer review?By the way, if you want to talk logic, let's hear it. Would you like to show us the logical steps for your conclusion? Yes, I want the math part of the logic.You are using words which you know not anything about.Am I the only person here who is irritated by such arrogant ignorance?

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

You wonder why people think you insult rather than debate? Take a look at this post: Apparently you are compelled to insult first and then correct the person's statement with an assertion? Nothing but insult. Nothing but insult. Demand, nothing else. Nothing but insult. Nothing but insult.Thus your only argument is one blank assertion. It happens to be correct, but there is absolutely no way for anyone to know this.Here is the problem as I see it. You are probably a smart guy and when you see an incorrect statement you get all of these arguments rushing through your head. However, instead of getting those argument down in the post, all that makes it to the ether of the internet is your emotions.Even when you may be right you generally give a person nothing they can work with, or even understand, other than that you are angry at them for being stupid, a bigot, etc.This Rose person is coming off better than you, in that while they are obviously ignorant on facts, and perhaps bigoted, they are willing to talk. Given that Rose admits to being a kid, why not cut some slack?It would have been just as easy, and taken less energy, to say that evolution would not remove a "gay gene" unless it is a mutation that would be prevented from passing on to a new generation. From a simplistic standpoint it might be easy to think a gay person can't reproduce through gay sex so the "gene" will not be passed on. Frankly I don't buy into gay gene theories (sexuality is much more complex than that), but lets say it is real, then what is the more complex reason that it gets "passed on", besides the other simplistic answer of gay people having sex with straight people?Well don't tell me, explain it to Rose.Have you ever heard the phrase, it is better to light a candle than curse the darkness? Personally I don't mind a few curses in the dark, but one must not forget to light the candle all the same.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Point taken, however... Based on my experience, correcting them won't do anything. Go ahead and try to explain to her yourself and see what happens. I'm trying to get her to stop making blind and rediculous assertions. As far as getting the facts straight, she can either stop talking and fish around for information or she can ask for them. My main objective now is to get her to stop making these fantastic statements. I don't think so. She seems to think she's smarter than the people out there who are working on the problem.She reminds me of an encounter I had a while back. I was visiting the first windmills in the U.S. of A. The energy industry in the States have finally started exploring renewable energy sources. Anyway, during the tour, it became apparent that in the group there was this guy that seemed to be the typical know-it-all. Finally, he made a comment that stunt all of us. He said, "you know what I think the problem is? We need to find out a way to make the windmills spin faster."Hello!!?I was simply calling her bluff. If you haven't noticed, she's gotten into the habit of "it's not logical, and that's the end of that." One wonders if she even knows what logic really is. This, I agree with. All I can say is someone has to break it to her at some point. She can either continue to live in her fantasy land where facts are cooked up in her wonderful imagination or she can wake up. I agree that it is one blank assertion, but this is one of those cases where the fact is obvious enough that it is enough. For example, the Earth orbits the sun. It's a blank assertion and I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove it.She seems to think that genetics works according to her imagination. That's all I want to point out. I'm not interested in explaining how genetics work... stuff like dominant and recessive traits... You are right. I actually typed 2 paragraphs explaining how genetics ain't as simple as her imagination made it out to be and that she needs to be careful in making assertion. I went half way and decided to erase everything and posted what I wrote. Why? It's going to take the next 3 pages to convince her that her imagination is rather limited. So, I decided to just let her know that she is wrong and hope that she'd be curious enough to fish for the information herself. Not true. I didn't say she was a bigot or stupid this time. I just accused her of trying to pass false "facts" as real ones. The other thing, I did give her something to work with. I showed her how the real world works when she tries to pass baloney as facts.I can understand if she is missinformed but realizes that she could be wrong. However, just read her posts again. She's not leaving much room for the possibility that she might be wrong. In this case, she is wrong in just about everything she has said. It's not about opinion. It's about the pseudo-facts that she's trying to pass as real facts. How anyone can be this misinformed... or where these false information come from is beyond my comprehension. My question to you is do you think any of these make any sense to her? I agree that this person is coming off better than me, but no matter how much you put sugar a lemon it is still a lemon.If you haven't noticed, everytime someone here debunked something she claimed as "fact", she would come up with 3 more rediculous pseudo-facts. Base on this rate, she will fill up this forum with pseudo-facts. Hehe.Ok, you are completely right, holmes. May be I should just stay out of this for a while and let patient people like you deal with it. I don't even know why I'm wasting valuable high blood pressure points over this.You light the candle. I ain't wasting any more time with this. I'm outta here.By the way, I apologize for the harsh things I said before. Be assured that the next time I post will be less... harsh.

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

As I see it, holmes, Lam is responding to insults. When people act as if they know everything there is to know about homosexuality, that they have all the facts about our relationships and our "lifestyles" when in fact they have no idea what they're talking about and can do no more than parrot what they've been told, then they are insulting us. I realize that most of these people are too ignorant to realize what they're doing - and it is for that reason that Lam should show a bit more restraint than he does - but make no mistake, he is the one who's being insulted first.

---

Dog is my copilot.

Based on what research? For what reason? And how does that explain the deep friendships that homosexuals often develop with members of the opposite sex; a phenomenon so familiar that it's the subject of the popular sitcom Will and Grace? Sure they will. By combining sperm and egg they can do it easily - just as easily as straight people. It's ludicrous to assert that something that does and has happened "will never happen." If gay people can never, ever have children, where are all these gay parents coming from? Yes, it is. The dominant planks of the Republican party mandate unequal rights for homosexuals. Supporting that agenda is outright complicity in the oppression of homosexuals. I hope that when you are able to vote, and decide to do so, that you take that into account. Not you. The government. I don't understand why you have trouble with that distinction.

You know, you guys aren't really giving any facts either.This is a hard topic to debate with me, because I base my opinions off my moral upbringing which has to do with my religion, which has to do with my belief in God, which can't be defended by fact. I do not know everything there is to know about homosexuality. I do not know everything about logic, but throw most fallacies at me, and I'll define them. I am a genetic scientist, but I have a general understanding about it and I understood exactly what holmes was saying Lam. I am not your typical all-I-care-about-is-boys teenager.I haven't done anything to attack anyone. If it seems as though I'm insulting anyone, it was through miscommunication. I have insulted homosexuality, but Lam has insulted me. Not heterosexuality, not the opposition against homosexuality, but me. Personally. And since you don't believe I know the meaning of the fallacy that I accused you of, it is ad hominem- aka attack against the man. It is attack against an opinion giver, not the idea in order to discredit and make the audience and all involved turn off their ears because they think that the person is a liar, criminal et cetera.I can't give you a logical steps to my conclusion, because it has religious premises. I can believe the conclusion, because I believe in the premises-- but not everyone believes the premises, so to you, the form is disrupted.I get my information from many sources. How many times do I have to tell you this? I haven't made anything up. It is all information I have found.I don't think that homosexuality is genetic. I think that it is a psychological thing, not genetic.

I know. I wasn't trying to embarass you or anything, just show you that a state-by-state list had already been compiled, so you didn't have to do the work yourself.I wasn't trying to be a smarty-pants, just trying to make sure we all had the most accurate data.

No, I don't have trouble with this assertion. People have come up to ME, face to face, and demanded ME to accept their marriage. Not the government.Two gay people will never have children. Egg and egg or sperm and sperm will never make a child. Females only have eggs, males only have sperm. Two males or two females will not have children of their own.I'm not a psychologist, but on other discussion boards, people have brought up people that were homosexual, went to therapy and were no longer gay. Before you call me arrogant and demand a psychology paper, notice I said "I THINK that is a psychological problem." Not "IT IS a psychological problem." It is only a hypothesis, maybe a theory because I have SOME evidence to support it.There may be some gays that are gay for other reasons, but I don't see it as being genetic. Like I said earlier, people have told me that me liking yellow, or being interested in linguistics is genetic.

quote:

---

No, I don't have trouble with this assertion. People have come up to ME, face to face, and demanded ME to accept their marriage. Not the government.

---

This remark really interests me - I've never know a liberal or an atheist to have encountered this, no gay person has ever made such a demand to me or anyone I know.How do they know who the christians are?

quote:

---

I'm not a psychologist, but on other discussion boards, people have brought up people that were homosexual, went to therapy and were no longer gay.

---

Brainwashing camps, we discussed those a while back. One of the famous camps finished when the head guy was found in the bushes with another man.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 12-05-2004 11:40 AM

All you had to do was ask. Is three enough? You can search the scientific literature yourself at http://www.pubmed.org.

quote:

---

Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2004 Nov 7;271(1554):2217-21.

​

Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity.

​

Camperio-Ciani A, Corna F, Capiluppi C.

​

Department of General Psychology, Universita di Padova, via Venezia 8, 35100 Padua, Italy. andrea.camperio@unipd.it

​

The Darwinian paradox of male homosexuality in humans is examined, i.e. if male homosexuality has a genetic component and homosexuals reproduce less than heterosexuals, then why is this trait maintained in the population? In a sample of 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives (a total of over 4600 individuals), we found that female maternal relatives of homosexuals have higher fecundity than female maternal relatives of heterosexuals and that this difference is not found in female paternal relatives. The study confirms previous reports, in particular that homosexuals have more maternal than paternal male homosexual relatives, that homosexual males are more often later-born than first-born and that they have more older brothers than older sisters. We discuss the findings and their implications for current research on male homosexuality.

---

quote:

---

Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003 Jun;989:105-17; discussion 144-53.

​

The etiology of anomalous sexual preferences in men.

​

Quinsey VL.

​

Psychology Department, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 3N6, Canada. quinsey@psyc.queensu.ca

​

People discover rather than choose their sexual interests. The process of discovery typically begins before the onset of puberty and is associated with an increase in the secretion of sex hormones from the adrenal glands. However, the determinants of the direction of sexual interest, in the sense of preferences for the same or opposite sex, are earlier. These preferences, although not manifest until much later in development, appear to be caused by the neural organizational effects of intrauterine hormonal events. Variations in these hormonal events likely have several causes and two of these appear to have been identified for males. One cause is genetic and the other involves the sensitization of the maternal immune system to some aspect of the male fetus. It is presently unclear how these two causes relate to each other. The most important question for future research is whether preferences for particular-aged partners and parts of the male courtship sequence share causes similar to those of erotic gender orientation.

---

quote:

---

Med Hypotheses. 2003 Feb;60(2):225-32.

​

An association between male homosexuality and reproductive success.

​

Dewar CS.

​

Kildean Day Hospital, FK8 1RW, Stirling, UK. colin.dewar@fvpc.scot.nhs.uk

​

The existence of homosexuality in humans poses a problem for evolutionary theory. Exclusive male homosexuality has a catastrophic effect on reproduction and yet inherited factors appear to contribute to it. Previous attempts to resolve this conundrum are inconsistent with aspects of evolutionary theory. Additional limitations are as follows. Until recently, accounts of homosexuality have paid little attention to the probable existence of adaptive bisexuality in ancestral populations, from which further variations in sexual orientation may have evolved. Secondly, previous explanations have concentrated on the ancestral environment of two to three million years ago as the determinant of modern sexuality, when more recent influences are likely to have had considerable impact. I argue in favour of a longitudinal rather than cross-sectional model of the ancestral environment. Thirdly, they have often ignored the possibility of variable phenotypic expression, whereby those individuals with a genetic propensity for homosexuality exhibit different and adaptive qualities on most other occasions. It has been demonstrated in previous studies that homosexual men have superior linguistic skills compared to heterosexual men. This may be the result of an adaptive feminising effect on the male brain and apply to many practising heterosexuals. Other adaptations to the recent ancestral environment may include enhanced empathy, fine motor skills and impulse control. By drawing together these contributing factors an evolutionary basis for homosexuality can be demonstrated.

---

Do you think that maybe, then, that's not a good basis for supporting policies that affect other people? Particularly people who don't share your belief in God? Why should your view of what is right, based only on faith and not evidence, trump the views of people who disagree? Absolutely no research supports this, which is why homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic Manuals as a disorder.

You mean, you, the minor who can't even vote? Why do I find it rather hard to believe that anyone would care what you think about gays, personally? Unless you had set yourself out as some kind of targer; perhaps by advocating for oppressive policies against gay persons?In other words, I find it hard to believe that gay people would be getting in your face about it if you hadn't gotten in theirs, first. Yes, they will - they have and they do. It's just that simple. Lots and lots of gay people have children. I don't understand what's so hard to understand about that. Yet, many gay couples do have children of their own. How do you explain that? In fact, there are no such examples. All of these people remained gay. Every single one of them. That's been the greatest embarassment of these "homosexual recovery" groups - that every single one of their "success stories" repudiated the "recovery" and started having gay sex again. Look, we're not just making this stuff up. Having a gay uncle (even if you've never met him) raises your chance of being gay so greatly that a genetic or inherited factor is the only explanation. It's simply not environmental or psychological; its inherited.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-05-2004 11:48 AM

Oh, here's the doozy that I was looking for; I've highlited the relevant parts of the abstract:

quote:

---

Adv Exp Med Biol. 2002;511:75-100; discussion 100-5.

​

Sexual differentiation of the human hypothalamus.

​

Swaab DF, Chun WC, Kruijver FP, Hofman MA, Ishunina TA.

​

Graduate School Neurosciences Amsterdam, Netherlands Institute for Brain Research, Meibergdreef 33, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

​

Functional sex differences in reproduction, gender and sexual orientation and in the incidence of neurological and psychiatric diseases are presumed to be based on structural and functional differences in the hypothalamus and other limbic structures. Factors influencing gender, i.e., the feeling to be male or female, are prenatal hormones and compounds that change the levels of these hormones, such as anticonvulsants, while the influence of postnatal social factors is controversial. Genetic factors and prenatal hormone levels are factors in the determination of sexual orientation, i.e. heterosexuality, bisexuality or homosexuality. There is no convincing evidence for postnatal social factors involved in the determination of sexual orientation. The period of overt sexual differentiation of the human hypothalamus occurs between approximately four years of age and adulthood, thus much later than is generally presumed, although the late sexual differentiation may of course be based upon processes that have already been programmed in mid-pregnancy or during the neonatal period. The recently reported differences in a number of structures in the human hypothalamus and adjacent structures depend strongly on age. Replication of these data is certainly necessary. Since the size of brain structures may be influenced by premortem factors (e.g. agonal state) and postmortem factors (e.g. fixation time), one should not only perform volume measurements, but also estimate a parameter that is not dependent on such factors as, i.e., total cell number of the brain structure in question. In addition, functional differences that depend on the levels of circulating hormones in adulthood have been observed in several hypothalamic and other brain structures. The mechanisms causing sexual differentiation of hypothalamic nuclei, the pre- and postnatal factors influencing this process, and the exact functional consequences of the morphological and functional hypothalamic differences await further elucidation.

---

In other words: homosexuality is genetic, not psychological, according to overwhelming evidence.