The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[VindictiveScrub]

If people stopped posting pseudoscience, rumor and mythology as fact then maybe we could. If people are using falsehoods to discuss the topic, it does make it hard to have a reasonable discussion.

Oh, don't worry, my post was directed right at those who are posting exactly such things. Facts have been posted by some in this thread, to which many have responded by sticking their tongue out in disagreement.

 

[ledhed]

In five years you will need be full monte on TV to shock anyone so there is that .

 

[JulesJackson]

Really? I'd like to read more about this. Where can I start?

Answer this head on. What is your definition of homosexuality?

 

[TenEightyOne]

As a heterosexual male I demand the right to see boobies on TV and in advertising just as Europe can .

Yup, that part of me agrees, and if there was a case to say that there's suppression of heterosexuality in favour of homosexuality I'd believe that to be wrong and would oppose it.

However, my feeling is that the media market is so oversaturated with sexual

Scientist have proven many times that homosexuality is a chemical imbalance (Well I shouldn't say that as the counter can be said about heterosexuals). Attraction is caused my hormones. Everything is tied to science.

Need some Science/Engineering majors on this thread, to educate the masses.

Ah, so that's why you asked on my profile what my majors were. I replied but added that it's not necessarily relevant.

Okay, your first statement:

Scientist have proven many times that homosexuality is a chemical imbalance

Really? That seems a strange thing to say because such a weight of research would have been very publicly debated.

Well I shouldn't say that as the counter can be said about heterosexuals

Ah, so you're being pedantic... and pointing out something not linked to specific sexuality... and retracting it.

Attraction is caused my hormones.

I'm reading "by" here, in a manner of speaking. Sometimes it is, that's true, but you also have to be specific about the kind of attractions and circumstances you're talking about. You're also presuming that the overlaid psychology of the subject allows 'attraction' to move from the electro-chemical to the sapient.

A lot of blokes my age wanted to have sex with a rabbit at one point, at least I know for a fact that most of my friends did. True story. The Cadbury's Caramel Rabbit, she was baaaad.

Everything is tied to science.

The truest thing you've said. You've made one self-retracted misleading statement, one partly-true statement and one entirely true statement. Science must be priapitic at the notion.

@VindictiveScrub there's a difference between someone saying "I think things should be like x,y,z" and saying "Science Has Proved That Sex Monkeys Live In Sting's Teapot". I always ask for a citation for ludicrous science facts, partly due to the nature of this forum and partly due to my interest in 2nd hand 80s rock teapots.

 

[JulesJackson]

Yup, that part of me agrees, and if there was a case to say that there's suppression of heterosexuality in favour of homosexuality I'd believe that to be wrong and would oppose it.

However, my feeling is that the media market is so oversaturated with sexual





Ah, so that's why you asked on my profile what my majors were. I replied but added that it's not necessarily relevant.

Okay, your first statement:



Really? That seems a strange thing to say because such a weight of research would have been very publicly debated.



Ah, so you're being pedantic... and pointing out something not linked to specific sexuality... and retracting it.



I'm reading "by" here, in a manner of speaking. Sometimes it is, that's true, but you also have to be specific about the kind of attractions and circumstances you're talking about. You're also presuming that the overlaid psychology of the subject allows 'attraction' to move from the electro-chemical to the sapient.

A lot of blokes my age wanted to have sex with a rabbit at one point, at least I know for a fact that most of my friends did. True story. The Cadbury's Caramel Rabbit, she was baaaad.



The truest thing you've said. You've made one self-retracted misleading statement, one partly-true statement and one entirely true statement. Science must be priapitic at the notion.

@VindictiveScrub there's a difference between someone saying "I think things should be like x,y,z" and saying "Science Has Proved That Sex Monkeys Live In Sting's Teapot". I always ask for a citation for ludicrous science facts, partly due to the nature of this forum and partly due to my interest in 2nd hand 80s rock teapots.

Wasn't my last question directed for Imari to answer or are you his legal representative? Didn't I post up multiple citations or did you just ignored the science part of it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Wasn't my last question directed for Imari to answer or are you his legal representative? Didn't I post up multiple citations or did you just ignored the science part of it.

No, I quoted the question, you may think you referenced @Imari in there but I can assure you that you're mistaken.

I didn't ask for citations on your opening statement as you withdrew it yourself immediately by pointing out it was false. Your second statement is well known to be partly true, your third said "Yay, science".

Scientist have proven many times that homosexuality is a chemical imbalance (Well I shouldn't say that as the counter can be said about heterosexuals). Attraction is caused my hormones. Everything is tied to science.

You said that with a direct quote from one of my posts, that's why I replied. That's how a forum works dude

 

[JulesJackson]

No, I quoted the question, you may think you referenced @Imari in there but I can assure you that you're mistaken.

I didn't ask for citations on your opening statement as you withdrew it yourself immediately by pointing out it was false. Your second statement is well known to be partly true, your third said "Yay, science".



You said that with a direct quote from one of my posts, that's why I replied. That's how a forum works dude

As Samuel Jackson would say check out the big brains on Brad. I've yet to get any citation from you, let alone the Michael Sam cheer-squad.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I've yet to get any citation from you

Fgs, on what precisely?

 

[JulesJackson]

No, I quoted the question, you may think you referenced @Imari in there but I can assure you that you're mistaken.

I didn't ask for citations on your opening statement as you withdrew it yourself immediately by pointing out it was false. Your second statement is well known to be partly true, your third said "Yay, science".



You said that with a direct quote from one of my posts, that's why I replied. That's how a forum works dude

Aren't you being a hypocrite now? Might need some ice.

 

[Brett]

It will sell due to him being gay and not on his talent. Defending a 7th round pick is quite laughable actually, thankfully he'll must likely be on special teams. Nice way avoiding the fact that he was covered due to being gay. I'm so bad even I make medicine sick.

You do not seem to understand at all how ESPN works. ESPN is looking to have stories, regardless of the actual content, that will keep eyeballs tuned into their programming and thus, more potential to earn money. It looks to have worked with you, as you seem to know anything and everything there is to know about Michael Sam.

 

[Imari]

Repetition is a good habit for memorization except for answering citations.

What does that have to do with anything in the post you quoted?

The moment you tell me what statement I've made that you want me to provide evidence for, I will. Meanwhile, you're completely avoiding backing up your statement with...anything.

Answer this head on. What is your definition of homosexuality?

Because I'm the one who's dodging around refusing to give a straight answer. But hey, if I answer your question maybe you'll answer mine.

A homosexual is attracted exclusively to members of their own sex.

Now, where are you going with this? And does it lead anywhere near you providing information to expound on your earlier statement?


Edit: Actually, I take it all back. Dude is an obvious troll. Ignored.

 

[Denur]

Didn't I post up multiple citations ...

Did you? I know @ledhed14 posted some links recently, but I could not find yours though (I probably missed them somehow in my search). Or are you and ledhed14 linked somehow?

 

[TenEightyOne]

@Imari, obvious troll now seems obvious. @Denur, I went back through the thread three times too but couldn't find @GTP_GTDOJO's citations. Perhaps he doesn't know what we mean?

GTDojo, you need off-site credible documentation that supports your claims. Or you need to retract them. Them's the rules we all follow in order to enjoy this kind of debate.

 

[VindictiveScrub]

@VindictiveScrub there's a difference between someone saying "I think things should be like x,y,z" and saying "Science Has Proved That Sex Monkeys Live In Sting's Teapot". I always ask for a citation for ludicrous science facts, partly due to the nature of this forum and partly due to my interest in 2nd hand 80s rock teapots.

As do I. Problem with facts of science is that you really can find just about any sort of scientific proof on just about any topic as inconclusive as homosexuality. In 10 minutes you could probably find half-a-dozen different "facts" on whether or not people are born LGBT.

Poor phrasing in my earlier post is poor phrasing. I was more eluding to the point that throwing science in a debate on a topic of genetics is pretty much pointless. We're not asking for proof in a discussion regarding anatomy or mechanics, but something completely inconclusive, so you're bound to find backing on just about any claim that gets thrown out there unfortunately.

Is science necessary in a discussion about homosexuality? I personally have no clue, but probably. However, it's nigh pointless to go on about it when really, if someone actually tried instead of playing dumb (referring to someone here), "facts" could be found to support what's been said... for the most part. Some things are just baloney

 

[JulesJackson]

What does that have to do with anything in the post you quoted?

The moment you tell me what statement I've made that you want me to provide evidence for, I will. Meanwhile, you're completely avoiding backing up your statement with...anything.



Because I'm the one who's dodging around refusing to give a straight answer. But hey, if I answer your question maybe you'll answer mine.

A homosexual is attracted exclusively to members of their own sex.

Now, where are you going with this? And does it lead anywhere near you providing information to expound on your earlier statement?


So what would you say about NAMBLA? How are you going to defend this now, I'm mean they are attracted to the opposite sex. Are you going to make some outlandish defense against science here?

What does that have to do with anything in the post you quoted?

The moment you tell me what statement I've made that you want me to provide evidence for, I will. Meanwhile, you're completely avoiding backing up your statement with...anything.



Because I'm the one who's dodging around refusing to give a straight answer. But hey, if I answer your question maybe you'll answer mine.

A homosexual is attracted exclusively to members of their own sex.

Now, where are you going with this? And does it lead anywhere near you providing information to expound on your earlier statement?


Edit: Actually, I take it all back. Dude is an obvious troll. Ignored.

I take offense to you calling me a troll, when I did have a direct link to a youtube video with David Attenbourgh(page 167).

As do I. Problem with facts of science is that you really can find just about any sort of scientific proof on just about any topic as inconclusive as homosexuality. In 10 minutes you could probably find half-a-dozen different "facts" on whether or not people are born LGBT.

Poor phrasing in my earlier post is poor phrasing. I was more eluding to the point that throwing science in a debate on a topic of genetics is pretty much pointless. We're not asking for proof in a discussion regarding anatomy or mechanics, but something completely inconclusive, so you're bound to find backing on just about any claim that gets thrown out there unfortunately.

Is science necessary in a discussion about homosexuality? I personally have no clue, but probably. However, it's nigh pointless to go on about it when really, if someone actually tried instead of playing dumb (referring to someone here), "facts" could be found to support what's been said... for the most part. Some things are just baloney

We're heading about to biblical times after that comment. Science is everything.

 

[TenEightyOne]

"I take offense to you calling me a troll, when I did have a direct link to a youtube video with David Attenbourgh(page 167)."

I literally just blew coffee out of my nose, you should write letters for Viz! As explained to you immediately aftewards that film clip demonstrated something completely different.

 

[JulesJackson]

@Imari, obvious troll now seems obvious. @Denur, I went back through the thread three times too but couldn't find @GTP_GTDOJO's citations. Perhaps he doesn't know what we mean?

GTDojo, you need off-site credible documentation that supports your claims. Or you need to retract them. Them's the rules we all follow in order to enjoy this kind of debate.

Resorting to name calling is a last ditch effort to win a debate?

 

[Azure Flare]

A real last ditch effort in any debate would be to say "Yeah, well, 🤬 you!", but nobody has (and probably won't) said that.

And the only reason NAMBLA exists is because of the 1st amendment, pedofilia is just ****ed up.

 

[JulesJackson]

The Background of people's education is what I would like to know, to see how it correlates on their stance with homosexuality.

Me: Electrical Engineering
TenEightyOne?
Imari?
Azure - Think I saw on your profile photographer

 

[VindictiveScrub]

We're heading about to biblical times after that comment. Science is everything.

As cool and all as science is, it's nowhere near everything. It exists in everything, true, but scientific reasoning isn't needed to prove why we should treat each other equally and respectfully.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Resorting to name calling is a last ditch effort to win a debate?

Saying someone is trolling goes a little further than just literal name-calling. You are offering a hard-line argument and claiming to have facts to back it. When pressed for facts you don't produce them. To me that seems like the behaviour of what Internet People call a troll.

Let's start again:

Transgenders - the same group that states they're the opposite sex when they're going against science and that's a fact

Thank you. Citation required. Please back that fact up, and remember that psychology is a science.

Are you really going to say that oh boy? Hopefully David Attenborough can show you the difference between pseudo science and real science.

In which you included The David Attenborough video that did nothing to support your claim that Trans people go against science.

The Background of people's education is what I would like to know, to see how it correlates on their stance with homosexuality

From a sample of 10-15 active people? Who might lie? I thought Science was everything? And remember that psychology isn't a science, according to your earlier statement. I confoozd.

 

[Azure Flare]

Azure - Think I saw on your profile photographer

I only have a high school diploma, but I think ASE certified master technician would suit me.

I'm not sure where you got photographer from, I'm a Master Baiter.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Psychology isn't a real science, it's for arts majors that couldn't cut in Sciences/Engineering.

I think I'd be going against the AUP by responding to silly provocation like that. And you still haven't provided any of your Science is Everything proof to back up;

Transgenders - the same group that states they're the opposite sex when they're going against science and that's a fact

I'm out, to coin a phrase.

 

[Imari]

As do I. Problem with facts of science is that you really can find just about any sort of scientific proof on just about any topic as inconclusive as homosexuality. In 10 minutes you could probably find half-a-dozen different "facts" on whether or not people are born LGBT.

Yeah, but it just means that homosexuality isn't that well understood. It's still sensible to keep the discussion within the parameters of what homosexuality might actually be.

I don't think you've quite got what scientific studies do, either. Science does not produce facts in the way you're thinking, in the sort of "these are the things we know" way. There's no be-all and end-all theory of homosexuality, and there's no study that will suddenly enlighten us as to what's really going on. There's the best understanding at the time, and that's it. At the moment, the best understanding is pretty fragmented, but further work will likely narrow things down and we'll know more.

Basically, the experimentalists (or observationalists) provide evidence or data, and then the theorists attempt to come up with something that explains all of it, or at least most of it. If new evidence turns up, as often happens, the theory then has to be altered to accomodate that, or thrown away completely and some other theory found that fits all the facts.

With young fields, it's often impossible to actually nail down a solid theory, the possibilities are still so broad that as you say, you could prove just about anything.

You can pick any subject you like, and chances are the science on it is nowhere near as settled as the layman would believe. I think generally a lot of people have a bit of a warped view of what science is and isn't, it's become a bit of a buzzword, "because science".

It's a structured way of thinking and approaching problems, that's about it. It's applicable to anything you want to know more about.

So what would you say about NAMBLA?

What about them? They're homosexual paedophiles. The two things aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[VindictiveScrub]

Yeah, but it just means that homosexuality isn't that well understood. It's still sensible to keep the discussion within the parameters of what homosexuality might actually be.

I don't think you've quite got what scientific studies do, either. Science does not produce facts in the way you're thinking, in the sort of "these are the things we know" way. There's no be-all and end-all theory of homosexuality, and there's no study that will suddenly enlighten us as to what's really going on. There's the best understanding at the time, and that's it. At the moment, the best understanding is pretty fragmented, but further work will likely narrow things down and we'll know more.

Basically, the experimentalists (or observationalists) provide evidence or data, and then the theorists attempt to come up with something that explains all of it, or at least most of it. If new evidence turns up, as often happens, the theory then has to be altered to accomodate that, or thrown away completely and some other theory found that fits all the facts.

With young fields, it's often impossible to actually nail down a solid theory, the possibilities are still so broad that as you say, you could prove just about anything.

You can pick any subject you like, and chances are the science on it is nowhere near as settled as the layman would believe. I think generally a lot of people have a bit of a warped view of what science is and isn't, it's become a bit of a buzzword, "because science".

It's a structured way of thinking and approaching problems, that's about it. It's applicable to anything you want to know more about.

I wasn't saying science is clear cut at all. On maybe a few topics, like I mentioned general anatomy, it just about is, but science is very diverse as a whole, and almost never entirely conclusive. A certain someone here keeps wanting to say science is everything, and expects science to answer everything, when science determinately answers very little, especially on a topic like genetics. All I was saying is that certain topics are far more varying as to what could be found consistently from differing studies, and that this is most certainly one of them.

 

[squadops]

The science aspect is very important to activists and law makers, seems to be the easiest way to push equality law. On the flip side if it's a question of choice then a different set of moralities comes into play.

It's why I asked about it a few pages back.

 

[JulesJackson]

I wasn't saying science is clear cut at all. On maybe a few topics, like I mentioned general anatomy, it just about is, but science is very diverse as a whole, and almost never entirely conclusive. A certain someone here keeps wanting to say science is everything, and expects science to answer everything, when science determinately answers very little, especially on a topic like genetics. All I was saying is that certain topics are far more varying as to what could be found consistently from differing studies, and that this is most certainly one of them.

Same can be said about current we can't see it but it exist as an example. But in all honesty everyone at the moment, including my self need to get back on topic, Too much holistic talk. Starting to get the jitterbugs jks...

 

[VindictiveScrub]

The science aspect is very important to activists and law makers, seems to be the easiest way to push equality law. On the flip side if it's a question of choice then a different set of moralities comes into play.

It's why I asked about it a few pages back.

The main point of the equality argument usually just comes from treating everyone equally because we're all human beings and in some way we're all different, and for the most part isn't really dependent on whether or not being homosexual is scientifically proven to not be a choice.

I definitely don't want to tread into a territory I'm not totally familiar with here, but from what I know and have experienced knowing whether or not someone is homosexual and whether or not that is accepted or even advocated in support of hasn't often come down to if the person is scientifically born gay, but rather just personal opinion of the idea of homosexuality as a whole.

Like I said, I do not want to go where I'm unknowledgeable, but that's my personal experience.

 

[squadops]

For example Obama considers homosexuality innate and uses that as a basis for equality, but in the same breath is not supporting gay marriage. So born that way and we are all born equal, then again marriage is between man and woman.(pandering to the other moralities I spoke of)

This is how these things go. From his second inaugural address, a wiki snip.

We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths—that all of us are created equal—is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall. . . . Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law—for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.

 

[VindictiveScrub]

Actually, Obama supports gay marriage, and bases his opinion on the equal treatment of all individuals. I remember when he changed his stance he stated he wanted his daughters to grow up to treat everyone with the same respect, and that being against gay marriage but being okay with homosexuality itself was a bad precedent to set.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/05/10/obama-supports-same-sex-marriage