PDA

View Full Version : Homosexual bigotry



David G
06-09-2015, 01:03 PM
Latest Pew Research numbers are out.

On one hand - almost everyone is becoming more accepting of homosexuality. (no numbers, btw, on red-headedness, or left-handedness, or tallness).

OTOH - there IS one group that is becoming LESS accepting. Putting themselves, once again, on the wrong side of history, justice, fairness, and morality... in the name of morality <snort>

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/only-one-group-americans-become-224300984.html


On Monday, the Pew Research Center released the results of a new survey on how Americans view homosexuality (http://www.people-press.org/2015/06/08/support-for-same-sex-marriage-at-record-high-but-key-segments-remain-opposed/).


One question asked respondents whether homosexuality should be accepted or discouraged by society. Pew broke down responses to this question by a number of demographic, political, and religious factors and compared results from this year's survey to a similar survey from March 2013.


In almost every one of the groups Pew broke out, the percentage of respondents who said homosexuality should be accepted increased over the past two years. This was the case for men and women, each of the generational cohorts Pew looked at, and each of the four major religious groups in the breakout.


The only group that had a decrease in the percentage of respondents who believed society should accept homosexuality was conservative Republicans. Each of the other political subgroups, including moderate and liberal Republicans, saw an increase in that percentage between March 2013 and May 2015.

bobbys
06-09-2015, 01:22 PM
Disagree and be labeled a hater.

Accept this and the haters will declare you a hypocrite against Yer beliefs..

Either way democrats have their votes locked up.

Perfect liberal use of this group.

Dave Wright
06-09-2015, 01:29 PM
Speaking of homosexuals, what a great song for a beautiful summer day:


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kdEGq4z6fP0

Keith Wilson
06-09-2015, 01:39 PM
Disagree and be labeled a hater.Disagree with what?
The results of the poll? You can do that, but some evidence would would be necessary.
The idea that homosexuals should be accepted by society? Why does this not make you a bigot? What's the alternative?


Accept this and the haters will declare you a hypocrite against Yer beliefs..Accept what? What beliefs? What in the world are you talking about?

S.V. Airlie
06-09-2015, 01:41 PM
It's 1700 hours somewhere!

Reynard38
06-09-2015, 01:45 PM
Why do I have to accept or disagree with it?
How about I don't give a $hit who you do it with. In fact I don't want to know! It's not my business.

Peerie Maa
06-09-2015, 01:46 PM
From 1977.

Societies can change.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmR3p3-LN94

Rum_Pirate
06-09-2015, 01:50 PM
Disagree with what?
The results of the poll? You can do that, but some evidence would would be necessary.
The idea that honosexuals should be accepted by society? Why does this not make you a bigot? What's the alternative?

Accept what? What beliefs? What in the world are you talking about?


What is a honosexual?

Ian McColgin
06-09-2015, 01:50 PM
"Disagree and be labeled a hater." [#2]

Disagree with exactly what? Be accused by whom of hating what? Exactly.

Chris Coose
06-09-2015, 01:51 PM
I took Norman up on that book he recommended and there was one profound line it that made a lot of sense.

Once the Communist wall fell apart in Europe, the big, ultra-covert, hate, fear, right wing, big money, machine went immediately after the homosexuals.

They've done decent in hate propaganda (despite lots of the power guys getting caught screwing about anything that passed by) but winning hearts and minds? Big Fail! We do see some hangers on but they'll die off in this next generation.

David G
06-09-2015, 01:55 PM
Why do I have to accept or disagree with it?
How about I don't give a $hit who you do it with. In fact I don't want to know! It's not my business.

Having read the link carefully, I'm sure you recall the question asked: should homosexuality be accepted or discouraged by society.

Your response eliminates 'discourage'... and sounds an awful lot like 'accept' to me. Maybe a begrudging - don't wanna know/hear/talk/see anything about it - kinda accept... but accept in lieu of discourage anyway. Well... it's a step in the right direction, anyway.

Keith Wilson
06-09-2015, 02:03 PM
What is a honosexual?An abomination!! An offense against God and the English language!! :d

Reynard38
06-09-2015, 05:07 PM
What is a honosexual?

One that uses a oilstone for....
Nope, better not go there.

Reynard38
06-09-2015, 05:16 PM
Having read the link carefully, I'm sure you recall the question asked: should homosexuality be accepted or discouraged by society.

Your response eliminates 'discourage'... and sounds an awful lot like 'accept' to me. Maybe a begrudging - don't wanna know/hear/talk/see anything about it - kinda accept... but accept in lieu of discourage anyway. Well... it's a step in the right direction, anyway.

I really don't care what someone else does in a consensual relationship with another adult. I guess I don't see a reason to accept or disagree with it.
If by not disagreeing you consider that acceptance I'm OK with that.
And no I don't want to know about it, see it or talk about it any more so than with a heterosexual couple. Some things should be kept private.

And for for the record I'm not hetero, homo, bi, "a" or trans. I'm in my mid 50's as is my wife.

I'm postsexual. :)

Peerie Maa
06-09-2015, 05:22 PM
I'm in my mid 50's as is my wife.

I'm postsexual. :)

I feel your pain.:(
We are in our 60's, and have not reached the place that you have. :D ;)

BrianW
06-09-2015, 06:01 PM
Disagree with what?
The results of the poll? You can do that, but some evidence would would be necessary.


I believe there's certainly room to question the integrity of the pollsters. It's reasonable to question why they chose 2013 for their comparison to 2015. Looking at the chart…

http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/U3ljcZnkvCj1ESe6HA8EwQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NQ--/http://globalfinance.zenfs.com/en_us/Finance/US_AFTP_SILICONALLEY_H_LIVE/Only_one_group_of_Americans-f253bb5b368b073351fe2d36506416b0

It's clear that same group has improved in their acceptance of homosexuals since 2003. For many in that group, their religion tells them (or their religious leaders tell them) that homosexuality is wrong. Despite that pressure, more and more people in that group are accepting homosexuality.

Lets face it, they are not liberals, but they are improving. A minor down tick is hardly worth mentioning.

Then we need to acknowledge that the group with the highest change towards accepting homosexuals between 2013 and 2015, was the moderate/liberal Republicans.

Now that would have been a very appropriate headline for this study, but it's not the kind that would sell papers.

So congratulations to moderate/liberal Republicans for being the most improved group in this study!!!

Michael D. Storey
06-09-2015, 06:26 PM
Why do I have to accept or disagree with it?
How about I don't give a $hit who you do it with. In fact I don't want to know! It's not my business.

If you didn't want to know about things that were not your business, you wouldn't post here.

Ian McColgin
06-09-2015, 07:24 PM
BrianW appears to not be challenging the integrity of the study itself but rather the significance of one finding. Anyway, it's nice that he thinks greater acceptance equals "improved". Which indeed it does.

So why after a ten year span showing "improvement" did conservative Republicans go the other way over two years?

Reynard38
06-09-2015, 08:33 PM
If you didn't want to know about things that were not your business, you wouldn't post here.

No that's not it at all. Homosexuality doesn't affect me. It's not a concern.
Whenever somebody asks me about my opinion on abortion I have a similar response. I tell them as I don't have a womb I don't have an opinion, and I'll leave it up to those to do to decide.

Keith Wilson
06-09-2015, 08:57 PM
So why after a ten year span showing "improvement" did conservative Republicans go the other way over two years?I'd bet it's a reaction to same-sex marriage becoming common.

purri
06-09-2015, 09:01 PM
Lotsa bigotry within GLBTIQ communities. Just saying.

Vince Brennan
06-09-2015, 09:15 PM
w g a s ?

BrianW
06-09-2015, 09:39 PM
BrianW appears to not be challenging the integrity of the study itself but rather the significance of one finding. Anyway, it's nice that he thinks greater acceptance equals "improved". Which indeed it does.

So why after a ten year span showing "improvement" did conservative Republicans go the other way over two years?

Ian, the whole point of this thread is the significance of one finding. So naturally that's what I would address.

I have no reason to doubt the actual mechanics of the study, but it is odd that in 15 year span, the article researcher chose to use 2013 as an interim point to reference. I'd like to see the results of the study for every year completed.


I'd bet it's a reaction to same-sex marriage becoming common.

I was thinking the same thing. As I mentioned before, these would be the most religious group of Republicans in the study. Recent events certainly could trigger a small drop in acceptance as they feel threatened by the recent changes.

Fortunately the overall trend is positive.

Virgin Gal
06-09-2015, 09:44 PM
No that's not it at all. Homosexuality doesn't affect me. It's not a concern.
Whenever somebody asks me about my opinion on abortion I have a similar response. I tell them as I don't have a womb I don't have an opinion, and I'll leave it up to those to do to decide.
Do you have very close friends, whom you care for deeply, not knowing their sexual preference, or pregnancy/relationship/health/ social status, who have told you that "Things are getting tough..." Do you tell them you don't have an opinion about their specific plight..... Or just in general?

Waddie
06-09-2015, 09:50 PM
I just have a question to clarify the language we're using here.

Does "acceptance" also mean/imply approval?

Can one be tolerant of something without approving of it? Does that make one a bigot?

regards,
Waddie

Ian McColgin
06-09-2015, 09:57 PM
As a matter of fact, Waddie, tolerance is all about letting be things you'd rather not. I tolerate Republicans. And you can tolerate non-breeders.

Waddie
06-09-2015, 10:11 PM
As a matter of fact, Waddie, tolerance is all about letting be things you'd rather not. I tolerate Republicans. And you can tolerate non-breeders.

But you didn't answer my questions. But then again, of course you don't have to....

regards,
Waddie

Harvey Golden
06-09-2015, 10:22 PM
Does "acceptance" also mean/imply approval?

Can one be tolerant of something without approving of it? Does that make one a bigot?

regards,
Waddie

Acceptance is approval, the former term being slightly more tepid in the degree of enthusiasm.

Tolerance is akin to acceptance, with regards to approval, though 'tolerance' could be seen as even further removed in terms of enthusiasm.

"Acceptance," "Tolerance," and "Approval" are all non-bigoted terms in my book, though perhaps one's selection of one in lieu of the others may expose more of one's personal thoughts on the matter.

"Bigot" suggest an active mode of denigration or hate. I don't see this level of denigration in these terms, but that isn't to say that bigotry cannot be concealed in craftily worded lines that include terms such as "acceptance," "tolerant," and "approval."

Just my 2 cents...

Ian McColgin
06-09-2015, 10:27 PM
I thought the answer was implied. Tolerance or acceptance as a fact (not acceptance as in liking it) do not mean approval or understanding or anything except tolerance, letting whatever it is be. Just like tolerating a differing religion or political belief or tolerating an odd fashion sense like low hung punk pants and spike hair. You don't have to like them. Just don't harm them, treat them unfairly, or discriminate in any unlawful way.

One of the fundamentals of a democratic and diverse society is the tolerance of all involved. Takes practice and training.

Harvey Golden
06-09-2015, 10:48 PM
And to answer your questions more directly....


I just have a question to clarify the language we're using here.
Does "acceptance" also mean/imply approval?

Generally, yes. If someone wanted to disapprove, they certainly wouldn't throw the word "acceptance" into the mix, unless obfuscation was the goal.


Can one be tolerant of something without approving of it? Does that make one a bigot?

If you tolerate something, you are actively approving it. ...maybe even reluctantly approving it-- But tolerance is the key word. As for making one a bigot... "bigotry" is not the opposite of tolerance, approval, acceptance, love, kindness, sympathy, or compassion; it is a fear of what is seen to be different.

David G
06-09-2015, 11:16 PM
Nicely said, Harvey.

Waddie
06-09-2015, 11:22 PM
Harvey Golden;
If you tolerate something, you are actively approving it

yet Ian says,
acceptance as a fact (not acceptance as in liking it) do not mean approval

In some ways you both agree, in some ways not so much. To me "tolerance" is a very limited concept. It infers no approval, where "acceptance" implies approval, at least a limited approval.

Others will obviously disagree. That's how language is; often we use the same words but mean somewhat different things. Emotion charged words, like "love", often mean extremely different things to different people. It shows just how difficult being precise can be within the limits of language. I see this lack of precision often on this forum.

regards,
Waddie

Ian McColgin
06-09-2015, 11:30 PM
I agree that "tolerance" is the better word here since in so many contexts "acceptance" implies at least some measure of approval.

Harvey Golden
06-09-2015, 11:36 PM
Dear Waddie,
Yes, there is a lack of precision in the terminology. The mind may banter eternally, but the heart knows-- I hope this sentence/sentiment appeals to all sides.
Best, Harvey

BrianW
06-09-2015, 11:41 PM
I agree that "tolerance" is the better word here since in so many contexts "acceptance" implies at least some measure of approval.

Makes one wonder what the results of the survey would have been, if they had used the word 'tolerate' rather than 'accept'?

Ian McColgin
06-09-2015, 11:44 PM
The survey would then have measured tolerance and not acceptance. It's worth reading the actual questions. If you look at the instrument and if you have any experience in the design of social attitude poles, it will make good sense.

David G
06-10-2015, 09:54 PM
Despite all the efforts to dodge it... there is only one conclusion possible. There is only one group that is maintaining a wrong-headed attitude toward homosexuality, when the rest of the nation is finally realizing that it's simply a natural variation of normal.

That group is, once again, on the wrong side of history. And their attitude on this issue is emblematic of their perverse approach to many social issues. Watch who they support politically... and then support the other side. For the health of our society... please!

Vince Brennan
06-10-2015, 10:15 PM
David... good on yer for trying! Really!

bobbys
06-10-2015, 10:20 PM
Despite all the efforts to dodge it... there is only one conclusion possible. There is only one group that is maintaining a wrong-headed attitude toward homosexuality, when the rest of the nation is finally realizing that it's simply a natural variation of normal.

That group is, once again, on the wrong side of history. And their attitude on this issue is emblematic of their perverse approach to many social issues. Watch who they support politically... and then support the other side. For the health of our society... please!
.

The only conclusion is liberals will use this group as a political voteing block and use to to hammer republicans.

gathering votes is the only "morality" there is for liberals..

The only time morality enters the picture for a lib is when a republican messes up.

BrianW
06-11-2015, 01:07 AM
Despite all the efforts to dodge it... there is only one conclusion possible. There is only one group that is maintaining a wrong-headed attitude toward homosexuality, when the rest of the nation is finally realizing that it's simply a natural variation of normal.

That group is, once again, on the wrong side of history. And their attitude on this issue is emblematic of their perverse approach to many social issues. Watch who they support politically... and then support the other side. For the health of our society... please!

Sorry, but a 12 year span ending in improved acceptance is not undermined by a 2 year dip in numbers. That group is still more accepting today than it was in 2003.

Come back when there's a true drop since the poll started, then we'll have a true decline.

Robbie 2
06-11-2015, 01:07 AM
I am definately straight BUT do have a few Homosexual friends.
They have never bothered me and what they do together is their business..........nothing to do with me.
Still good friends though.

BrianW
06-11-2015, 01:33 AM
The same study points out that blacks as a group are the least supportive of same-sex marriage.

So by the logic being expressed here, we should not vote for blacks.

http://www.people-press.org/files/2015/06/6-8-2015-11-27-56-AM.png


The white group is the most supportive of same-sex marriage. What was that nickname for the GOP again?

skuthorp
06-11-2015, 02:23 AM
As a kid two of our closest family friends were gay, though the word then was if I remember correctly 'queer'. Of course it was a jailable offence in those days. I spent weekends and at times part of my holidays with them, they had horses, a pool, a billiard table and a full size pipe organ built into the house. Unfortunately I was never allowed to touch it. 'Doris is very temperamental' Russ would say.

Chris Coose
06-11-2015, 04:23 AM
.

The only conclusion is liberals will use this group as a political voteing block and use to to hammer republicans.

gathering votes is the only "morality" there is for liberals..

The only time morality enters the picture for a lib is when a republican messes up.

Ohhhh, the poor, tortured, abused Republicans. I sometimes have to turn away from the hammering.

skuthorp
06-11-2015, 04:49 AM
The rump of the conservatives, and I'd bet they are not all voters let alone republicans, is being squeezed by public opinion and the changing world about them. Of course they feel threatened, but from the graph above it seems they may have common purpose with the black community.

Peerie Maa
06-11-2015, 09:02 AM
I just have a question to clarify the language we're using here.

Does "acceptance" also mean/imply approval?

Can one be tolerant of something without approving of it? Does that make one a bigot?

regards,
Waddie
One can tolerate something without accepting it. One can tolerate chronic discomfort, but would never accept it.
Similarly one could accept something without approving of it. I accept the existence of rabid right wing opinions, but I do not approve of them.

Ian McColgin
06-11-2015, 03:08 PM
"So by the logic being expressed here, we should not vote for blacks." [#42]

Since this survey has nothing to do with ballot choises, one must wonder whether this question-troll is stupidly homophobic, stupidly racist, or just stupid?

BrianW
06-11-2015, 04:22 PM
"So by the logic being expressed here, we should not vote for blacks." [#42]

Since this survey has nothing to do with ballot choises, one must wonder whether this question-troll is stupidly homophobic, stupidly racist, or just stupid?

Really? It's not about politics? We're just discussing one segment of the Republican party because we have nothing better to do?

Then explain this post...


Despite all the efforts to dodge it... there is only one conclusion possible. There is only one group that is maintaining a wrong-headed attitude toward homosexuality, when the rest of the nation is finally realizing that it's simply a natural variation of normal.

That group is, once again, on the wrong side of history. And their attitude on this issue is emblematic of their perverse approach to many social issues. Watch who they support politically... and then support the other side. For the health of our society... please!

It's clearly political.

The study has a lot of data, and a lot of graphs. If we decide to use one graph to decide who to vote for, why not all of the graphs? If one is so serious about the acceptance of gay marriage, that they will choose that issue to decide who to vote for, then shouldn't they look at all the data, such as the graph I posted, and vote accordingly?

BTW, I strongly dislike your implication that I am homophobic and stupid. That's a tactic for weak minded debaters. Debate the topic, and stop the personal attacks. I've placed others who can only insult on ignore, and I'd hate to do that to you.

CK 17
06-11-2015, 04:58 PM
And North Carolina just overrode the governors veto and joined the intolerance club. Except, the language is so loose, interracial marriages can be refused. Now I wonder if the is a clerk in North Carolina that would refuse to issue a license for an interracial marriage? Anyone? Bueler?

Ian McColgin
06-11-2015, 04:59 PM
Actually, BrianW, upon careful reflection I view your question as a rhetorical troll, which also implies that, far from stupid, you have the intellect to understand how vile the remark is but figure it's provacative value makes that worthwhile. But I could be wrong.

Ian McColgin
06-11-2015, 05:04 PM
I would delete post #50 except that I don't approve of covering up times when I am wrong. I wrote in real anger and regret that I let that anger deflect me from the actual thread discussion. For ranging off-topic so, I apologize to the Forum.

BrianW
06-11-2015, 06:40 PM
Actually, BrianW, upon careful reflection I view your question as a rhetorical troll, which also implies that, far from stupid, you have the intellect to understand how vile the remark is but figure it's provacative value makes that worthwhile. But I could be wrong.

No buts about it, you're wrong.

Of course not voting for black candidates because of a PEW poll chart is wrong. Yet that's exactly the logic and message being put forth by the OP of this thread.

BrianW
06-11-2015, 06:41 PM
I would delete post #50 except that I don't approve of covering up times when I am wrong. I wrote in real anger and regret that I let that anger deflect me from the actual thread discussion. For ranging off-topic so, I apologize to the Forum.

Even though you insulted me, I'm sure the forum will accept your apology.

Sheesh!

ishmael
06-11-2015, 09:13 PM
I'll just add that prejudice around these matters can go both way.

When I lived and worked in Baltimore I worked in a custom woodworking shop that was co-owned by a Puerto Rican man and a Lesbian woman. I got to be close with both of them; would house sit, watch after their animals etc.

My friendship with Kristine offered the opportunity to meet some of the homosexual community in Baltimore. I met some very nice folks, yet more than one time was derisively called a "breeder." It wasn't meant as a joke.

People get defensive, and angry; sometimes downright hostile about things they don't understand. I don't pretend to understand being gay or Lesbian, but I always tried to let the hostility aimed at me roll off like water off the proverbial duck's back. Always open to discussion.

One thing I hope I've learned in this sojourn is to be open to discussion rather than hostility.

purri
06-11-2015, 10:39 PM
Ish. DO you know of this? Lotsa racism too.
Lotsa bigotry within GLBTIQ communities. Just saying.

BrianW
06-11-2015, 11:06 PM
If nothing else, I've learned that heterosexuals may be referred to as breeders.

Not a complete waste of time. :)

ishmael
06-11-2015, 11:14 PM
I think I covered that. Yes, people who don't understand each other tend to project.

A projection is a vibrant alert in the psyche. What it says, which most people don't wish to look at, which makes it a projection, is "This is part of me."

One of the good things I learned when involved in the depth psychology community was stop when there's a strong emotion and reflect it back on yourself.

At times, it's not you, and you need to fight. There is evil in the world, and it should be resisted. But often it is you.

The task is to tease out the difference.
seeing what belongs to you in the other.

Harvey Golden
06-12-2015, 12:15 AM
If nothing else, I've learned that heterosexuals may be referred to as breeders.

A lot of heterosexuals are breeders. A fair number of homosexuals are too. If no one bred, there wouldn't be either. I'm a breeder, and the term doesn't bother me; its certainly not my go-to term for describing myself (not sure what is, come to think of it...) If its a prerogative, someone needs to try harder. ("spawner" sounds worse....)

bobbys
06-12-2015, 02:29 AM
If nothing else, I've learned that heterosexuals may be referred to as breeders.

Not a complete waste of time. :)
.

You see a "breeder" is a derogatory term,

liberals believe in evolution but when faced with a dead end in the road the theory is discarded for political reasons..

Chris Coose
06-12-2015, 03:21 AM
.

You see a "breeder" is a derogatory term,

liberals believe in evolution but when faced with a dead end in the road the theory is discarded for political reasons..

Tell me, What's the dead end, you mention?

Peerie Maa
06-12-2015, 05:04 AM
.

You see a "breeder" is a derogatory term,



I think that in the way it was used it was meant to be a pre-emptive insult. In a similar way to the use of the pejorative "Honkie". I wonder whether that particular sado would use the same perjorative about a gay couple who had used surrogacy or AI to start their own family.

ishmael
06-12-2015, 06:02 AM
"Familiarity breeds contempt, and children."

Twain

Rum_Pirate
06-12-2015, 08:10 AM
Tell me, What's the dead end, you mention?


The 'dead end' mentioned, probably is along the lines of, if homosexuals are not 'breeders' or perhaps better described as 'non-breeders' they do not reproduce so hit a dead end in the evolution theory.

On the basis of evolution theory, that since homosexuals are apparently and allegedly 'born' as 'homosexuals, nobody have ever satisfactorily explained (to me yet at least) why the 'homosexual gene' has not therefore died out in accordance with the evolution theory.
I.E. Along the lines of a branch of a species that does not reproduce becomes extinct.

Paul Pless
06-12-2015, 08:17 AM
I.E. Along the lines of a branch of a species that does not reproduce becomes extinct.I think this is where your failure of intellect come in to play; homosexuality is not a species.

Peerie Maa
06-12-2015, 08:38 AM
On the basis of evolution theory, that since homosexuals are apparently and allegedly 'born' as 'homosexuals, nobody have ever satisfactorily explained (to me yet at least) why the 'homosexual gene' has not therefore died out in accordance with the evolution theory.
I.E. Along the lines of a branch of a species that does not reproduce becomes extinct.

The mammalian genome is a LOT more simple that that of an amphibian because we evolved development in a womb - no need for code to deal with changing water temperature for example. That means that much of our development is also controlled by the mothers hormones. It is most likely that gender is both genetic and set by the chemistry of the womb during gestation.
http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2012/12/homosexuality-may-start-womb

The original paper:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167

Rum_Pirate
06-12-2015, 08:39 AM
I think this is where your failure of intellect come in to play; homosexuality is not a species.
You appear to have a little difficulty in reading my post, it would appear that it is your intellect that perhaps is at fault because I never said that homosexuality is a species.
Try not to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions or put words in my mouth. Thank you.

For the hard of understanding, homosexuals are part of at the human species (Homo sapiens), and I wrote that since homosexuals are apparently and allegedly 'born' as 'homosexuals, nobody have ever satisfactorily explained (to me yet at least) why the 'homosexual gene' has not therefore died out in accordance with the evolution theory.
I.E. Along the lines of a branch of a species that does not reproduce becomes extinct.
Further Clarification: The branches in this reference refer to i) hetrosexuals and ii) homosexuals) in that the 'hetrosexuals' would reproduce and continue to evolve and the 'homosexuals' would not reproduce and that strain/branch of the species die out.

If that is not clear enough, would you like me to use smaller/shorter and easier to understand words for you? :rolleyes:

Rum_Pirate
06-12-2015, 08:50 AM
The mammalian genome is a LOT more simple that that of an amphibian because we evolved development in a womb - no need for code to deal with changing water temperature for example. That means that much of our development is also controlled by the mothers hormones. It is most likely that gender is both genetic and set by the chemistry of the womb during gestation.
http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2012/12/homosexuality-may-start-womb

The original paper:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167


Thanks for posting those links.

I have to read it thoroughly, but initially it appears to suggest that 8% of humans are homosexual.
Did not see any bi-sexual reference, which would probably further complicate the matter.
So is the conclusion that small percentage is an anomaly or abnormality in human evolution?

Keith Wilson
06-12-2015, 08:57 AM
So is the conclusion that small percentage is an anomaly or abnormality in human evolution?What's an 'anomaly'? It is what it is, a naturally-occurring phenomenon, just a minority like blue eyes - about 8% of the world's population, or red hair, about 2%

RonW
06-12-2015, 08:57 AM
You appear to have a little difficulty in reading my post, it would appear that it is your intellect that perhaps is at fault because I never said that homosexuality is a species.
Try not to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions or put words in my mouth. Thank you.

For the hard of understanding, homosexuals are part of at the human species (Homo sapiens), and I wrote that since homosexuals are apparently and allegedly 'born' as 'homosexuals, nobody have ever satisfactorily explained (to me yet at least) why the 'homosexual gene' has not therefore died out in accordance with the evolution theory.
I.E. Along the lines of a branch of a species that does not reproduce becomes extinct.
Further Clarification: The branches in this reference refer to i) hetrosexuals and ii) homosexuals) in that the 'hetrosexuals' would reproduce and continue to evolve and the 'homosexuals' would not reproduce and that strain/branch of the species die out.

If that is not clear enough, would you like me to use smaller/shorter and easier to understand words for you? :rolleyes:

Well done Rummy, I agree and say it is not a gene, but nothing more then a personal preference or desire. Kinda like some people like to smoke cigars, eat pork bellies and fart in public and other people find these actions compulsive, rude and crude. And certain religions have beliefs against pork eating.

Chris Coose
06-12-2015, 09:08 AM
Well there are a lot more of them out and about than I remember as a kid and many of them are breeding.

Peerie Maa
06-12-2015, 09:14 AM
Thanks for posting those links.

I have to read it thoroughly, but initially it appears to suggest that 8% of humans are homosexual.
Did not see any bi-sexual reference, which would probably further complicate the matter.
So is the conclusion that small percentage is an anomaly or abnormality in human evolution?

Just an anomaly, not a matter for evolution at all. Evolution is about random mutations. This is not a mutation but a process.
Google transgender and womb, you will bring up some hits to explore. Stick to scientific papers rather than sites pushing opinion.

Flying Orca
06-12-2015, 09:16 AM
The same study points out that blacks as a group are the least supportive of same-sex marriage.

So by the logic being expressed here, we should not vote for blacks.

Er, no. One might conclude that one shouldn't vote for black homophobes, though, if one were a single issue voter.

The thing about Republicans is that the "conservative Republicans" one hears about the most tend to line up on what I would consider the wrong side of a great many issues other than gay marriage. When you look at all of the issues combined, the logic becomes quite clear - some cultures may be more conservative than others, but the "logic" (to use your term) points to avoiding support for conservative Republicans.

Flying Orca
06-12-2015, 09:19 AM
nobody have ever satisfactorily explained (to me yet at least) why the 'homosexual gene' has not therefore died out in accordance with the evolution theory.
I.E. Along the lines of a branch of a species that does not reproduce becomes extinct.

Pardon me for pointing out staggering ignorance, but you're aware that homosexuals are the same subspecies as you (Homo sapiens sapiens), right?

Rum_Pirate
06-12-2015, 09:50 AM
Well there are a lot more of them out and about than I remember as a kid and many of them are breeding.

Some of them may be 'breeding', but I would suggest that they are 'breeding' in the natural hetrosexual manner, namely as a male and a female rather than as a pair of same sex partners. :rolleyes:

Yes, some may be 'breeding' using non-natural means e.g. surrogate mothers, sperm donation and IV. etc, but none breed as result of sexual relations (it is not 'coitus'), with their homosexual partner.

I don't think that there are a lot more.
Years ago society made the homosexual sector to remain 'in the closet', perhaps the '8%' was still the same, now the person are just more public about it.

Rum_Pirate
06-12-2015, 09:54 AM
Pardon me for pointing out staggering ignorance, but you're aware that homosexuals are the same subspecies as you (Homo sapiens sapiens), right?
I stated that. :rolleyes:

RonW
06-12-2015, 09:58 AM
perhaps the '8%' was still the same, now the person are just more public about it.

Actually I think it is less then 3% ....you just got a lot of left wing liberals who jumped on the band wagon to use it as a vote getter, like they did with global warming, late term abortion , higher taxes, more regulations, bigger government and all their other failed policies..........

Flying Orca
06-12-2015, 10:02 AM
I stated that. :rolleyes:

Erm, no, you suggested that homosexuals are a distinct branch of the species. That's incorrect.

leikec
06-12-2015, 10:06 AM
Proof positive that sticky fingerprints on the slurpee machine can lead to anger issues...

Jeff C

S.V. Airlie
06-12-2015, 10:08 AM
I think bobbys and RonW should move in together!

Keith Wilson
06-12-2015, 10:10 AM
Evolution demands crueltyhttp://www.picgifs.com/graphics/f/flashing-light/graphics-flashing-light-309183.gif Dingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingding!!! http://www.picgifs.com/graphics/f/flashing-light/graphics-flashing-light-309183.gif

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!!! The single wrongest statement in the Bilge for this year! Congratulations, Bobbys! Well done!

RonW
06-12-2015, 10:18 AM
.

Why do you hate science.

If you believe in science and evolution some die out and others live..

It's liberals who violate their own religion with emotions and political correctness.

Dang bobby, you nailed that one to the wall...That sounds like something you would hear from a conservative college professor during a speech on the hypocrisy of liberalism.

Keith Wilson
06-12-2015, 10:18 AM
And he doubles down! Go Bobby!!! Keep digging! :d

Keith Wilson
06-12-2015, 10:31 AM
I'm not upset, I'm amused, very amused; downright awestruck, in fact. You said 'evolution requires cruelty', which demonstrates beyond the vaguest ghost of a doubt that you haven't got a clue about evolution.

RonW
06-12-2015, 10:37 AM
I'm not upset, I'm amused, very amused; downright awestruck, in fact. You said 'evolution requires cruelty', which demonstrates beyond the vaguest ghost of a doubt that you haven't got a clue about evolution.

Oh keith........I thought you was going to clean bobbys clock with a speech on one celled amebas .. I am disappointed ......are all evolution for the good with kindness ?

Rum_Pirate
06-12-2015, 10:41 AM
Erm, no, you suggested that homosexuals are a distinct branch of the species. That's incorrect.

Sigh, I never said 'that homosexuals are a distinct branch of the species'.

Please read my post # 66:

"homosexuals are part of at the human species (Homo sapiens)"

In that homosexuals are different from hetrosexuals, because if there was no difference they would be exactly the same and would not have a different name i.e. Homosexual as opposed to hetrosexual, so they are not the same, namely they have different sexual preferences (perhaps other differences as well). Capicse?

Peerie Maa
06-12-2015, 10:43 AM
.

going purely by science which is all we can really go by its a genetic defect.. If you like, but that means that your genes are defective.;)


Course no one can argue with science. Some here do. Causes no end of ridicule.


Evolution demands cruelty, some live, some die out.. evolution is a process, not a sentient being. Evolution demands nothing.


Ya know like some libs here say old rich fat white men will die out. to be replaced by old fat men of many different races. :D


Well it's also true of non breeders.

I know , It's not nice but it's science.Que?

Keith Wilson
06-12-2015, 10:45 AM
. . . . are all evolution for the good with kindness ?You can get down in bobbys's hole with your shovel and help him dig if you like. Better do it quick, though; it's getting pretty deep. :d

RonW
06-12-2015, 11:00 AM
You can get down in bobbys's hole with your shovel and help him dig if you like. Better do it quick, though; it's getting pretty deep. :d

I got a ladder in case bobby needs it, but does this mean we are going to skip the lecture on the evolution of the one celled amebas . Dang I always enjoy those..:ycool:

Flying Orca
06-12-2015, 11:13 AM
Sigh, I never said 'that homosexuals are a distinct branch of the species'.

Not in so many words, but the implication is clear in this qualification, poor English notwithstanding: "Along the lines of a branch of a species that does not reproduce becomes extinct."

There is no strong evidence that homosexuality is as simple as a single gene, or purely environmental; the general scientific conclusion is that it is likely the result of a complex interplay between multiple genes, hormonal and epigenetic factors, and environmental factors. That said, to quote Wikipedia:


The authors of a 2008 study stated "there is considerable evidence that human sexual orientation is genetically influenced, so it is not known how homosexuality, which tends to lower reproductive success (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproduction), is maintained in the population at a relatively high frequency". They hypothesized that "while genes predisposing to homosexuality reduce homosexuals' reproductive success, they may confer some advantage in heterosexuals who carry them". Their results suggested that "genes predisposing to homosexuality may confer a mating advantage in heterosexuals, which could help explain the evolution and maintenance of homosexuality in the population".[148] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#cite_note-148) A 2009 study also suggested a significant increase in fecundity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecundity) in the females related to the homosexual people from the maternal line (but not in those related from the paternal one).[149] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#cite_note-149)

Hope that helps.

RonW
06-12-2015, 11:59 AM
.

Will it help if I put on a white lab coat?:d

As your official campaign manager, I would advise against any such action.......


http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Doctor-Obama.jpg

Peerie Maa
06-12-2015, 12:12 PM
.

England has a long history of invading other lands, subjecting the natives to a lower caste, take ing over all in the name of Queen and country.

This is a text book case of evolution used as a political manifest.

look at the Falkland :DIslands.

kill and drive off the natives, take the oil then clim a island thousands on miles away as jolly ole England..

still celebrating stupid (TM)John of Phoenix

Norman Bernstein
06-12-2015, 12:20 PM
Not that anyone's mind would be changed, but....

There have been a number of studies of identical twins in which one was hetero, and the other gay. Sort of rules out genetic predispositions, to a great extent (not completely, because even identical twins can have mutated differences in their genetic profile.... but as a general rule, the differences are VERY small).

We can rule out general upbringing... since most homosexuals with siblings are not from families that spawn exclusively homosexual children.

The simple truth is that science doesn't know. About the only thing we know, for certain, is that whatever the cause, homosexuality is NOT simply a choice, and 'conversion therapy' is nothing more than psychological abuse.

So, since some small percentage (and the percentage is in dispute, although 2-3% is often mentioned) of people are homosexual... and since it's been this way during the ENTIRE history of humanity... we can either do the decent thing and treat these people kindly... or we can do the savage and prejudicial thing and abuse them, cut them off from society, prevent them from living normal lives, engaging in relationships, and even experiencing the joys of parenthood.

I know which path I am taking.

Glen Longino
06-12-2015, 12:36 PM
It's amusing watching bobbys and Ron W attempt to carry on a "scientific discussion", hilarious in fact!!!:D:D

Peerie Maa
06-12-2015, 12:38 PM
.

I knew you would resort to a insult.

Being a scientific guy myself like Spock I do not respond to petty insults..
However you are free to read the history of England.

bobbys, it would seem that most times I post you come up with an irrelevant (off topic) attack post talking bollocks about the Falklands. Are you stalking me? People have been banned for that sort of behaviour.
Apart from which your continued denial of the rights of self determination for the Falkland Islanders is hypocritical in the extreme. Are you comfortable in your lying posts about the history of the Falklands and your hypocrisy?

Rum_Pirate
06-12-2015, 02:07 PM
Not in so many words, but the implication is clear in this qualification, poor English notwithstanding: "Along the lines of a branch of a species that does not reproduce becomes extinct."

There is no strong evidence that homosexuality is as simple as a single gene, or purely environmental; the general scientific conclusion is that it is likely the result of a complex interplay between multiple genes, hormonal and epigenetic factors, and environmental factors. That said, to quote Wikipedia:


The authors of a 2008 study stated "there is considerable evidence that human sexual orientation is genetically influenced, so it is not known how homosexuality, which tends to lower reproductive success (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproduction), is maintained in the population at a relatively high frequency". They hypothesized that "while genes predisposing to homosexuality reduce homosexuals' reproductive success, they may confer some advantage in heterosexuals who carry them". Their results suggested that "genes predisposing to homosexuality may confer a mating advantage in heterosexuals, which could help explain the evolution and maintenance of homosexuality in the population".[148] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#cite_note-148) A 2009 study also suggested a significant increase in fecundity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecundity) in the females related to the homosexual people from the maternal line (but not in those related from the paternal one).[149] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#cite_note-149)

Hope that helps.

Hmm, genes eh?

Read this article http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2012/12/homosexuality-may-start-womb

From a strictly Darwinian viewpoint, homosexuality shouldn't still be around. It isn't the best way to pass along one's genes, and to complicate the picture further, no "gay genes" have even been identified.

Peerie Maa
06-12-2015, 02:10 PM
^ complicated ain't it. Better left to those qualified to study the issue. Just accept that it is proven that it is a gift of God the Creator and learn to live with it.

Rum_Pirate
06-12-2015, 02:15 PM
^ complicated ain't it. Better left to those qualified to study the issue. Just accept that it is proven that it is a gift of God the Creator and learn to live with it.

". . . it is proven that it is a gift of God the Creator". Really?

Hmm, how about providing a link to that 'proof' (do take into consideration Sodom and Gommoragh) or is it a 'fact' plucked out of thin air? :ycool:

Norman Bernstein
06-12-2015, 02:18 PM
". . . it is proven that it is a gift of God the Creator". Really?

Hmm, how about providing a link to that 'proof' (do take into consideration Sodom and Gommoragh) or is it a 'fact' plucked out of thin air? :ycool:

What could POSSIBLY constitute 'proof'?

Peerie Maa
06-12-2015, 02:26 PM
". . . it is proven that it is a gift of God the Creator". Really?

Hmm, how about providing a link to that 'proof' (do take into consideration Sodom and Gommoragh) or is it a 'fact' plucked out of thin air? :ycool:

The followers of the Three Books all claim that we are created in Gods image. It is now proven by science that 8% are born gay, not gay by choice. So to the followers of the three books God is 8% gay. No?

RonW
06-12-2015, 02:32 PM
The followers of the Three Books all claim that we are created in Gods image. It is now proven by science that 8% are born gay, not gay by choice. So to the followers of the three books God is 8% gay. No?

Just defects, it happens....common when you have a high volume of production that is not properly supervised......

Flying Orca
06-12-2015, 02:42 PM
Hmm, genes eh? Read this article

The article that in no way contradicts anything I have posted on the subject?

You're welcome to put your understanding of evolution and genetics up against mine any time.

Flying Orca
06-12-2015, 02:44 PM
Homosexuals are no more "defective" than men, white people, Christians, or conservatives, to choose a few relatively identifiable groups.

Tom Wilkinson
06-12-2015, 02:45 PM
Just defects, it happens....common when you have a high volume of production that is not properly supervised......

I thought god had a plan and saw everything. Isn't he the one supervising???

Hmm...

Rum_Pirate
06-12-2015, 02:47 PM
The followers of the Three Books all claim that we are created in Gods image. It is now proven by science that 8% are born gay, not gay by choice. So to the followers of the three books God is 8% gay. No?


Given that we are created in Gods image, the claim above fails in that one cannot determine if somebody is homosexual by looking at them. :ycool:

Plus Genesis 19 Plus didn't God destroy Sodom and Gamorrah for the wickedness they had turned to? He wouldn't have destroyed his 'gift'. :ycool:
Sure it isn't a 'present' from Satan? :rolleyes:

RonW
06-12-2015, 02:51 PM
I thought god had a plan and saw everything. Isn't he the one supervising???

Hmm...

Not on the sabbath.........everyone needs a day off ......that seems to be when a few fall through the cracks.....

Peerie Maa
06-12-2015, 02:55 PM
Given that we are created in Gods image, the claim above fails in that one cannot determine if somebody is homosexual by looking at them. :ycool:

Plus Genesis 19 Plus didn't God destroy Sodom and Gamorrah for the wickedness they had turned to? He wouldn't have destroyed his 'gift'. :ycool:


Sure it isn't a 'present' from Satan? :rolleyes:

Depends on what the translators of the bible thought "image" meant in their usage of English at the time of King James. Satan was not a creator, so it has nothing whatever to do with it.
Either way the science creates a dilemma for those who believe that their god created us.;)

Rum_Pirate
06-12-2015, 02:55 PM
The article that in no way contradicts anything I have posted on the subject?

You're welcome to put your understanding of evolution and genetics up against mine any time.

Your article refer to "genes predisposing to homosexuality".

That article states that "no "gay genes" have even been identified".

Please continue in your belief and may it make you truly happy.

Rum_Pirate
06-12-2015, 02:58 PM
Homosexuals are no more "defective" than men, white people, Christians, or conservatives, to choose a few relatively identifiable groups.


Hmm, aren't homosexuals men?

Are homosexuals then different from men?

Peerie Maa
06-12-2015, 03:00 PM
Hmm, aren't homosexuals men?

Are homosexuals then different from men?

Yes lesbians are different from men. ;)

Rum_Pirate
06-12-2015, 03:02 PM
Depends on what the translators of the bible thought "image" meant in their usage of English at the time of King James. Satan was not a creator, so it has nothing whatever to do with it.
Either way the science creates a dilemma for those who believe that their god created us.;)


You conveniently omitted to address the point of Genesis 19. :ycool:

While Satan may very well not have been a creator, what is there to prevent him bestowing a 'present' to certain people? |;)

I would agree with you that there is a dilemma.

Peerie Maa
06-12-2015, 03:02 PM
Your article refer to "genes predisposing to homosexuality".

That article states that "no "gay genes" have even been identified".

Please continue in your belief and may it make you truly happy.

Genes predisposing to are not capable of being genes that cause. There is a clear difference.

Rum_Pirate
06-12-2015, 03:06 PM
Yes lesbians are different from men. ;) Now you are trying to squirm with specifics and sub-sections. |;)

.


.


.

.


.


.


http://dailydead.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Squirm-Blu-ray-coverart-e1404164835336.jpg

Peerie Maa
06-12-2015, 03:07 PM
You conveniently omitted to address the point of Genesis 19. :ycool: I could not see any sense nor relevance to your statement


While Satan may very well not have been a creator, what is there to prevent him bestowing a 'present' to certain people? |;) How would a supernatural being change our genes then? Where would he/she/it put the sonic screwdriver?


I would agree with you that there is a dilemma.Gee thanks :D

Flying Orca
06-12-2015, 03:07 PM
Your article refer to "genes predisposing to homosexuality".

I realize that "hypothesize" is a pretty big word, but do your best to keep up. Here's a dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/)link just in case.

Flying Orca
06-12-2015, 03:09 PM
Are homosexuals then different from men?

You're probably smart enough to figure out that they are overlapping sets, although that does depend on definition. Shall I furnish you with a Venn diagram, or do you think you can figure it out on your own?

Peerie Maa
06-12-2015, 03:10 PM
Hmm, aren't homosexuals men?
Nope some homosexuals are born female.


Now you are trying to squirm with specifics and sub-sections. |;)

.


.


.

.


.


.


http://dailydead.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Squirm-Blu-ray-coverart-e1404164835336.jpg

Don't like your silliness being highlighted then.

Sorry :p

Rum_Pirate
06-12-2015, 03:15 PM
I realize that "hypothesize" is a pretty big word, but do your best to keep up. Here's a dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/)link just in case.


hypothesize

verb hy·poth·e·size \-ˌsīz\
: to suggest (an idea or theory) : to make or suggest (a hypothesis)


So your point is based purely on a suggestion, not investigation, not actual research, results etc.?

OK, so be it - end of discussion. :d

Next topic please. :ycool:

Peerie Maa
06-12-2015, 03:37 PM
So your point is based purely on a suggestion, not investigation, not actual research, results etc.?

OK, so be it - end of discussion. :d

Next topic please. :ycool:

Are you really that ignorant of the scientific method? Really?

Sheesh.

Rum_Pirate
06-12-2015, 03:59 PM
Are you really that ignorant of the scientific method? Really?

Sheesh.


It is still only a suggestion. Whereas it is a fact that a homosexual gene has not been discovered/identified.

If one wishes to discuss things on a hypothetical basis (taken as being, supposedly, allegedly, presumptive) against facts then go right ahead, be my guest. :ycool:

Peerie Maa
06-12-2015, 04:06 PM
It is still only a suggestion. Whereas it is a fact that a homosexual gene has not been discovered/identified.

If one wishes to discuss things on a hypothetical basis (taken as being, supposedly, allegedly, presumptive) against facts then go right ahead, be my guest. :ycool:

No it is backed up with evidence. It continues to be a hypothesis until the evidence becomes overwhelming and no contrary evidence is found. When that happens it is promoted to the status of "Theory". So it is not only a suggestionbut an explanation of what the evidence shows.

Peerie Maa
06-12-2015, 04:33 PM
.

You are the one that resorted to calling me stupid .

You are the hypocritical one, As I said look up England's colonialism and get back to me.

I know it's very tough to have to do this but believe me the truth will set you free..

Even in America we review our history and liberals show us our collective guilt every day...

All our esteemed President asked was for England to Negotiate with Argentine..

Is England a racist country they refuse to comply with our President?

Still a hypocrite. At least you are consistent. This was explained to you on several occasions. If you cannot understand why you are a hypocrite, I can't help you.

Rum_Pirate
06-12-2015, 04:41 PM
No it is backed up with evidence. It continues to be a hypothesis until the evidence becomes overwhelming and no contrary evidence is found. When that happens it is promoted to the status of "Theory". So it is not only a suggestionbut an explanation of what the evidence shows.
Where? Links?

PS No homosexual gene has been found to date.

Peerie Maa
06-12-2015, 04:43 PM
Where? Links?

PS No homosexual gene has been found to date.

Don't need no link for the fundamental scientific process. If you slept through that particular class in school, do your own catching up.

Rum_Pirate
06-12-2015, 04:46 PM
Don't need no link for the fundamental scientific process. If you slept through that particular class in school, do your own catching up.
You stated (POst #126) that it was "backed up with evidence."., I asked where and for links.
None have been provided. :ycool:

Peerie Maa
06-12-2015, 04:50 PM
You stated (POst #126) that it was "backed up with evidence."., I asked where and for links.
None have been provided. :ycool:

The evidence is reported in the links in this thread, one of which you posted.

I am starting to wonder whether you are arguing with yourself now. :confused:

RonW
06-12-2015, 05:19 PM
Don't need no link for the fundamental scientific process. If you slept through that particular class in school, do your own catching up.


The evidence is reported in the links in this thread, one of which you posted.

I am starting to wonder whether you are arguing with yourself now. :confused:

You really should stop, it is obvious that you can't prove your false claims, and it is getting embarrassing, I even feel embarrassed for you..

Maybe you should follow Davidg's advice and put certain people that consistently debunk your silly claims on ignore so as to not embarrass yourself .

And besides it might make for a more pleasant experience for you to just talk to those that believe as you do........fe fi fo ..

Flying Orca
06-12-2015, 06:46 PM
So your point is based purely on a suggestion

If you don't understand what a scientific hypothesis is, you are probably too ignorant to be discussing scientific topics.

RonW
06-12-2015, 06:56 PM
If you don't understand what a scientific hypothesis is, you are probably too ignorant to be discussing scientific topics.

Would you care to explain that for us less educated simple folk.........I thought it was just a guess, nothing more then guesswork...Is this true ?

S.V. Airlie
06-12-2015, 07:01 PM
It's an educated guess backed by events that have been shown to be correct. Guess, my educational guess, shows that, as usual, you are speaking through your butt.

Flying Orca
06-12-2015, 07:19 PM
Would you care to explain that for us less educated simple folk.........I thought it was just a guess, nothing more then guesswork...Is this true ?

Nope. An hypothesis is an expert conjecture that is thought to plausibly explain the available data. However RumP may try to twist and turn, he can't seem to get away from the fact that homosexuality is thought by the experts to most likely have a genetic or epigenetic component (both, would be my guess, but that's the difference between a guess and an hypothesis for you) that has been preserved because the same genes in other combinations or epigenetic expressions enhance the reproductive success of heterosexuals.

John of Phoenix
06-12-2015, 07:28 PM
Are other people saying you reds are stupid?

And you're still not catching on?

That's Dunning Kruger!

Rum_Pirate
06-12-2015, 11:01 PM
Nope. An hypothesis is an expert conjecture that is thought to plausibly explain the available data. However RumP may try to twist and turn, he can't seem to get away from the fact that homosexuality is thought by the experts to most likely have a genetic or epigenetic component (both, would be my guess, but that's the difference between a guess and an hypothesis for you) that has been preserved because the same genes in other combinations or epigenetic expressions enhance the reproductive success of heterosexuals.


LOL, you are now covering ALL bases and sides with the statements : "An hypothesis is an expert conjecture that is thought to plausibly explain the available data." and "the fact that homosexuality is thought by the experts to most likely have a genetic or epigenetic component".


From Peerie Maa's Post 65

http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution...may-start-womb (http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2012/12/homosexuality-may-start-womb)

The original paper:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167
Which includes no "gay genes" have even been identified.



Go for it my good man. Y> :D

Boater14
06-12-2015, 11:41 PM
Reynard, it does affect you. Homosexuality is one of the wedge issues that's screwing up our political system.

purri
06-13-2015, 01:58 AM
I believe Gamorrah is a quaint Irish village. Anyone?
Given that we are created in Gods image, the claim above fails in that one cannot determine if somebody is homosexual by looking at them. :ycool:

Plus Genesis 19 Plus didn't God destroy Sodom and Gamorrah for the wickedness they had turned to? He wouldn't have destroyed his 'gift'. :ycool:


Sure it isn't a 'present' from Satan? :rolleyes:

Peerie Maa
06-13-2015, 03:43 AM
No it is backed up with evidence. It continues to be a hypothesis until the evidence becomes overwhelming and no contrary evidence is found. When that happens it is promoted to the status of "Theory". So it is not only a suggestion but an explanation of what the evidence shows.


Nope. An hypothesis is an expert conjecture that is thought to plausibly explain the available data.


LOL, you are now covering ALL bases and sides with the statements : "An hypothesis is an expert conjecture that is thought to plausibly explain the available data." and "the fact that homosexuality is thought by the experts to most likely have a genetic or epigenetic component".
Which includes no "gay genes" have even been identified.


Now you have had hypothesis explained two different ways and still you don't get it.

This tells us something about you Rummy.

David G
06-13-2015, 01:06 PM
I'll repeat... it's the same mindset that opposed inter-racial marriages which now opposes same-sex marriages.

Wrong side of history --

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/11164652_10152848675575667_283172150860364506_n.jp g?oh=931543b3e0f0fc6196ddddd3e671e5c8&oe=56299ACD

Osborne Russell
06-13-2015, 01:44 PM
Though they are closely related, there's some kind of difference between zebras and horses for which no gene has been found responsible AFAIK.

And yet this difference is widely accepted. They are notably difficult to domesticate.

ishmael
06-13-2015, 02:09 PM
My prescription, which works pretty well, is leave people alone.

That said, I'd like to see homosexual couples able to tie the knot. Ain't my business if they do. It will keep the lawyers in business. LOL

Ian McColgin
06-13-2015, 02:25 PM
"I'd like to see homosexual couples able to tie the knot." [#147]

Putting it that way makes it sound like you missed your chance on November 6, 2012, to be part of the 53% of Maine voters who made Maine (along with Maryland and Washington) among the first three states to legalize same-sex marriage at the ballot box.

Michael D. Storey
06-14-2015, 09:00 AM
No that's not it at all. Homosexuality doesn't affect me. It's not a concern.
Whenever somebody asks me about my opinion on abortion I have a similar response. I tell them as I don't have a womb I don't have an opinion, and I'll leave it up to those to do to decide.

I would suggest that in fact it does. If you accept that homosexuals and all around you, then so is their sexuality, and I mean more places than the Bolshoi or the beauty parlor. If it is acceptable to discriminate or victimize or marginalize them, who is next? Old people? Children? Non-natural-born citizens? Oh wait. Too Late.

Peerie Maa
06-14-2015, 09:24 AM
I would suggest that in fact it does. If you accept that homosexuals and all around you, then so is their sexuality, and I mean more places than the Bolshoi or the beauty parlor. If it is acceptable to discriminate or victimize or marginalize them, who is next? Old people? Children? Non-natural-born citizens? Oh wait. Too Late.

You might be reading too much into Reynards post. Would you take issue if the post said "No that's not it at all. Red hair doesn't affect me. It's not a concern." ?

Michael D. Storey
06-14-2015, 09:46 AM
You might be reading too much into Reynards post. Would you take issue if the post said "No that's not it at all. Red hair doesn't affect me. It's not a concern." ?

Maybe I spend too much time thinkin about things
Why is her hair red?
Why is mine not?
Why does she have hair?
Why do red haired women figure so prominently in erotic fantasy?
Everything that I see, or hear, or feel or taste affects me.
Can't not.
In the instant case, 30 to 40 million United States Citizens is a pretty big bunch to say it doesn't affect me.

Peerie Maa
06-14-2015, 10:06 AM
Maybe I spend too much time thinkin about things
Why is her hair red?
Why is mine not?
Why does she have hair?
Why do red haired women figure so prominently in erotic fantasy?
Everything that I see, or hear, or feel or taste affects me.
Can't not.
In the instant case, 30 to 40 million United States Citizens is a pretty big bunch to say it doesn't affect me.

They will only affect you if they band together as a cohesive political force and drive through some prohibition, as did many churches driving through Prohibition in 1920. Now that is hardly likely, so I don't think that you need worry.

Michael D. Storey
06-14-2015, 03:14 PM
They will only affect you if they band together as a cohesive political force and drive through some prohibition, as did many churches driving through Prohibition in 1920. Now that is hardly likely, so I don't think that you need worry.
What?
Who are 'they'?
what is this band together thing?
Gimme some specifics here.

Peerie Maa
06-14-2015, 03:20 PM
What?
Who are 'they'?
what is this band together thing?
Gimme some specifics here.

Well we are discussing gays here, no one else.

P.S. There are about the came number of left handers, do they affect you?

Michael D. Storey
06-14-2015, 03:53 PM
Well we are discussing gays here, no one else.

P.S. There are about the came number of left handers, do they affect you?

Of course.
And they affect you. Your dinner the last time you went out was prepared by a lefter. What about your dentist?
Do you know how many left handed polo players there are in the United States?
Zero.
Here, we are afforded rights as individuals as well as collectively.
Gay folk, left handed folk, old folk; we all have skin in the game.
As an old white guy I do not have to 'band together' to receive or prohibit anything. Neither do they.
In fact, your sentiment that we are discussing only 'gays' here (actually they are people) is untrue. Civil and human rights are an all or no one sort of proposition.

Peerie Maa
06-14-2015, 04:04 PM
Of course.
And they affect you. Your dinner the last time you went out was prepared by a lefter. What about your dentist?
Do you know how many left handed polo players there are in the United States?
Zero.
Here, we are afforded rights as individuals as well as collectively.
Gay folk, left handed folk, old folk; we all have skin in the game.
As an old white guy I do not have to 'band together' to receive or prohibit anything. Neither do they.
In fact, your sentiment that we are discussing only 'gays' here (actually they are people) is untrue. Civil and human rights are an all or no one sort of proposition.

I do not agree that gays, redheads, leftys do affect me in any way that I am not affected by right handed blond married couples.
How do you feel affected differently by these minority groups that is different from the way the majority affects you>?

Michael D. Storey
06-14-2015, 04:16 PM
I do not agree that gays, redheads, leftys do affect me in any way that I am not affected by right handed blond married couples.
How do you feel affected differently by these minority groups that is different from the way the majority affects you>?
I did not say differently. I said that they are a part of the gumbo and deserve the same rights and opportunities and face the same responsibilities as any other group or individuals. That is the point. They remain as good and as bad as the rest of us. Their opinions and volitions are as valuable and as frivolous as any one else.
That's it. When they are marginalized, we all are.
Do you know why there are no left handed polo players in the United States?

Peerie Maa
06-14-2015, 04:20 PM
I did not say differently. I said that they are a part of the gumbo and deserve the same rights and opportunities and face the same responsibilities as any other group or individuals. That is the point. They remain as good and as bad as the rest of us. Their opinions and volitions are as valuable and as frivolous as any one else.
That's it. When they are marginalized, we all are.
Do you know why there are no left handed polo players in the United States?

Dunno, I do know that it is extremely difficult to play hockey left handed as they do not make left handed sticks. I guess that polo has to be played right handed for safety reasons. So what is the reason?

Michael D. Storey
06-14-2015, 04:25 PM
Dunno, I do know that it is extremely difficult to play hockey left handed as they do not make left handed sticks. I guess that polo has to be played right handed for safety reasons. So what is the reason?

They would crash head-on with all of the right-handed players. would injure the horses as they became airborne.
Think about it.
No. Think about a red headed woman. Or man.

Peerie Maa
06-14-2015, 04:34 PM
They would crash head-on with all of the right-handed players. would injure the horses as they became airborne.
Think about it.
No. Think about a red headed woman. Or man.

So I guessed right then, Same reason that we still drive on the left :D

Flying Orca
06-14-2015, 07:28 PM
I do know that it is extremely difficult to play hockey left handed as they do not make left handed sticks.

I was going to post some links to right- and left-handed sticks until I realized you're talking about what we call "field hockey", which in these parts is a rather obscure sport most often found in private girls' schools and the like.

Rum_Pirate
06-14-2015, 08:19 PM
I was going to post some links to right- and left-handed sticks until I realized you're talking about what we call "field hockey", which in these parts is a rather obscure sport most often found in private girls' schools and the like.



Field hockey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_hockey) at the 2012 Olympic Games (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Summer_Olympics) in London (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London) took place from 29 July to 11 August at the Riverbank Arena (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverbank_Arena) within the Olympic Park.
On 13 November 2010 the International Hockey Federation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Hockey_Federation) (FIH) decided to allocate 12 teams for each men and women events respectively.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_hockey_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics#cite_note-QC-1)
Germany (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics) won the men's tournament (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_hockey_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93 _Men%27s_tournament) for the fourth time, and the women's tournament (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_hockey_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93 _Women%27s_tournament) was won by the Netherlands (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics) — their third Olympic women's hockey title.

I guess you are out in the sticks (pun intended) like I am. |;)

S.V. Airlie
06-14-2015, 08:25 PM
Dunno, I do know that it is extremely difficult to play hockey left handed as they do not make left handed sticks. I guess that polo has to be played right handed for safety reasons. So what is the reason?

Just for sticks






http://forum.woodenboat.com/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=193306 (http://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?media=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos.demandstudios.com%2Fget ty%2Farticle%2F22%2F229%2Fsb10067962ba-001_XS.jpg&url=%2F%2Fwww.livestrong.com%2Farticle%2F368589-why-are-all-field-hockey-sticks-right-handed%2F&description=Why%20Are%20All%20Field%20Hockey%20Sti cks%20Right%20Handed%3F%20)

http://photos2.demandstudios.com/dm-resize/photos.demandstudios.com%2Fgetty%2Farticle%2F22%2F 229%2Fsb10067962ba-001_XS.jpg?w=300&h=10000&keep_ratio=1 Left-handed field hockey sticks are considered illegal and dangerous on the field. Photo Credit Thomas Northcut/Photodisc/Getty Images Field hockey sticks are typically between 36 and 38 inches in length and are traditionally made out of wood. According to the rules of the International Hockey Federation, left-handed field hockey sticks are illegal for use in sanctioned competitions or field hockey tournaments. While it is possible to obtain a customized left-handed field hockey stick, you will not be able to use it during official competition.
Why Field Hockey Sticks Are Right-HandedSafety concerns and injury prevention were the primary reasons for banning left-handed sticks from IHF-sanctioned competitions. According to officials, left-handed sticks create too much danger on the field when used in competition against right-handed sticks. Players trying to tackle opponents with opposite-handed sticks are much more likely to get hit accidentally on the follow through of the opponent’s swing. Due to the dominance of right-handed players on the field, left-handed sticks were banned outright and are much more difficult to acquire.
Field Hockey Stick BasicsSimilar to golf clubs, wooden field hockey sticks have been largely displaced by modern technology. According to the Sports Unlimited web resource, most high-end sticks are composites made from a combination of materials such as fiberglass, aramid fiber and carbon fiber. Sticks are typically 36 to 38 inches

Robbie 2
06-15-2015, 12:15 AM
Just for sticks



http://forum.woodenboat.com/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=193306 (http://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?media=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos.demandstudios.com%2Fget ty%2Farticle%2F22%2F229%2Fsb10067962ba-001_XS.jpg&url=%2F%2Fwww.livestrong.com%2Farticle%2F368589-why-are-all-field-hockey-sticks-right-handed%2F&description=Why%20Are%20All%20Field%20Hockey%20Sti cks%20Right%20Handed%3F%20)

http://photos2.demandstudios.com/dm-resize/photos.demandstudios.com%2Fgetty%2Farticle%2F22%2F 229%2Fsb10067962ba-001_XS.jpg?w=300&h=10000&keep_ratio=1 Left-handed field hockey sticks are considered illegal and dangerous on the field. Photo Credit Thomas Northcut/Photodisc/Getty Images Field hockey sticks are typically between 36 and 38 inches in length and are traditionally made out of wood. According to the rules of the International Hockey Federation, left-handed field hockey sticks are illegal for use in sanctioned competitions or field hockey tournaments. While it is possible to obtain a customized left-handed field hockey stick, you will not be able to use it during official competition.
Why Field Hockey Sticks Are Right-Handed

Safety concerns and injury prevention were the primary reasons for banning left-handed sticks from IHF-sanctioned competitions. According to officials, left-handed sticks create too much danger on the field when used in competition against right-handed sticks. Players trying to tackle opponents with opposite-handed sticks are much more likely to get hit accidentally on the follow through of the opponent’s swing. Due to the dominance of right-handed players on the field, left-handed sticks were banned outright and are much more difficult to acquire.
Field Hockey Stick Basics

Similar to golf clubs, wooden field hockey sticks have been largely displaced by modern technology. According to the Sports Unlimited web resource, most high-end sticks are composites made from a combination of materials such as fiberglass, aramid fiber and carbon fiber. Sticks are typically 36 to 38 inches

Totally correct....except that ALL Hockey sticks are STILL required to have some wood in it's makeup.

purri
06-15-2015, 02:56 AM
Ever played field hockey? C'mon down and be eviscerated.

Peerie Maa
06-15-2015, 03:42 AM
Ever played field hockey? C'mon down and be eviscerated.

Men's hockey is not so bad. Just don't play against women.

Robbie 2
06-15-2015, 04:13 AM
Ever played field hockey? C'mon down and be eviscerated.
No..............never played.
My son Benjie played from aged 6 to 19 through his school years(School,Club and Rep) and would still play now but can't fit it into his Uni schedule.
However I did coach for approx 12 years and was a referee (Primary/Intermediate level) for most of those years too.

S.V. Airlie
06-15-2015, 08:55 AM
Ever played field hockey? C'mon down and be eviscerated.y SIL was college all American. She still is a tough cookie and no never played the sport but, have watched a few

Keith Wilson
06-15-2015, 10:43 AM
Well, back to the original topic, sort of.

Last weekend I was in Durham, NC visiting my mother. She's 88 and really can't get around by herself anymore, so one of the things I do is to to take her to church, the one she's been going to since 1970, and where she has lots of friends. It's an utterly ordinary Methodist church in the suburbs of Durham, pretty average aging congregation, not very rich, not very poor, mostly white folks, but some African-Americans and a fair number of Asians as well. Nice people, mostly very southern. Theologically they're also completely ordinary mainline Protestant, lots of language about Jesus and the Holy Spirit, not leftist at all. I have enormous disagreements with a lot of it, but it's my mom's church, and I put all my agnostic Unitarian skepticism in the closet for the morning.

So in the back of the bulletin, next to announcements about committee meetings and potlucks and the after-school tutoring program is this paragraph:


Epworth United Methodist Church is a Reconciling Congregation, seeking to welcome all persons, regardless of age, race, ethnicities, disabilities, gender, gender identity or sexual orientation, into the discipleship of Christian living and proclaim our commitment to seek the reconciliation of all persons to God and to each other through Jesus Christ.I looked it up; the Reconciling Ministries Network is an organization within the United Methodist Church that's working to end discrimination against homosexuals (link here (http://www.rmnetwork.org/newrmn/)).

They also reported during the service about a resolution the congregation had submitted to the North Carolina Annual Conference of the Methodist Church:


Therefore Be It Resolved: that the North Carolina Annual Conference of The United Methodist Church seek for all discriminatory language be identified, considered, and emended from the Book of Discipline and Social Principles by the General Conference of the United Methodist Church so that all persons who profess their faith in Christ can be seen as sinners redeemed by God, accepting his grace, and welcomed into the United Methodist Church regardless of age, race, gender, or sexual orientation. We especially implore the General Conference that the following statement from the Social Principles: “The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teachings” be removed. We request that it be replaced with language that is positive, welcoming, and non-judgmental as it does not currently reflect the beliefs of many members of the United Methodist Church.It was defeated, but very narrowly. (Here's a link; it's #4 (http://nccumc.org/ac2015/files/2015/06/2015-Resolutions-Report.pdf)) I give it five more years. The Methodists are the most conservative of the Mainline Protestant denominations, but the bigots are dying off. Progress is happening as we speak.

David G
06-16-2015, 11:30 AM
I agree. Attitudes are shifting. Thank God. Or thank evolution. Or thank culture. Or...

And for those who would stand firmly on the wrong side of history once again... well, I would quote Ish, but it might get me into trouble. Instead, I'll just say: let's all pray for these hateful sinners. <G>