-
Howdy! Welcome to our community of more than 130.000 members devoted to web hosting. This is a great place to get special offers from web hosts and post your own requests or ads. To start posting sign up here. Cheers! /Peo, FreeWebSpace.net
Hey, let's get married!
- Thread starter Gayowulf
- Start date
- Status
Perhaps not, but it proves that statistics are usually heavily flawed. If he lied on his census questions, I've never gotten any, nor know anybody..that makes a pretty big percentage of flawed census statistics or w/e....let's throw out a percentage of 61%, because it doesn't really matter if it's correct or not, it's just some stupid statistic.
You need to stop thinking about statistics and numbers, and think about rights and ethics. Nobody cares if 91% of marriages end in divorce (w/e the stat is), they care about having the right to do so.
Regards,
You need to stop thinking about statistics and numbers, and think about rights and ethics. Nobody cares if 91% of marriages end in divorce (w/e the stat is), they care about having the right to do so.
Regards,
Statistics are indeed very important. Of course, they are only valuable if they are collected in a controlled scientific manner. No one gives much weight to the daily poll on the nightly news, but when a professional polling firm gives results, you better listen.
I was never on a debate team, as it seems you were, but that seems very flawed. What one person has to say should have little to do with anything. What a scientific survey has to say should be worth much more in a debate...
Death Reaper said:
We have to wait until 2008 until we can pass anything similiar. While Bush is in office, he will not change that and has stated he'll veto any bills that go through him. And now that we have one more conservative judge on the Supreme Court Panel, it'll be a tough time passing any law.
The problem is you all think you're always right. "What's wrong with homosexual couples getting married, discrimination it is blah blah blah it doesn't affect you blah blah blah since when was marriage about family? blah blah blah".
I've presented solid reasons against the idea. You've said: "Peh, statistics mean crap to me blah blah blah discrimination blah blah blah hate blah blah blah blah blah blah blah". Well done children, live in your own little delusions. You clearly don't understand either the institution of Marriage, or the fundamental nature of homosexuality. And as you don't, and refuse to learn your input is worthless.
Don't you have any intelligent arguments? I mean come on, I'm not going to just sit here and say "I win, I win, I win!" Just because you refuse to acknowledge arguments doesn't mean you know better. In fact it shows a lack of understanding. I've answered every question thrown at me. I've provided factual, truthful answers. You've provided the argument based on "morals" namely that under your morals homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality.
Well is this a moral argument or not? Make up you're damn minds. If it's not a moral argument, as you've all said before then you have to prove it's equal otherwise other than your "morals" you have not shown any evidence, or any reason why it could be considered equal.
My head is spinning. I can't work you out. You attack me for my morals, and all you base it on is your "morals" which you've been brainwashed to believe are better.
Provide some socially relevant reasons. Or are you all together unable to do so? Come on, every one of you is at least as intelligent as I am, I fully believe that so use your minds, don't waste them, and provide some evidence for your arguments. I don't care one bit what you want to believe. You choose to believe what you do only because you're refusing to look honestly and humbly at the true reality of the situation.
I've presented solid reasons against the idea. You've said: "Peh, statistics mean crap to me blah blah blah discrimination blah blah blah hate blah blah blah blah blah blah blah". Well done children, live in your own little delusions. You clearly don't understand either the institution of Marriage, or the fundamental nature of homosexuality. And as you don't, and refuse to learn your input is worthless.
Don't you have any intelligent arguments? I mean come on, I'm not going to just sit here and say "I win, I win, I win!" Just because you refuse to acknowledge arguments doesn't mean you know better. In fact it shows a lack of understanding. I've answered every question thrown at me. I've provided factual, truthful answers. You've provided the argument based on "morals" namely that under your morals homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality.
Well is this a moral argument or not? Make up you're damn minds. If it's not a moral argument, as you've all said before then you have to prove it's equal otherwise other than your "morals" you have not shown any evidence, or any reason why it could be considered equal.
My head is spinning. I can't work you out. You attack me for my morals, and all you base it on is your "morals" which you've been brainwashed to believe are better.
Provide some socially relevant reasons. Or are you all together unable to do so? Come on, every one of you is at least as intelligent as I am, I fully believe that so use your minds, don't waste them, and provide some evidence for your arguments. I don't care one bit what you want to believe. You choose to believe what you do only because you're refusing to look honestly and humbly at the true reality of the situation.
That's just simply not true. There is no genetic link whatsoever. The Human Genome Project proves it. There are environmental (psychological) links.Canuckkev said:
We fundamentally require heterosexual relations to procreate, the idea that there's a gene which would reverse this is fantasy.
Untrue. The Human Genome project has neither proven that homosexuality is genetic nor that it is not. I read in an Economist article that most biologists suspect is that it is genetic, but they have not been able to prove it.Meksilon said:
theres evidence showing its not biological/nature. theres evidence showing its not psychological/nurture.
little tidbits:
- homosexual male brain and skills & heterosexual female brains are similar
- cannot change orientation (disproves fully-psychological)
- there's a 1% increase chance increase of a son being born homosexual with every son born to a family, starting at 3%.
- homosexuals tend to have more homosexuals in their family tree than others (not sure on the objective statistical basis for this)
my best bet is that it's pre-natal and hormonal; an unbalance changes the fetus' biology and causes it to be homosexual (and thus later unchangeable). so, there. nature, nurture. we're all happy now.
little tidbits:
- homosexual male brain and skills & heterosexual female brains are similar
- cannot change orientation (disproves fully-psychological)
- there's a 1% increase chance increase of a son being born homosexual with every son born to a family, starting at 3%.
- homosexuals tend to have more homosexuals in their family tree than others (not sure on the objective statistical basis for this)
my best bet is that it's pre-natal and hormonal; an unbalance changes the fetus' biology and causes it to be homosexual (and thus later unchangeable). so, there. nature, nurture. we're all happy now.
On the contrary, all evidence supports that there's no genetics involved. There is also no evidence that it's natural behaviour whatsoever. The anus just simply is not a sexual organ and to be used with one is like putting a square plug in a round hole.conkermaniac said:
Here's a run down of the argument on the side of the pro-gays:
Sexuality is like gender it's "hard-wired"/genetically determined (a biological fact) and impossible to change.
Evidence directly disproving this:
* - Homosexuals make up (about) 2% of the population, whereas left-handed people - a true genetic minority make up 10%. Also, although left-handed people can be taught to use their right hand instead, it will still be more natural to them to use their left hand. You talk to my grandmother, she writes with her right hand because she was forced to do so, but she's really left-handed.
* - Simon LeVay "Time and again I have been described as someone who 'proved that homosexuality is genetic' ... I did not."
A fundamentally flawed study which produced no evidence that genetics are at all involved.
* - Bailey and Pillard's brother study "found" that when a gay man had:
1. An identical twin, 52% of the time the twin was also gay.
2. A non-identical twin, 22% of the time the twin was also gay.
3. An older/younger biological brother, 9.2% of the time the brother was gay.
4. An adopted brother, 10.5% of the time the brother was gay.
Really all this indicates, though, is that there are environmental factors at work here. In identical twins it should have been 100% if it was really genetic. The study was flawed because all brothers were raised together. For a meaningful study you'd have to exclusively look at biological twins and brothers raised separately. What's more adopted brothers were more likely to be homosexual than biological brothers!
Further the only difference between non-identical twins and older/younger brothers is that they were raised at different times. There is an environmental difference, not a genetic difference. If it was genetic these groups should be exactly the same - ie 50% chance if their brother's homosexual that they are too.
If you can look at those results and conclude any other way, well then you're dreaming. There are very few people today who would try to claim it's genetic when there's no evidence for it.
That study as stated above was flawed. There are so many flaws in the study that it's just not worth using the results to mean anything, however for arguments sake:stabme said:
1. All the homosexual men had AIDS, a condition known to cause this difference.
2. Overall homosexual men still had INAH-3 sizes spaning the same normal sizes for men.
3. The sample size was way too small.
And there were many more problems.
There are ex-homosexuals, it can be "changed".stabme said:
Environmental factors.stabme said:
I don't know where you heard that, but you'll have to produce some figures. Because as it stands right now it sounds like your saying there are more homosexuals in familles with homosexuals then there are with families of no homosexuals - a no-brainer that proves nothing.stabme said:
That's conjecture.stabme said:
Last edited:
- Status
