At one time people thought the world was flat. They don't now and similarly almost all theories explaining LGBT don't attribute it to a psychological condition now.


I would be more inclined to consider jj's parallel if he took half a second to explain where the fault lies in my logic or if he were able to show some conclusive evidence to support this parallel.


He doesn't. He never does.


I could argue smoking is bad for people and causes cancer. He would not challenge that, but would instead pose some "parallel" which may not even marginally make sense like.. "No. Cancer is psychological." Of course this would only come after he weighed the morality of smoking and cancer. Because as we all know, he's conflicted.


What planet do you live on where everyone's opinion deserves to be considered when they are not able to challenge direct facts or cite evidence to support why their alternative explanation merits consideration?

If you spent half as much time responding to what I say instead of trying to be characterized or projected what I say you wouldn't look this bad.

---

Show me a single study that supports the idea pedophilia is biological. When you cannot, be sure to stop making this dumb [BAD WORD REMOVED] argument.

 

Well what the hell else would it be? This is where your argument falls apart, you've rationalized one deviance as legitimate while insisting that others aren't. 

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

1. You yourself said that you believe it has to do with brain structure. That's pretty damning to your credibility.


2. You still cling to the idea that if something can be explained by genetic anomaly that it is healthy. That's faulty logic. Again you refuse to answer the direct question if a child exhibited a disorder or illness predicated on genetic pre-determination would you then seek treatment?


3. Your rationalization of same-sex attraction as worthy of acceptance based on biological predetermination falls apart when we recognize our biological predetermination can be flawed and unhealthy.

1. I have been pretty consistent on stating I believe it to be biological. I linked to articles that support the reason why. I did also mention some hypothesize that it has to do with brain structure. Those studies are less conclusive.


2. This is your personal moral dilemma rearing its head again. If you claim your morality is based on religious indoctrination, why do you choose to believe God makes mistakes? I am not looking at the right or wrong of it. Just what it is. Genetic anomalies can be anything from red hair to being left handed, but because I provide explanations that show the likelihood that LGBT is also genetic, you are forced to place an additional set of guidelines around what you will accept. I don't do that. Your follow up question references a disorder linked to a genetic predetermination. I have not referenced that. You tried to, but provided no plausible evidence of it existing outside of your opinion. If you want me to answer that question you will have to explain where it occurs with respect to being LGBT. I also find it hysterical that you are trying to play the "you won't answer my questions card" when you have never seen a question you couldn't ignore. Even those confusing yes/no ones. You are the undisputed king of unanswered questions.


3. That sure sounds a lot like your personal opinion.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

If you spent half as much time responding to what I say instead of trying to be characterized or projected what I say you wouldn't look this bad.

The pot calling the kettle black. You have a consistent track record of refusing to acknowledge direct arguments, refusing to explain why any position I take is invalid or half baked, refusing to even click on links which support my argument, being incapable of reading what I have written and ducking direct questions. So cry me a [BLEEP] river.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Well what the hell else would it be? This is where your argument falls apart, you've rationalized one deviance as legitimate while insisting that others aren't.

Hmm.. if only I provided some supportive evidence to demonstrate I am not simply talking out my sphincter.. if only you read it.. if only you provided a shred of evidence to support your position aside from "what the Hell else would it be?"


I try to make it easy. I honestly do.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Hmm.. if only I provided some supportive evidence to demonstrate I am not simply talking out my sphincter.. if only you read it.. if only you provided a shred of evidence to support your position aside from "what the Hell else would it be?"


I try to make it easy. I honestly do.

 

Sorry, the idea that biologically ingrained sexual preference is inclusive of homosexuality but limited to just people over the age of 18 (or 14, 15, 16 ,20, ymmv) is kinda silly on its face. Never mind other kinds of sexual deviancy, though you can't mention that because the LGBT community gets upset. You don't need a study to see that unless you want to see it that way.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

1. I have been pretty consistent on stating I believe it to be biological. I linked to articles that support the reason why. I did also mention some hypothesize that it has to do with brain structure. Those studies are less conclusive.


2. This is your personal moral dilemma rearing its head again. If you claim your morality is based on religious indoctrination, why do you choose to believe God makes mistakes? I am not looking at the right or wrong of it. Just what it is. Genetic anomalies can be anything from red hair to being left handed, but because I provide explanations that show the likelihood that LGBT is also genetic, you are forced to place an additional set of guidelines around what you will accept. I don't do that. Your follow up question references a disorder linked to a genetic predetermination. I have not referenced that. You tried to, but provided no plausible evidence of it existing outside of your opinion. If you want me to answer that question you will have to explain where it occurs with respect to being LGBT. I also find it hysterical that you are trying to play the "you won't answer my questions card" when you have never seen a question you couldn't ignore. Even those confusing yes/no ones. You are the undisputed king of unanswered questions.


3. That sure sounds a lot like your personal opinion.

Your position is that if lgbt is a genetic anomaly it should be accepted. That naturally denotes the question if all conditions based on genetic anomaly should be accepted and untreated namely cancer leukemia lymphoma cleft ballot deformed limbs, certain forms of mental illness etc

If its genetic then its positive roght?

---

Sorry, the idea that biologically ingrained sexual preference is inclusive of homosexuality but limited to just people over the age of 18 (or 14, 15, 16 ,20, ymmv) is kinda silly on its face. Never mind other kinds of sexual deviancy, though you can't mention that because the LGBT community gets upset. You don't need a study to see that unless you want to see it that way.

Honestly.. no clue what you're trying to say here. Let me try to help.


1. Actually read some of those articles or studies I linked to.


2. Tell me what you disagree with and why.


3. Tell me what you propose is more likely/what you believe and why you feel that way -- feel free to link to your own supportive evidence (I promise to read it).


If you cannot do this, why don't you just pipe down.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://postimg.org/image/3qzm451lt/'></a>

---

Honestly.. no clue what you're trying to say here. Let me try to help.


1. Actually read some of those articles or studies I linked to.


2. Tell me what you disagree with and why.


3. Tell me what you propose is more likely/what you believe and why you feel that way -- feel free to link to your own supportive evidence (I promise to read it).


If you cannot do this, why don't you just pipe down.

Are you taking your own advice of piping down because you can't respond to me without admitting you are wrong?

---

Sorry, the idea that biologically ingrained sexual preference is inclusive of homosexuality but limited to just people over the age of 18 (or 14, 15, 16 ,20, ymmv) is kinda silly on its face. Never mind other kinds of sexual deviancy, though you can't mention that because the LGBT community gets upset. You don't need a study to see that unless you want to see it that way.

 

 

Honestly.. no clue what you're trying to say here. Let me try to help.

You are honestly going this route? Unreal.

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/...hoice.html


So it goes

---

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/...hoice.html


So it goes

 

And in typical Chicago thuggery style, "While the letter does not have the force of law, it does warn that schools that do not abide by the administration’s interpretation of civil rights law may face lawsuits or loss of federal aid."

---

This will all be swept under the rug as another failed idea once a Caitlyn sexually attacks a young child in the bathroom.

---

Honestly.. no clue what you're trying to say here. Let me try to help.


1. Actually read some of those articles or studies I linked to.


2. Tell me what you disagree with and why.


3. Tell me what you propose is more likely/what you believe and why you feel that way -- feel free to link to your own supportive evidence (I promise to read it).


If you cannot do this, why don't you just pipe down.

 

Soooooo, no answer then?

 

You are honestly going this route? Unreal.

 

You're not surprised.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/...hoice.html


So it goes

I have a long list of "America is fudged" scenarios written down. Situations which would prompt me to finally, begrudgingly recognize that our country is completed screwed beyond reason because there are too many idiots on both sides of the aisle and not enough voices in the middle to drown them out. I thought I had accounted for everything conceivable. Really, I was impressed with some of the disasters I'd planned for. The idea that I might turn on the news one day to see that the President of the United States had issued guidance to the American public on which bathrooms we should be using was not on there. I mean, talk about left field wackiness that even Abbott and Costello never could have dreamed up. John Cleese is probably sitting somewhere wondering why he didn't bloody think of it first.

 

Seriously, are we that screwed up? Have we reached the point where we, as a nation, need to be told by the President which bathroom to use? And there are people happy about this?

 

Eric, bunker, now. I'm on my way. Got a couple gallons of Pappy stashed away for just such an apocalypse.

---

Your position is that if lgbt is a genetic anomaly it should be accepted. 

That naturally denotes the question if all conditions based on genetic anomaly should be accepted and untreated namely cancer leukemia lymphoma cleft ballot deformed limbs, certain forms of mental illness etc   

 

If its genetic then its positive roght?

 

My position is that I believe LGBT people should be accepted.  Period. 

 

I believe the cause for being LGBT is (and always has been) tied to a person's biological makeup.  I believe throughout recorded history roughly 8% of the human population has self-identified as LGBT, regardless of whether or not they attempted to hide in a heteronormal lifestyle due to familial or societal pressures.  I do not believe that being LGBT is a mental disorder or a choice.

 

Biologists explain that during development chromosomes are subject to chemical changes which can turn genes on or off.  They call these changes epi-marks which can be carried for a lifetime.  Most epi-marks are erased when eggs and sperm are produced so new fetuses can start with a blank slate.  However, sometimes these epi-marks get passed to the next generation.  Unerased epi-marks may lead to the fetus being LGBT when passed from father to daughter or mother to son.  Inherited epi-marks influence a fetus's sensitivity to testosterone in the womb and might "masculinize" brains for girls or "femininize" brains for boys.  This study explains it in far greater detail than I could do justice.

 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/6681...b_contents

 

It's about the fifth link of it's type I have posted in this thread which nobody has directly challenged.  If you disagree with this explanation, tell me what you think is the more likely explanation and why.

 

I love your use of the word "naturally" here.  As if this it the natural question on everyone's mind.  Oh...  WAIT!!! If it's a naturally denoted question, how do I know if it's right or moral?  Just because YOU call this question natural doesn't mean it should be accepted.

 

Your argument is that all genetic anomalies are not good.  Hard to argue when you throw leukemia in the mix.  But what are you saying here? Should a baby born with cancer be accepted?  How unsympathetic are you that you wouldn't accept a kid born with cancer?  Or are you saying I should equate being born LGBT to be as feared and reviled as being born with cerebral palsy?  Where do you draw the line? Albinos?  Being born color blind? Dwarfism? Being born a redhead is still okay, right?  What if..  and this is a stretch..  being born LGBT is not the same as being born with [BAD WORD REMOVED] cancer?!?!

 

Do you spend a whole lot of time living in fear of people with cancer? Do you get off on making jokes about people who are dwarves? Do you feel I should have the right to discriminate against albinos because of my religion?  If you found out your kid was playing with a child who had red hair, would you tell them they couldn't be friends?  Do you feel we should make laws to keep color blind people from marrying?  Do you get uncomfortable being around autistic people? Do you sometimes wish people with Down Syndrome wouldn't be so in your face about it?

 

Accepting the idea that LGBT could be biological, doesn't mean you HAVE TO think it's good or right.  But I can see where accepting the biological explanation could call your morality into question.  If you accept the premise that these people could simply be born that way..  maybe knowing all along, maybe having an idea when they are young, but only really putting two and two together when they start to develop hormonally, maybe not being sure and only realizing it after a failed attempt at a straight marriage or family..  but IF you can accept the premise that LGBT people are just genetically wired that way, what does it say about you that you cannot accept them as they are?  

 

After all..  you don't discriminate against, ridicule, demonize or shun people born with ANY other genetic anomaly. 

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

From a purely biological spectrum, red hair is neutral in a human beings ability to pass along their genetic material. Same sex attraction or ambiguation of gender does. Based on an evolutionary definition that would make it unhealthy.


Also, in the case of genetic deformity we know what a healthy physiology looks like and as much as possible we strive to help people become healthy. This idea of promoting and celebrating the deformation as something to be encouraged is sad.

---

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-...sex-change

---

It was actually me who brought up the point that homosexuality was not taboo back then.Which would be an environmental factor.


It can be natural without being biologically born with it. There is a big difference between the two. For instance in certain types of Albatross female and female relationships form and can produce one egg a season which they look after together as its apparently a full time job looking after a small chick. This only happens among the birds when there is a direct shortage of males. This is homosexuality due to an environmental factor,they are not born as gay birds. That's an example of animals responding to environment.


And most information I have seen seems to suggest a mixture of nature and nurture ,which makes more sense to me.

 

Is THIS what you were waiting for a reply on?  

 

I can accept that in certain instances where male populations are low, female albatrosses mate with a male once, then form female/female relationships to care for an egg or small chick.  I can accept that that is an environmental factor where there are not enough males to form the traditional male/female bond and due to that environment they adapted. 

 

Let's apply this same environmental model to humans.  It is estimated by 2020, there will be 30 million more men in China, then women.  Is there even a minor spike in the number of male homosexuals reported there?  Not that I have seen.  Instead, the environmental factor means young men take more risks to try to achieve a higher status in life so they can attract a female (like breathing in that disgusting inner city air for starters). They also become more violent as their testosterone levels are heightened due to the constant competition for the attention and favor of females.  And we are also seeing shocking copycat instances of single, young to middle-aged men senselessly attacking young children in schools as a way to exact revenge on an environment which they feel inadequate or incomplete living in as there are not nearly enough females to maintain a stable society.

 

I will not wholly reject the concept that a person could have some sort of environmental influences which may trigger homosexual behavior.  But I do not find it as likely as the biological explanation I have repeatedly endorsed.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!