First  Prev  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  Next  Last
Post Reply Gay Marriage
174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F
Offline
Posted 3/27/12

DomFortress wrote:

You didn't provide scientific proof on how nurturing, as in education and socialization, can trigger certain hormonal changes on an individual's RNA level, thus express homosexual orientation on said individual's DNA level. All the while hormonal changes happens even before one's birth, thanks to the scientific discipline known as fetal origins study.

Annie Murphy Paul: What we learn before we're born
Pop quiz: When does learning begin? Answer: Before we are born. Science writer Annie Murphy Paul talks through new research that shows how much we learn in the womb -- from the lilt of our native language to our soon-to-be-favorite foods.
Furthermore, hormonal changes during youth development doesn't require sexual behaviours as a trigger, when in fact it's the other way around. Your baseless and unrealistic claim makes no scientific sense.

Also, any STD's that homosexuals can contract through same-sex intercourse, the same can happen to heterosexuals alike through straight sex. But that didn't stop our species to double our population in less than 50 years. Thus once again you made no scientific sense.

Finally, straight marriages within the US had actually transgressed the ritual into some sorta monstrous reality TV celebrations. Cases in point: Bridezellas and The Littlest Groom.

NYS Senator Diane Savino speaks on the Marriage Equality bill
Senator Savino speaks on Marriage Equality Albany, NY December 2, 2009
So from the look of things straight marriages were already messed up even before the legalization of gay marriage. And you made no historical scientific sense.


#1: You are the biggest loser. You report every single post that you disagree with because you are a big loser.

#2: Prisoner behavior proves that everyone has the potential to be a homosexual.

#3: Lala has no business with losers who only respond to what they can and ignore and report everything else.

#4: Bye!
Posted 3/27/12

LalaSatalin wrote:




t MSM account for nearly half of the approximately 1.2 million people living with HIV in the United States (49%, or an
estimated 580,000 total persons).
t MSM account for more than half of all new HIV infections in the United States each year (61%, or an estimated 29,300
infections).
t While CDC estimates that only 4 percent of men in the United States are MSM, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among
MSM in the United States is more than 44 times that of other men (range: 522 –989 per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per
100,000 other men).


http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts-msm-final508comp.pdf


Male homosexual behaviour is not simply either "active" or "passive", since penile-anal, mouth-penile, and hand-anal sexual contact is usual for both partners, and mouth-anal contact is not infrequent. A simplified method for recording sexual behaviour--a "sexual behaviour record (SBR)"--can be of value in determining the sites to be investigated and as a basis for further epidemiological questioning. Mouth-anal contact is the reason for the relatively high incidence of diseases caused by bowel pathogens in male homosexuals. Trauma may encourage the entry of micro-organisms and thus lead to primary syphilitic lesions occurring in the anogenital area. Similarly, granuloma inguinale, condylomata acuminata, and amoebiasis may be spread from the bowel of the passive homosexual contact. In addition to sodomy, trauma may be caused by foreign bodies, including stimulators of various kinds, penile adornments, and prostheses.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1045908/

That is not even all. You seem to not understand Lala's point. There is a difference between encouraging and endorsing homosexual behavior (marriage), and simply making it legal. Straight couples have the choice to have anal sex but it is not encouraged through society and education as though it is normal.
No, you're quite wrong. When marriage is a ritual, not a sexual behaviour like anal sex.

Also, your sources were biased because they only focused on male homosexuals and bisexuals, they didn't include male heterosexuals in order to draw actual comparison. Not to mention they all completely ignored the female population.
3380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/27/12

LalaSatalin


Lala is asking what that is proving???


Not as much prove something as it DISPROVES something.
And what it disproves is your attempt to twist the truth in order to support your case as you did here:

LalaSatalin
So you just proved Lala's point. Little boys start thinking they are homosexual. If the uncle encouraged his thought that he was homosexual then he would become homosexual.


And it disproves this because:

1: The uncle did not encourage his thoughts that he was homosexual, as proven by the fact that the kid has just found out that his uncle was homosexual.

and

2: The kid misunderstood the concept of being gay. He thought being gay meant having male friends.
The kid's statement was not about who he was attracted to, but to who he liked having as friends.
174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F
Offline
Posted 3/27/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:


LalaSatalin


Lala is asking what that is proving???


Not as much prove something as it DISPROVES something.
And what it disproves is your attempt to twist the truth in order to support your case as you did here:

LalaSatalin
So you just proved Lala's point. Little boys start thinking they are homosexual. If the uncle encouraged his thought that he was homosexual then he would become homosexual.


And it disproves this because:

1: The uncle did not encourage his thoughts that he was homosexual, as proven by the fact that the kid has just found out that his uncle was homosexual.

and

2: The kid misunderstood the concept of being gay. He thought being gay meant having male friends.
The kid's statement was not about who he was attracted to, but to who he liked having as friends.


But you brought up that story before Lala said that. Are you telling Lala that you are a time traveler?
3380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/27/12

LalaSatalin wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


LalaSatalin


Lala is asking what that is proving???


Not as much prove something as it DISPROVES something.
And what it disproves is your attempt to twist the truth in order to support your case as you did here:

LalaSatalin
So you just proved Lala's point. Little boys start thinking they are homosexual. If the uncle encouraged his thought that he was homosexual then he would become homosexual.


And it disproves this because:

1: The uncle did not encourage his thoughts that he was homosexual, as proven by the fact that the kid has just found out that his uncle was homosexual.

and

2: The kid misunderstood the concept of being gay. He thought being gay meant having male friends.
The kid's statement was not about who he was attracted to, but to who he liked having as friends.


But you brought up that story before Lala said that. Are you telling Lala that you are a time traveler?


The reason I brought up the story about the kid in the first place was to illustrate how liberal and accepting the general public was towards homosexuality, even back then.
Which in turn proves that your hypothesis about "rampant homosexual epidemic" is false, because the scandinavian society has been accepting about homosexuality for an entire generation already without seeing any signs of such an "epidemic".
174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F
Offline
Posted 3/27/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:

The reason I brought up the story about the kid in the first place was to illustrate how liberal and accepting the general public was towards homosexuality, even back then.
Which in turn proves that your hypothesis about "rampant homosexual epidemic" is false, because the scandinavian society has been accepting about homosexuality for an entire generation already without seeing any signs of such an "epidemic".



He related that being gay is not a secret for many Norwegians as he described how "my ten year old nephew recently heard that I was gay and so he told me ‘I think I’m gay myself.’ I asked him how he knew that and he said ‘I always like to play with other boys and not girls.’ I laughed, but not at him. I think I will wait some years before I take him to a gay bar!" The nephew seemed without shame or fear, according to his uncle, and actually cheerful about declaring his ‘special idea’. "Whether he is or not, is OK, but he knows he is free to say what he is thinking", confirmed Morten in an assured manner.


Lala thinks that story is ridiculous. The uncle is going to take him to a gay bar in the future, that is obviously encouraging homosexuality. He's from a website called GlobalGayz so the attitude towards gays on the website is obviously supporting homosexuality. Especially if a little boy asks his homosexual uncle that he thinks he might be gay does not demonstrate your country's attitude towards homosexuals in general. It just proves that homosexuality is being encouraged to little children.
Posted 3/27/12

amersfoort wrote:


CandyPopShop wrote:

I have no opinion on this matter. Just putting this here to let people know that there are people who are neither for or against it.
If it's approved worldwide, then good for the world.
If it's not, I'm sure people will try and make it happen, so yeah.

I have a view that gay people are actually quite chummy and nice to be friends with.
So they can't be bad people right?
And I also have seen the religious view.
There are those who will follow that religious view because of their faith and love for their god.
Either views should be respected.

Those who do not believe strongly or feel linked to a particular religion would not understand the passion that the religious feel so strongly for their beliefs. And the rules that they believe and strongly feel are set for them.

Those who do believe they should marry and be given that right to, they do it because of the human feeling of empathy/pity/kindness and because they view it as not allowing gay people to have marriage as a moral issue.


Now I find your position quite cowardly, it's like you're waiting for the winner and then you'll start cheering for him/her.

You're implying that the amount of conviction that religious people have on this issue is an worthy argument to use against gay marriage, and that we should respect those.
I shall do no such thing, and I encourge everyone to join me, just because religious people are hypersensitive on this issue doesn't mean I will point out the flaws in their beliefs and arguments, let alone respect them.

And honestly, I do understand the passion that the religious feel so strongly, I too feel that passion, but in the opposite way, and I can back them up by actual arguments.

To deny others freedom in any kind is just wrong, if gays want to marry, let them, it's not harming anyone at all.


Thanks for criticising my idea.
But if I'm a coward, be it.
Live and let live.
3380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/27/12 , edited 3/27/12

LalaSatalin wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:

The reason I brought up the story about the kid in the first place was to illustrate how liberal and accepting the general public was towards homosexuality, even back then.
Which in turn proves that your hypothesis about "rampant homosexual epidemic" is false, because the scandinavian society has been accepting about homosexuality for an entire generation already without seeing any signs of such an "epidemic".



He related that being gay is not a secret for many Norwegians as he described how "my ten year old nephew recently heard that I was gay and so he told me ‘I think I’m gay myself.’ I asked him how he knew that and he said ‘I always like to play with other boys and not girls.’ I laughed, but not at him. I think I will wait some years before I take him to a gay bar!" The nephew seemed without shame or fear, according to his uncle, and actually cheerful about declaring his ‘special idea’. "Whether he is or not, is OK, but he knows he is free to say what he is thinking", confirmed Morten in an assured manner.


Lala thinks that story is ridiculous. The uncle is going to take him to a gay bar in the future, that is obviously encouraging homosexuality. He's from a website called GlobalGayz so the attitude towards gays on the website is obviously supporting homosexuality. Especially if a little boy asks his homosexual uncle that he thinks he might be gay does not demonstrate your country's attitude towards homosexuals in general. It just proves that homosexuality is being encouraged to little children.


If the kid is interested in being taken to a gay bar, then why shouldn't he? A gay bar is not some den of sin where people are making out and having sex in front of each other right in the open.
And again, only if the kid is interested. It's not like he'd force the kid to go to a gay bar if he didn't want to. And by the time the kid CAN go to a gay bar, he will most likely already have dicided on wheather or not he is into that sort of thing.

As far as I can tell, there is no indication that Morten has any relation to the website this article was posted from. More likely, he was a contact they had or someone they just met. "They" being the couple who wrote that article met on their journey to Norway.
So most likely, Morten had little to no relationship with the website as a whole.

Of course he is gay friendly, seeing as he is gay. But like stated earlier, the kid only just found out that the uncle was gay.
Meaning the kid was unaware of his uncle's homosexuality up until that point. And despite being unaware of that, he still had an accepting attitude towards it.

That is not a result of the uncle promoting homosexuality, but of an accepting attitude. Both from his parents, school, and society in general.
So it does prove the general attitude towards homosexuality.
And even if it doesn't, I myself as a member of the scandinavian society can vouch for it.

And in fact, if homosexuality WAS being promoted, like you say, the kid would've been aware of the definition and meaning of being gay.
But he didn't. He had a misunderstanding of it, which proves that he was not more than slightly exposed to the subject.
Posted 3/27/12

LalaSatalin wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:

The reason I brought up the story about the kid in the first place was to illustrate how liberal and accepting the general public was towards homosexuality, even back then.
Which in turn proves that your hypothesis about "rampant homosexual epidemic" is false, because the scandinavian society has been accepting about homosexuality for an entire generation already without seeing any signs of such an "epidemic".



He related that being gay is not a secret for many Norwegians as he described how "my ten year old nephew recently heard that I was gay and so he told me ‘I think I’m gay myself.’ I asked him how he knew that and he said ‘I always like to play with other boys and not girls.’ I laughed, but not at him. I think I will wait some years before I take him to a gay bar!" The nephew seemed without shame or fear, according to his uncle, and actually cheerful about declaring his ‘special idea’. "Whether he is or not, is OK, but he knows he is free to say what he is thinking", confirmed Morten in an assured manner.


Lala thinks that story is ridiculous. The uncle is going to take him to a gay bar in the future, that is obviously encouraging homosexuality. He's from a website called GlobalGayz so the attitude towards gays on the website is obviously supporting homosexuality. Especially if a little boy asks his homosexual uncle that he thinks he might be gay does not demonstrate your country's attitude towards homosexuals in general. It just proves that homosexuality is being encouraged to little children.
You didn't provide scientific proof on how nurturing, as in education and socialization, can trigger certain hormonal changes on an individual's RNA level, thus express homosexual orientation on said individual's DNA level through epicgenetics. All you really have is baseless paranoia.that makes no scientific sense.

National Geographic explains the biology of homosexuality
NatGeo explains how one's sexual orientation is determined during embryonic development. They look at how it is possible for one identical twin to be gay and the other to be straight. They address a new branch of Genetics called, Epigenetics. This area of Genetics explores and explains how one's DNA sequence is NOT the only factor in one's phenotypic (actual) outcome. This episode explains how both twins could have the gene for a disorder, yet only one twin actually has the disorder. The same science explains sexual orientation differences in twins.

The 'Gay Brain' Explained - Louann Brizendine
Dr. Louann Brizendine, author of The Male Brain, outlines the preliminary scientific results measuring the differences between the straight male brain and the gay male brain. She says that having "same-sex attraction" is "not some kind of a moral decision," but rather involves brain circuitry, genes, and hormones.
174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F
Offline
Posted 3/27/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:

If the kid is interested in being taken to a gay bar, then why shouldn't he? A gay bar is not some den of sin where people are making out and having sex in front of each other right in the open.
And again, only if the kid is interested. It's not like he'd force the kid to go to a gay bar if he didn't want to. And by the time the kid CAN go to a gay bar, he will most likely already have dicided on wheather or not he is into that sort of thing.

As far as I can tell, there is no indication that Morten has any relation to the website this article was posted from. More likely, he was a contact they had or someone they just met. "They" being the couple who wrote that article met on their journey to Norway.
So most likely, Morten had little to no relationship with the website as a whole.

Of course he is gay friendly, seeing as he is gay. But like stated earlier, the kid only just found out that the uncle was gay.
Meaning the kid was unaware of his uncle's homosexuality up until that point. And despite being unaware of that, he still had an accepting attitude towards it.
That is not a result of his uncle's homosexual promotion, but of acceptance. Both from his parents, school, and society in general.
So it does prove the general attitude towards homosexuality.

And even if it doesn't, I myself as a member of the scandinavian society can vouch for it.
And in fact, if homosexuality WAS being promoted, like you say, the kid would've been aware of the definition and meaning of being gay.
But he didn't. He had a misunderstanding of it, which proves that he was not more than slightly exposed to the subject.


Lala thinks that does not prove anything.

#1: It could have been a coincidence

#2: His parents could have easily hinted that his uncle was gay

#3: His uncle could be making it up

#4: His uncle could have forgot that he told the child that he was gay

#5: The child does not represent the entire community

#6: Children usually don't even understand the concept of sex

#7: If the boy didn't even know what homosexual sex was then the whole story is irrelevant
174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F
Offline
Posted 3/27/12

DomFortress wrote:

ou didn't provide scientific proof on how nurturing, as in education and socialization, can trigger certain hormonal changes on an individual's RNA level, thus express homosexual orientation on said individual's DNA level through epicgenetics. All you really have is baseless paranoia.that makes no scientific sense.

National Geographic explains the biology of homosexuality
NatGeo explains how one's sexual orientation is determined during embryonic development. They look at how it is possible for one identical twin to be gay and the other to be straight. They address a new branch of Genetics called, Epigenetics. This area of Genetics explores and explains how one's DNA sequence is NOT the only factor in one's phenotypic (actual) outcome. This episode explains how both twins could have the gene for a disorder, yet only one twin actually has the disorder. The same science explains sexual orientation differences in twins.

The 'Gay Brain' Explained - Louann Brizendine
Dr. Louann Brizendine, author of The Male Brain, outlines the preliminary scientific results measuring the differences between the straight male brain and the gay male brain. She says that having "same-sex attraction" is "not some kind of a moral decision," but rather involves brain circuitry, genes, and hormones.


#1: Lala knows you are spamming.

#2: Prisoner behavior is evidence that everyone has the potential to be homosexual.
3380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/27/12 , edited 3/27/12

LalaSatalin wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:

If the kid is interested in being taken to a gay bar, then why shouldn't he? A gay bar is not some den of sin where people are making out and having sex in front of each other right in the open.
And again, only if the kid is interested. It's not like he'd force the kid to go to a gay bar if he didn't want to. And by the time the kid CAN go to a gay bar, he will most likely already have dicided on wheather or not he is into that sort of thing.

As far as I can tell, there is no indication that Morten has any relation to the website this article was posted from. More likely, he was a contact they had or someone they just met. "They" being the couple who wrote that article met on their journey to Norway.
So most likely, Morten had little to no relationship with the website as a whole.

Of course he is gay friendly, seeing as he is gay. But like stated earlier, the kid only just found out that the uncle was gay.
Meaning the kid was unaware of his uncle's homosexuality up until that point. And despite being unaware of that, he still had an accepting attitude towards it.
That is not a result of his uncle's homosexual promotion, but of acceptance. Both from his parents, school, and society in general.
So it does prove the general attitude towards homosexuality.

And even if it doesn't, I myself as a member of the scandinavian society can vouch for it.
And in fact, if homosexuality WAS being promoted, like you say, the kid would've been aware of the definition and meaning of being gay.
But he didn't. He had a misunderstanding of it, which proves that he was not more than slightly exposed to the subject.


Lala thinks that does not prove anything.

#1: It could have been a coincidence

#2: His parents could have easily hinted that his uncle was gay

#3: His uncle could be making it up

#4: His uncle could have forgot that he told the child that he was gay

#5: The child does not represent the entire community

#6: Children usually don't even understand the concept of sex

#7: If the boy didn't even know what homosexual sex was then the whole story is irrelevant



#1: What exactly?

#2: I fail to see how that is "promoting" homosexuality. By that logic, everything short of disencouragement is promoting.

#3: Why would he? Unless you can come up with a motive for why he would make up a funny story about a family member, saying such a thing is nothing more than wild, desperate assumptions. If there is no reason to belive he had a reason to do it, he most likely didn't.

#4: Not likely. Even if homosexuality is accepted in Norway, it is by no means as common as heterosexuality. And if he was able to express with certainty that the kid had just recently found out that he was gay, it probably means that the kid had asked him to confirm it. Like "is it true that you are gay"? or something along those lines. This is yet another desperate "could be" assumption.

#5: No, but he is an example of how the general attitude affects children. And again, I can vouch for this myself.

#6: No, but they do understand the concept of attraction and love. To some degree anyway. And that means that if homosexuality was promoted, the kid would understand that being gay means being attracted to and/or loving members of their own gender, not just having friends of the same gender, like he thought.

#7: No, because being gay involves and encompass much more than just sexual acts.
Posted 3/27/12 , edited 3/27/12

LalaSatalin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

You didn't provide scientific proof on how nurturing, as in education and socialization, can trigger certain hormonal changes on an individual's RNA level, thus express homosexual orientation on said individual's DNA level through epicgenetics. All you really have is baseless paranoia.that makes no scientific sense.

National Geographic explains the biology of homosexuality
NatGeo explains how one's sexual orientation is determined during embryonic development. They look at how it is possible for one identical twin to be gay and the other to be straight. They address a new branch of Genetics called, Epigenetics. This area of Genetics explores and explains how one's DNA sequence is NOT the only factor in one's phenotypic (actual) outcome. This episode explains how both twins could have the gene for a disorder, yet only one twin actually has the disorder. The same science explains sexual orientation differences in twins.

The 'Gay Brain' Explained - Louann Brizendine
Dr. Louann Brizendine, author of The Male Brain, outlines the preliminary scientific results measuring the differences between the straight male brain and the gay male brain. She says that having "same-sex attraction" is "not some kind of a moral decision," but rather involves brain circuitry, genes, and hormones.


#1: Lala knows you are spamming.

#2: Prisoner behavior is evidence that everyone has the potential to be homosexual.
Wrong, when The Stanford Prison Experiment only showed how homosexual activity was used by decent US citizens, as one of several methods to further dehumanize and torture individuals.

Stanford Prison Experiment (Documentary)
In 1971, the psychologist Philip Zimbardo tried to show that prison guards and convicts would tend to slip into predefined roles, behaving in a way that they thought was required, rather than using their own judgment and morals.

Zimbardo was trying to show what happened when all of the individuality and dignity was stripped away from a human, and their life was completely controlled.

He wanted to show the dehumanization and loosening of social and moral values that can happen to guards immersed in such a situation.

Like a real life ‘Lord of the Flies’, it showed a degeneration and breakdown of the established rules and morals dictating exactly how people should behave towards each other.

The study created more new questions than it answered, about the amorality and darkness that inhabits the human psyche.

As a purely scientific venture, the experiment was a failure, but it generated some results that give an insight into human psychology and social behavior. The ethical implications of this study are still discussed in college and undergraduate psychology classes all across the world.

In the days of the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo abuses, the Stanford Prison Experiment is once again becoming relevant, showing that systematic abuse and denial of human rights is never far away in any prison facility.


Toilet facilities became a privilege, instead of a basic human right, with access to the bathroom being frequently denied; the inmates often had to clean the toilet facilities with their bare hands. Prisoners were often stripped and subjected to sexual humiliation, as a weapon of intimidation.
And before you overgeneralized the prison experiment data, the Scandinavian society known as Norway isn't a prison. Thus your baseless claim makes no scientific sense.
67723 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 3/27/12

LalaSatalin wrote:



#2: Prisoner behavior is evidence that everyone has the potential to be homosexual.


No prisoner behaviour is evidence that some hetereosexual men see sex only in terms of power and are quite willing to rape another man if it makes them feel good about themselves.

Posted 3/27/12

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


LalaSatalin wrote:



#2: Prisoner behavior is evidence that everyone has the potential to be homosexual.


No prisoner behaviour is evidence that some hetereosexual men see sex only in terms of power and are quite willing to rape another man if it makes them feel good about themselves.
In other words, this is just sexual battery happening in prisons, conducted by figures of absolute authority.

Sexual Abuse by Prison and Jail Staff Proves Persistent, Pandemic

by Gary Hunter

Due to the nature of prisons as “total institutions,” it is impossible for prisoners to voluntarily consent to sexual advances by staff members who exert complete control over their lives – and in some cases over their release from prison.

Past issues of PLN have pushed this significant problem to the forefront. We would like to report that exposure of this issue has eased the problem. It hasn’t. We would like to say our continued coverage on this subject has deterred sexual abuse by prison staff. It didn’t.

Prison and jail employees are more out of control than ever. From state to state, north to south, east to west, sexual misconduct by guards and other staff members continues to weave its way through the fabric of our nation’s prisons. A common thread of rape, debauchery and even sexual torture is present in detention facilities nationwide.
First  Prev  88  89  90  91  92  93  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.