Congress votes to end gender id/gay job discrimination

She could be bisexual....I guess I am just not seeing the argument you are making.

I'm guessing that you are an idiot. She, herself says she is a "former lesbian" WTF are you to doubt that?

Nope, just giving a side...I have seen people who are bi-sexual come out as lesbians or gay. I have friends who are bi-sexual, but who call themselves (former)gay or lesbian. Just because she has come out as a (former) lesbian, doesn't show that people are not born gay or lesbian or bisexual, etc...This has been proven scientifically to an extent and is one of the key factors that conversion therapy was deemed illegal.

But mentioning science around a Republican is like throwing Holy water on the devil, they do not mix very well...
 
She could be bisexual....I guess I am just not seeing the argument you are making.

I'm guessing that you are an idiot. She, herself says she is a "former lesbian" WTF are you to doubt that?

Nope, just giving a side...I have seen people who are bi-sexual come out as lesbians or gay. I have friends who are bi-sexual, but who call themselves (former)gay or lesbian. Just because she has come out as a (former) lesbian, doesn't show that people are not born gay or lesbian or bisexual, etc...This has been proven scientifically to an extent and is one of the key factors that conversion therapy was deemed illegal.

But mentioning science around a Republican is like throwing Holy water on the devil, they do not mix very well...
What do you know about "science"?
 
Why the need for quotations on Science, it is a field of study and discovery...not a hypothetical.

What I have stated, are generally accepted scientific studies done on this subject....I will throw the question right back at you, what do you know?

I mainly study aeronautics for my license and career.
 
Why the need for quotations on Science, it is a field of study and discovery...not a hypothetical.

What I have stated, are generally accepted scientific studies done on this subject....I will throw the question right back at you, what do you know?

I mainly study aeronautics for my license and career.

So what about aeronautics makes you qualified to discuss homosexuality and the supposed "science" about one being genetically predisposed to it?
 
I just stated that what I have shared are the accepted results of scientific studies done over a period of time, which is what caused conversion therapy to be outlawed for the most part.

And why is Science a theoretical to you??? Do you not accept Science as a field of study or knowledge, something that is required in schools? Or do you believe that there is only God and Science is a liberal phenomenon? I bet you believe that the world started with two white people in a garden who ate a forbidden fruit....and that evolution is a farce? Ahh, funny.

I stated this when I originally posted it, time for some glasses.
 
Last edited:
I just stated that what I have shared are the accepted results of scientific studies done over a period of time, which is what caused conversion therapy to be outlawed for the most part.

I stated this when I originally posted it, time for some glasses.

What scientific studies have shown there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality? Links please.
 
Why the need for quotations on Science, it is a field of study and discovery...not a hypothetical.

What I have stated, are generally accepted scientific studies done on this subject....I will throw the question right back at you, what do you know?

I mainly study aeronautics for my license and career.

I know that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that sexual preference is genetic.

I know that there is scientific evidence that free will exists.

I know that anyone who denies either of those statements doesn't know enough about science to discuss the issues involved in who sleeps with whom.
 

That is an opinion piece written by a hack that ignores science, let me explain why.

First thing you see is this.

We know, from many twin and adoption studies, that sexual preference has a genetic component.

The truth is exactly the opposite. If sexual preference was genetic then monozygotic twins would always have the same preference. The truth is that sexual preference is no more controlled by genetics than favorite colors or what language you speak.

Then it goes into the brain, and makes a bunch of unfounded claims, without once exploring causality. (I know causality is a scary word, but you need to understand it if you want to discuss science.) Are the differences in brain structure the result of, or the cause of, sexual preference? Since the author then goes off into other things that are not heritable in her discussion, it would be arguable that behavior influences brain structure. Since there is a whole field devoted to the study of neuroplasticity, which is the accepted norm among neurologists now, and the article is basing its argument on the older, and mostly discredited, theory that the brain is static, guess which side has the batter science.

It does make one good point, one that totally destroys your attempt to defend gay rights as an outgrowth of sexual preference not being a free choice.

If sexual preference can be altered, then people who support gay rights can’t rely on the argument that gay people should be protected from discrimination because gay people have no choice but to be gay – an argument that seems like an apology for homosexuality, as if homosexuality is a disease for which there is no cure.
There is an element of homophobia in that argument– the implication that gay people would become straight, if only they could. Supporting gay marriage becomes equivalent to supporting the construction of wheelchair ramps. The “gays can’t help being that way” approach is reminiscent of the old view of homosexuality as a psychiatric illness.
In a blog post for Slate, J. Bryan Lowder comments on Cynthia Nixon’s claim that her lesbianism is a choice. Lowder agrees with Nixon that blaming biology “cedes a great deal of control to bigoted people.”
You don’t have to defend a controversial action by arguing that you have no control over your behavior. In fact, when we you do so, you reinforce the belief that your behavior is undesirable.
Nobody has to prove that biology forces them to vote for a particular political party, practice a certain religion or follow a particular diet.

I actually like the point that, by defining sexual preference as something no one has control over, you are exhibiting homophobia. Personally, I think it is no one's business who I fuck. I don't need the government to protect my right to fuck who I want because I don't have a choice. I have free will, and they need to leave me the fuck alone despite the fact that I have a choice.

Maybe you should stop relying on fake science to define your politics, and base your positions on the fact that the government exist only to take away your rights, and the only way to make sure it doesn't do that is to refuse to give them power over your life.
 
Here is another link: Homosexual Behavior Largely Shaped By Genetics And Random Environmental Factors

And another: New Insight into the (Epi)Genetic Roots of Homosexuality | TIME.com


It is based off of well-tested hypotheses of evolution. The evidence and tests have pointed to epigenetics.

Argument from authority, how original.

Educate yourself on epigentics before you start using it as a basis to defend absurd positions. Lamarckian evolution is so discredited in the scientific community that I don't even need to claim there is a consensus to argue against it.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top