[Ghostavo]

Inconclusive evidence means there is no evidence either against or in favor of... if they say there is proof either against or in favor of, unless they say what they did exactly in order to reach that opinion, it is likely to be flawed, biased, or worse....

[Stealth]

i can accept that.  but Kazan is absolutely SURE that gays are born gay, so i'm asking him to find me some evidence.  so far he's quoted one professor's study

[Ghostavo]

Well, someone post evidence that straight are born that way... I'm sure it won't be that hard if it is true

[Rampage]

First of all, yay for Missouri!

Second of all, homosexuality is an aberrant psychological behavior shaped by the victim's environment.  There is absolutely no clear-cut evidence of the so-called "gay gene".

But there is ample evidence of a psychological disorder.  Mike Reagan, who is gay, was raped by his boyscout leader in the mountains during a hike.  The perpetrator introduced homosexual pornography to him, and ultimately causing him to be photographed himself.

Instability in one's family can also cause one to become homosexual.  You probably have all heard the evidence, so there's little left for me to say.

It's is you, liberal bigots, who are destroying America.  You are WRONG!  And two Lefts don't make a Right.

Criticize me all you want, for I know most of you are flaming liberal bigots anyway.  Deus ex Jesu!

Rampage

[Stealth]

Karajorma:  It's CLEAR that the professor Kazan quoted is Atheist, so therefore I cannot accept the statement as proof, since it's obviously biased



Ghostavo:  Yeah, while you're at that, prove that serial murderers and rapists are born that way.  Also prove that child molestors are born that way.  It's not their fault, they were born like that, i mean c'mon...

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Stealth
Karajorma:  Of course, you're so predictable... the moment a source comes along that you don't like, you label it as "Christian", or "biased", and disregard it... .  typical.

You're missing my point completely Stealth. I couldn't give a flying **** whether homosexuality is genetic or not. I've posted evidence that it is because I've heard more evidence that it is than I've heard that it isn't. If NARTH had managed to flat out prove that being gay is a nurture rather than nature thing and they had proper scientific proof of that I'd welcome it as new knowledge for humanity to place in the "Encylopedia of What We Know" and close the chapter on the book once and for all.

Get this straight. I have NO axe to grind on this subject. I seriously couldn't care either way.

NARTH are not scientific but the reason is not cause they are christians. Narth research is published in papers available from the NARTH website. Here's a link

Who publishes these papers - NARTH
Who's on the editorial board - NARTH
Who reviews the papers - NARTH
Who does the research - NARTH

This is not the way science works Stealth. The author of a real scientific paper submits it to a peer reviewed journal which is competely independant from the author. The journal then send the paper on to another person who does research in the same field who vets the paper and looks for flaws in the methodology. The paper is returned to the editorial board who then accept or reject the paper based on the validity of the research.

This didn't happen with NARTH and therefore there paper is absoultely not scientific. It carries as much weight as if I sat down and wrote a paper saying that with 100% certainty the National Karajorma Institute of Science had concluded that Newton was wrong and there isn't an equal and opposite reaction at all.

If they published in a peer reviewed journal and their work hadn't been discredited I wouldn't care if they were christians, muslims or jedi knights.

[Stealth]

Rampage:  please hang around.  it's hard taking Karajorma, jdjdke398489eagle, and Kazan all on my own

[Taristin]

Rampage: How is america harmed by allowing same sex marriage?

[Stealth]

Karajorma:  do a search on yahoo for:  "Gays are born gay".  you'll come up with tons of articles written, small research done on it, etc.  I'm too tired and really can't be bothered to post some of them.

I don't really think they can prove gays are born like that anyway, regardless of how much proof they do.  There's no "gay gene"... that's been proven, so how can they find out that someone's born gay.  To even start doing research like that would take billions of dollars, and years and years and years.

[Stealth]

Raa: America isn't harmed in any way.  Tradition is.  I'm all for gay rights, as i've said again and again, but marriage isn't a right that any two people have.  there's set limits in my opinion, the greatest most underlying fact being that it's between a man and a woman.  not two women, or two men.

[Rictor]

Am i the only one who's getting strong homo-sexual vibes from the whole Stealth/Kazan thing. A coincidence? I think not. Remeber that girl who used to make faces at you in the third grade and threw mud at you and it turns out she was really hot for you. Yeah.

get a room you two, the Great Khan likes to do his business with a little privacy.

[Taristin]

Yes, well, I was asking Rampage because he's taking the religious approach again...
But since his religion is just that, His, it should not be applied to others.
And for being born gay... I doubt that findings will be made public any time soon, should it even be found so.
What happens if it does occur that there are genetic sequences that determine sexuality? Pregnant women will test to see if their children are gay, and have an abortion if they find such is true? Sickening.

[Rictor]

Stealth, would you be OK if they got all the same benefits and just called it Broonfonzar instead of marriage? Cause if thats your whole arguement, semantics, you're in serious trouble.

[Taristin]

That seems to be a few people's argument.

[Kazan]

Xq28

Present: 70% homosexual, 30% straight
NoPresent: 100% heterosexual

that's a statistically strong correlation, well more than strong enough to be considered the "gay gene" -- hell intelligence is only 50% genetic and there are things considered "smart genes" --- You have your proof

85% probability that the Professor I quoted is not atheist - some christians are more honest than others -- NARTH and all your other primary sources are the dishonest ones

[Stealth]

Originally posted by Rictor
Stealth, would you be OK if they got all the same benefits and just called it Broonfonzar instead of marriage? Cause if thats your whole arguement, semantics, you're in serious trouble.

yeah, i'm sure i'm in really serious trouble.  save me!!!:shaking:





yes, my argument is that marriage always has been between man and woman.  that's been the definition of marriage since it's beginning, and now for some "gay rights" stretch, marriage is being considered between a man and a man and a woman and a woman.  i think that's pathetic.  you can enjoy all the same rights without being married, but for some remote reason, (i guess so they have the same respect as heterosexual couples) they want to be able to get "married" too.

And if they call it "Broonfonzar" (sticking with the example you gave) but have the same ceremony, vows, etc. i'd still be offended, since it's makinga mockery of marriage.
(now watch Kazan come and say that in the 3rd century there were five homosexual marriages...)

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by Rampage

Second of all, homosexuality is an aberrant psychological behavior shaped by the victim's environment.  There is absolutely no clear-cut evidence of the so-called "gay gene".

Can you back this up at all?

But there is ample evidence of a psychological disorder.  Mike Reagan, who is gay, was raped by his boyscout leader in the mountains during a hike.  The perpetrator introduced homosexual pornography to him, and ultimately causing him to be photographed himself.

Anecdotal evidence is a dime a dozen. Bringing up one occurance doesn't prove or disprove anything.

It's is you, liberal bigots, who are destroying America.  You are WRONG!  And two Lefts don't make a Right.

Take that sort of idiocy to a different thread.

Criticize me all you want, for I know most of you are flaming liberal bigots anyway.  Deus ex Jesu!

Not accepting criticism is a bad idea, in debate or anywhere else. Even ideas from us "flaming liberal bigots" may be of some use to you.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Stealth
Karajorma:  do a search on yahoo for:  "Gays are born gay".  you'll come up with tons of articles written, small research done on it, etc.  I'm too tired and really can't be bothered to post some of them.

Nope. I've already spent far too long dicrediting you crappy sources to go looking for new ones myself. It was your choice to quote NARTH instead of looking for a credible source. I've already said I don't care either way on the matter. If you are so desperate to prove that there isn't a gay gene go ahead. Feel free, but don't expect me to do your work for you cause I'm not going to.

Originally posted by Stealth
I don't really think they can prove gays are born like that anyway, regardless of how much proof they do.  There's no "gay gene"... that's been proven, so how can they find out that someone's born gay.  To even start doing research like that would take billions of dollars, and years and years and years.

Like it did to find the breast cancer gene? I mention the breast cancer thing because that was found by exactly the same sort of research you'd need to find a gay gene.
 Sure it took years to find the breast cancer genes but guess what? Research into the gay gene has been going on for years too. I remember hearing the story over 6-7 years ago. And PCR and other DNA techniciques have vastly improved since those days.

[Kazan]

Stealth once again demonstrates that he has no idea how to seperate good sources from bad sources

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Stealth
you can enjoy all the same rights without being married, but for some remote reason, (i guess so they have the same respect as heterosexual couples) they want to be able to get "married" too.

No you can't stealth. That's the whole sad point. You can't adopt. You can't put both parents names on a birth certificate. You need a power of attorney document to have the right to decide on medical treatments for your partner should they be unable to. You can't enjoy the tax breaks that someone who has been married 5 times gets even if you've been together for 30 years.

The list goes on. This isn't about gays wanting to mock marriage or annoy christians. This is about them wanting the same legal protections that a married couple automatically gains.