I Was Right All Along! Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

[mdk]

You don't a have right to a social media account or a wedding cake, Marty. No one does. It's amazing how property and association rights differ when folks feel it's their ox being gored. If you find Facebook's business practices unacceptable than go to another platform that fits your views. I bet it takes less than five minuets to set up an account on Gab.

The problem is another platform isn't the same commons as the one everyone else is on.

And not getting your cake is not the same as your opinion being voided out in our national debate.

IF facebook wants the right to ban, then they need to claim ownership of everything posted on their site, and have responsibility for it. If they want to continue to claim to be an open site for everyone, they need to be forced to hold to that.

Either businesses have a right to associate or they don’t. You despise the government forcing a business to provide a service against their wishes, but only certain ones. You’re not any different from those that wish to force the baker to make a cake. Thank goodness the gubmint and it’s regulatoions are here to make it all better.

Can Con Ed decide who they send power to? Utilities have to adhere to rules similar to what I would impose on social media sites that claim they are open forums. They can avoid it by saying they are not open forums.

Have you ever seen me post about utilities being unfairly harmed by regulations?

I believe the internet should be classified as a ulitity. Nobody (unless ordered by the court) should denied access to the internet if they have the ability to pay; however, individual sites on the internet should not be classified as such. Not having power or water doesn’t rise to level of being unable to share LoLCatz and recipes with your kin on social media. There is nothing you can say that will conceive me otherwise.

but when social media takes the place of the commons, denying a person access to that commons, or more importantly, equal access, denies them the ability to join the discussion. Or even worse, it allows people in power to ignore the other side of the discussion, because they can point to a sanitized social media and say "well not many people have that opinion, we don't have to recognize it"

If facebook wants to create an echo chamber, they should have to come out and state that fact. Same as twitter.

If they want to pass themselves off as areas of free expression, they need to be held to that.

If one can make power and water regulated utilities, and thus regulated companies, regulating social media isn't much of a stretch.

I have a wonderful name for these new regulations you wish. It’s called The Fairness Doctrine.

You can tell how entitled Americans have become when they feel not having running water is akin to not having a bloody social media account.

Though I do enjoy our back and forth, I am afraid we’ve taken this thread dreadfully off course.

 

[martybegan]

The problem is another platform isn't the same commons as the one everyone else is on.

And not getting your cake is not the same as your opinion being voided out in our national debate.

IF facebook wants the right to ban, then they need to claim ownership of everything posted on their site, and have responsibility for it. If they want to continue to claim to be an open site for everyone, they need to be forced to hold to that.

Either businesses have a right to associate or they don’t. You despise the government forcing a business to provide a service against their wishes, but only certain ones. You’re not any different from those that wish to force the baker to make a cake. Thank goodness the gubmint and it’s regulatoions are here to make it all better.

Can Con Ed decide who they send power to? Utilities have to adhere to rules similar to what I would impose on social media sites that claim they are open forums. They can avoid it by saying they are not open forums.

Have you ever seen me post about utilities being unfairly harmed by regulations?

I believe the internet should be classified as a ulitity. Nobody (unless ordered by the court) should denied access to the internet if they have the ability to pay; however, individual sites on the internet should not be classified as such. Not having power or water doesn’t rise to level of being unable to share LoLCatz and recipes with your kin on social media. There is nothing you can say that will conceive me otherwise.

but when social media takes the place of the commons, denying a person access to that commons, or more importantly, equal access, denies them the ability to join the discussion. Or even worse, it allows people in power to ignore the other side of the discussion, because they can point to a sanitized social media and say "well not many people have that opinion, we don't have to recognize it"

If facebook wants to create an echo chamber, they should have to come out and state that fact. Same as twitter.

If they want to pass themselves off as areas of free expression, they need to be held to that.

If one can make power and water regulated utilities, and thus regulated companies, regulating social media isn't much of a stretch.

I have a wonderful name for these new regulations you wish. It’s called The Fairness Doctrine.

You can tell how entitled Americans have become when they feel not having running water is akin to not having a bloody social media account.

Though I do enjoy our back and forth, I am afraid we’ve taken this thread dreadfully off course.

The fairness doctrine was more about media viewpoints from single sources. There was no debate involved, because you just watched/listened to whatever was being broadcast.

To me the ability to get your viewpoint out there is just as important as water. Now that we have the ability for a digital commons, it makes sense to make sure as many people have access to it as possible.

And considering the OP's vitriol, I have no issue derailing this thread.

 

[bodecea]

He very specifically mentioned that this trend does NOT appear in fraternal twins, who are also raised in the same environment. Try reading a post before responding to it, dude. Thanks.

Or they just didn't really look for it.

Sorry, but studies like this are usually full of errors, which is why I don't see the 40% thing as conclusive when body brings it up.

Of course you don't. It's just a study...that's been around since the 90s and has yet to be refuted. But nothing to see here, folks.

Back in the 90's studies told me oat bran was awesome, now not so much.

How do you know that it's not so much today?

because of another study, then another that said it is, and another that said it isn't.

Ah...I see. And where are the other studies since the 90s showing that the gay twin study is incorrect?

 

[martybegan]

Or they just didn't really look for it.

Sorry, but studies like this are usually full of errors, which is why I don't see the 40% thing as conclusive when body brings it up.

Of course you don't. It's just a study...that's been around since the 90s and has yet to be refuted. But nothing to see here, folks.

Back in the 90's studies told me oat bran was awesome, now not so much.

How do you know that it's not so much today?

because of another study, then another that said it is, and another that said it isn't.

Ah...I see. And where are the other studies since the 90s showing that the gay twin study is incorrect?

I'm sure if you dig hard enough you will find one.

 

[bodecea]

Religious freedom is fine....but religious freedom doesn't mean that a religion can control others thru our secular laws.

How is having to spend 5 minutes going to another baker "controlling"?

It goes back to the argument of tolerance vs. acceptance.

And we are back to bakers.....imo, if a business cannot follow the business laws they acknowledge by receiving a license, just take the license away. Easy peasy. Same applies if they have "an excuse" for not following safety or health laws.

Unfortunately for you SCOTUS doesn't see it that way. Ask Colorado how that garbage turned out

It's a sad decision.....should have gone the same way as what Minnesota did to those taxi drivers who refused to carry people with alcohol or with dogs because of their so-called religious beliefs. They pulled their licenses.

That had more to do with the curbside nature of the pickup, i.e, timeliness.

I would have no issue with a call based service that applied those rules, as long as it's clearly stated in their advertisements, and the question is asked prior to the pickup.

So...PA laws are based on timeliness? Not the following or not following of the business laws one is expected to follow in order to get that business license?

 

[martybegan]

How is having to spend 5 minutes going to another baker "controlling"?

It goes back to the argument of tolerance vs. acceptance.

And we are back to bakers.....imo, if a business cannot follow the business laws they acknowledge by receiving a license, just take the license away. Easy peasy. Same applies if they have "an excuse" for not following safety or health laws.

Unfortunately for you SCOTUS doesn't see it that way. Ask Colorado how that garbage turned out

It's a sad decision.....should have gone the same way as what Minnesota did to those taxi drivers who refused to carry people with alcohol or with dogs because of their so-called religious beliefs. They pulled their licenses.

That had more to do with the curbside nature of the pickup, i.e, timeliness.

I would have no issue with a call based service that applied those rules, as long as it's clearly stated in their advertisements, and the question is asked prior to the pickup.

So...PA laws are based on timeliness? Not the following or not following of the business laws one is expected to follow in order to get that business license?

In this case they should be,

Would you support a call only taxi service that only will pick up women for rides?

 

[bodecea]

Of course you don't. It's just a study...that's been around since the 90s and has yet to be refuted. But nothing to see here, folks.

Back in the 90's studies told me oat bran was awesome, now not so much.

How do you know that it's not so much today?

because of another study, then another that said it is, and another that said it isn't.

Ah...I see. And where are the other studies since the 90s showing that the gay twin study is incorrect?

I'm sure if you dig hard enough you will find one.

Why would I? If you believe they exist, by all means, find them and post them.

 

[bodecea]

And we are back to bakers.....imo, if a business cannot follow the business laws they acknowledge by receiving a license, just take the license away. Easy peasy. Same applies if they have "an excuse" for not following safety or health laws.

Unfortunately for you SCOTUS doesn't see it that way. Ask Colorado how that garbage turned out

It's a sad decision.....should have gone the same way as what Minnesota did to those taxi drivers who refused to carry people with alcohol or with dogs because of their so-called religious beliefs. They pulled their licenses.

That had more to do with the curbside nature of the pickup, i.e, timeliness.

I would have no issue with a call based service that applied those rules, as long as it's clearly stated in their advertisements, and the question is asked prior to the pickup.

So...PA laws are based on timeliness? Not the following or not following of the business laws one is expected to follow in order to get that business license?

In this case they should be,

Would you support a call only taxi service that only will pick up women for rides?

"Should be" and "are" are two different things.

 

[martybegan]

Back in the 90's studies told me oat bran was awesome, now not so much.

How do you know that it's not so much today?

because of another study, then another that said it is, and another that said it isn't.

Ah...I see. And where are the other studies since the 90s showing that the gay twin study is incorrect?

I'm sure if you dig hard enough you will find one.

Why would I? If you believe they exist, by all means, find them and post them.

Why would I take as fact the results of one study?

 

[martybegan]

Unfortunately for you SCOTUS doesn't see it that way. Ask Colorado how that garbage turned out

It's a sad decision.....should have gone the same way as what Minnesota did to those taxi drivers who refused to carry people with alcohol or with dogs because of their so-called religious beliefs. They pulled their licenses.

That had more to do with the curbside nature of the pickup, i.e, timeliness.

I would have no issue with a call based service that applied those rules, as long as it's clearly stated in their advertisements, and the question is asked prior to the pickup.

So...PA laws are based on timeliness? Not the following or not following of the business laws one is expected to follow in order to get that business license?

In this case they should be,

Would you support a call only taxi service that only will pick up women for rides?

"Should be" and "are" are two different things.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[OldLady]

Whether homosexuality manifests as a consequence of nature or choice is legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

The right to make that choice is protected by the Constitution.

Yeah, but if it's by choice, they can strong arm and torture the homosexual into giving up his evil ways.

Kind of like forcing someone to bake a cake, take a picture, or make a floral arrangement OR ELSE!

It isn't at ALL similar. Think about what you're saying.

Actually it's the same. it use of force against something you don't like. In the case of the baker it's worse because you are using government as the weapon of choice.

Force is force.

I definitely don't think that forcing someone against their sexual preference is the same as baking a cake in your kitchen. I really don't.

 

[Flopper]

As I've surmised for years. Nobody is born gay. John's Hopkins Research has vindicated me. No! Weak minded people let themselves be seduced by Satan and then become his disciples living out perverted dangerous homosexual lifestyles putting young kids lives in danger, especially when same sex married couples adopt them for their sexual pleasure. Homosexuality is not inate, it is learned. Science has spoken! Now President Trump should sign an executive order making it mandatory for gays to have conversion therapy so they can return to normal and find God.

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay Or Transgender

Not true. The findings were that there "was not sufficient evidence to suggest that lesbian, gay, or transgender people are born with this sexual orientation or gender identity." You can not logically conclude from the study that "nobody was born gay." There are studies that have reached a conclusion that sexual orientation is genetic, other have concluded the opposite and still others claim a genetic predisposition. In other words, we don't know.

 

[martybegan]

Whether homosexuality manifests as a consequence of nature or choice is legally and constitutionally irrelevant.

The right to make that choice is protected by the Constitution.

Yeah, but if it's by choice, they can strong arm and torture the homosexual into giving up his evil ways.

Kind of like forcing someone to bake a cake, take a picture, or make a floral arrangement OR ELSE!

It isn't at ALL similar. Think about what you're saying.

Actually it's the same. it use of force against something you don't like. In the case of the baker it's worse because you are using government as the weapon of choice.

Force is force.

I definitely don't think that forcing someone against their sexual preference is the same as baking a cake. I really don't.

The end of that force in the bakers case is either go against your morals, or go out of business.

And are you implying that any form of "conversion therapy" is torture?

 

[August West]

As I've surmised for years. Nobody is born gay. John's Hopkins Research has vindicated me. No! Weak minded people let themselves be seduced by Satan and then become his disciples living out perverted dangerous homosexual lifestyles putting young kids lives in danger, especially when same sex married couples adopt them for their sexual pleasure. Homosexuality is not inate, it is learned. Science has spoken! Now President Trump should sign an executive order making it mandatory for gays to have conversion therapy so they can return to normal and find God.

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay Or Transgender

People turn gay because they want to get their asses kicked in school and or ridiculed. I`m serious. I graduated with honors from Trump University!

 

[OldLady]

Yeah, but if it's by choice, they can strong arm and torture the homosexual into giving up his evil ways.

Kind of like forcing someone to bake a cake, take a picture, or make a floral arrangement OR ELSE!

It isn't at ALL similar. Think about what you're saying.

Actually it's the same. it use of force against something you don't like. In the case of the baker it's worse because you are using government as the weapon of choice.

Force is force.

I definitely don't think that forcing someone against their sexual preference is the same as baking a cake. I really don't.

The end of that force in the bakers case is either go against your morals, or go out of business.

And are you implying that any form of "conversion therapy" is torture?

Put yourself in their shoes. Do you agree to have "conversion therapy" to become homosexual? No biggie, huh?

 

[Lysistrata]

As I've surmised for years. Nobody is born gay. John's Hopkins Research has vindicated me. No! Weak minded people let themselves be seduced by Satan and then become his disciples living out perverted dangerous homosexual lifestyles putting young kids lives in danger, especially when same sex married couples adopt them for their sexual pleasure. Homosexuality is not inate, it is learned. Science has spoken! Now President Trump should sign an executive order making it mandatory for gays to have conversion therapy so they can return to normal and find God.

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay Or Transgender

The is nothing conclusive here. Nobody is "right." There is no support for the statement that "science has spoken." We simply don't know yet what determines an individual's sexual orientation, no matter what it is. It doesn't actually matter, anyway. What is, is. Nobody needs to change anything. This is just another right-wing tempest in a teapot.

 

[Sunni Man]

Science hasn't found a homo gene.

Which means that it's a mental illness. ....

 

[martybegan]

Kind of like forcing someone to bake a cake, take a picture, or make a floral arrangement OR ELSE!

It isn't at ALL similar. Think about what you're saying.

Actually it's the same. it use of force against something you don't like. In the case of the baker it's worse because you are using government as the weapon of choice.

Force is force.

I definitely don't think that forcing someone against their sexual preference is the same as baking a cake. I really don't.

The end of that force in the bakers case is either go against your morals, or go out of business.

And are you implying that any form of "conversion therapy" is torture?

Put yourself in their shoes. Do you agree to have "conversion therapy" to become homosexual? No biggie, huh?

Sorry, but biology puts for humans heterosexuality being the default. If not, or species would die out.

If an adult (notice I said adult, my views on kids and this shit is to leave them be until they hit 18, and that goes both ways) wants to try to "pray the gay away" why is that something that should be stopped?

What about bi people that want to conform to the default?

 

[OldLady]

It isn't at ALL similar. Think about what you're saying.

Actually it's the same. it use of force against something you don't like. In the case of the baker it's worse because you are using government as the weapon of choice.

Force is force.

I definitely don't think that forcing someone against their sexual preference is the same as baking a cake. I really don't.

The end of that force in the bakers case is either go against your morals, or go out of business.

And are you implying that any form of "conversion therapy" is torture?

Put yourself in their shoes. Do you agree to have "conversion therapy" to become homosexual? No biggie, huh?

Sorry, but biology puts for humans heterosexuality being the default. If not, or species would die out.

If an adult (notice I said adult, my views on kids and this shit is to leave them be until they hit 18, and that goes both ways) wants to try to "pray the gay away" why is that something that should be stopped?

What about bi people that want to conform to the default?

Ah, don't move the goal posts. We were talking about "forced," not something someone WANTS to do. If they really WANT to do it, let 'em pray, or choose a hetero relationship. I don't mind at all. If they are being pressured to do that, it is another story. Didn't you see the movie The Imitation Game? Alan Turing ended up committing suicide after the government forced him into conversion therapy. He had not hurt a soul. Senseless, is what it was.

 

[Hossfly]

I refuse to believe that the Creator intended for anyone to be gay nor do I believe the Creator intended for anyone to pick an imaginary gender. This shit needs to be settled quickly and laws passed to outlaw the whole sorry mess, along with the murderous abortionist faction.