If Marriage Is a Fundamental Right, Then?

[Lootifer]

It's not a disorder. That's the psychologists on the DSM-IV speaking--you know, the people who deemed homosexuality as a disorder (in the 1960s).

Haha, yeah I agree, but lines up with what you say later on.

Are you asserting that the parents sexuality has something to do with the little boy having the gender disorder?

Great question. I'm sure PS can tap into his vast knowledge of gender identity and give us a worthy answer.

He never did answer that one

Isn't it great though? Now that I have tapped into vast knowledge, I am ready to hear why the vast knowledge doesn't matter.

Of course I assert it has something to do with ruining the child's life. It's learned (sometimes the questions are just stupid, or the questioner is operating with a false premise/repeating lies)

and here is proof. people aren't born gay. It's learned. But if you want to argue that married gay couples do not try to teach their children about homosexuality, and that young children are not confused about sexuality, and young children are not vulnerable, or that young children who do not have a father in the home know what it's like to have a father in the home or know how a father acts, I'm all ears.

Identical twin studies prove homosexuality is not genetic

Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

“At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.

Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.

“Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”

Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. “No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.”

Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by “non-shared factors,” things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other.

For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. “These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate,” he says.

The first very large, reliable study of identical twins was conducted in Australia in 1991, followed by a large U.S. study about 1997. Then Australia and the U.S. conducted more twin studies in 2000, followed by several studies in Scandinavia, according to Dr. Whitehead.

“Twin registers are the foundation of modern twin studies. They are now very large, and exist in many countries. A gigantic European twin register with a projected 600,000 members is being organized, but one of the largest in use is in Australia, with more than 25,000 twins on the books.”

A significant twin study among adolescents shows an even weaker genetic correlation. In 2002 Bearman and Brueckner studied tens of thousands of adolescent students in the U.S. The same-sex attraction concordance between identical twins was only 7.7% for males and 5.3% for females—lower than the 11% and 14% in the Australian study by Bailey et al conducted in 2000.

In the identical twin studies, Dr. Whitehead has been struck by how fluid and changeable sexual identity can be.

“Neutral academic surveys show there is substantial change. About half of the homosexual/bisexual population (in a non-therapeutic environment) moves towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. About 3% of the present heterosexual population once firmly believed themselves to be homosexual or bisexual.”

“Sexual orientation is not set in concrete,” he notes.

Even more remarkable, most of the changes occur without counseling or therapy. “These changes are not therapeutically induced, but happen ‘naturally’ in life, some very quickly,” Dr. Whitehead observes. “Most changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality.”

Numbers of people who have changed towards exclusive heterosexuality are greater than current numbers of bisexuals and homosexuals combined. In other words, ex-gays outnumber actual gays.

The fluidity is even more pronounced among adolescents, as Bearman and Brueckner’s study demonstrated. “They found that from 16 to 17-years-old, if a person had a romantic attraction to the same sex, almost all had switched one year later.”

“The authors were pro-gay and they commented that the only stability was among the heterosexuals, who stayed the same year after year. Adolescents are a special case—generally changing their attractions from year to year.”

Still, many misconceptions persist in the popular culture. Namely, that homosexuality is genetic – so hard-wired into one’s identity that it can’t be changed. “The academics who work in the field are not happy with the portrayals by the media on the subject,” Dr. Whitehead notes. “But they prefer to stick with their academic research and not get involved in the activist side.”

Even though same-sex attraction is not genetic, Dr. Whitehead disagrees with those who content that homosexuals “choose” their orientation. “There can be little informed, responsible choice involved if first attraction is about age 10,” he notes. “At that age no-one chooses lifetime sexual orientation or lifestyle in any usual sense. SSA is discovered to exist in oneself rather than chosen.”

Quoting for later reference.

[Phatscotty]

It's not a disorder. That's the psychologists on the DSM-IV speaking--you know, the people who deemed homosexuality as a disorder (in the 1960s).

Haha, yeah I agree, but lines up with what you say later on.

Are you asserting that the parents sexuality has something to do with the little boy having the gender disorder?

Great question. I'm sure PS can tap into his vast knowledge of gender identity and give us a worthy answer.

He never did answer that one

Isn't it great though? Now that I have tapped into vast knowledge, I am ready to hear why the vast knowledge doesn't matter.

Of course I assert it has something to do with ruining the child's life. It's learned (sometimes the questions are just stupid, or the questioner is operating with a false premise/repeating lies)

and here is proof. people aren't born gay. It's learned. But if you want to argue that married gay couples do not try to teach their children about homosexuality, and that young children are not confused about sexuality, and young children are not vulnerable, or that young children who do not have a father in the home know what it's like to have a father in the home or know how a father acts, I'm all ears.

Identical twin studies prove homosexuality is not genetic

Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

“At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.

Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.

“Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”

Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. “No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.”

Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by “non-shared factors,” things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other.

For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. “These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate,” he says.

The first very large, reliable study of identical twins was conducted in Australia in 1991, followed by a large U.S. study about 1997. Then Australia and the U.S. conducted more twin studies in 2000, followed by several studies in Scandinavia, according to Dr. Whitehead.

“Twin registers are the foundation of modern twin studies. They are now very large, and exist in many countries. A gigantic European twin register with a projected 600,000 members is being organized, but one of the largest in use is in Australia, with more than 25,000 twins on the books.”

A significant twin study among adolescents shows an even weaker genetic correlation. In 2002 Bearman and Brueckner studied tens of thousands of adolescent students in the U.S. The same-sex attraction concordance between identical twins was only 7.7% for males and 5.3% for females—lower than the 11% and 14% in the Australian study by Bailey et al conducted in 2000.

In the identical twin studies, Dr. Whitehead has been struck by how fluid and changeable sexual identity can be.

“Neutral academic surveys show there is substantial change. About half of the homosexual/bisexual population (in a non-therapeutic environment) moves towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. About 3% of the present heterosexual population once firmly believed themselves to be homosexual or bisexual.”

“Sexual orientation is not set in concrete,” he notes.

Even more remarkable, most of the changes occur without counseling or therapy. “These changes are not therapeutically induced, but happen ‘naturally’ in life, some very quickly,” Dr. Whitehead observes. “Most changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality.”

Numbers of people who have changed towards exclusive heterosexuality are greater than current numbers of bisexuals and homosexuals combined. In other words, ex-gays outnumber actual gays.

The fluidity is even more pronounced among adolescents, as Bearman and Brueckner’s study demonstrated. “They found that from 16 to 17-years-old, if a person had a romantic attraction to the same sex, almost all had switched one year later.”

“The authors were pro-gay and they commented that the only stability was among the heterosexuals, who stayed the same year after year. Adolescents are a special case—generally changing their attractions from year to year.”

Still, many misconceptions persist in the popular culture. Namely, that homosexuality is genetic – so hard-wired into one’s identity that it can’t be changed. “The academics who work in the field are not happy with the portrayals by the media on the subject,” Dr. Whitehead notes. “But they prefer to stick with their academic research and not get involved in the activist side.”

Even though same-sex attraction is not genetic, Dr. Whitehead disagrees with those who content that homosexuals “choose” their orientation. “There can be little informed, responsible choice involved if first attraction is about age 10,” he notes. “At that age no-one chooses lifetime sexual orientation or lifestyle in any usual sense. SSA is discovered to exist in oneself rather than chosen.”

Quoting for later reference.

uh, okay, that's fine, but you are focusing on me again, not the issue. So, per the study that shows homosexuality is not genetic, do you have any comments? Or is all you get from that a future gotchya opportunity?

[Phatscotty]

so...how long???

And your position expands government. Either you don't know what you are talking about, or you are just continuing to tell lies about me. Either way, I didn't have much respect left for you in the first place, but you are just talking out of your ass now.

If you want to explain how redefining marriage = more limited government, I will give you the rostrum and listen.

See, again, here's the thing - whether or not a gay married couple can adopt has nothing to do with limited government or redefining marriage. Virtually none of your posts in this thread have anything to do with gay marriage. You talked about gay adoption, gay couples and sex changes for their children, gay people going to prom, and the effect of gays on culture. You've completely ignored the concept of gay marriage.

Your stated position on gay marriage is that it should be left to the states.

But then you argue against gay marriage using, again, things like gay adoption, gay people going to prom, gays on televisions. None of those things have to do with limited government or limited federal government.

So I need to choose to characterize you as either a limited government guy (where you would make an argument like I do) or as someone who is against gay marriage (where you would make the arguments that you make about gay proms).

Before I answer your question, answer this question first - what does the year in which gay people could adopt children have to do with government recognition of gay marriage?

That has nothing to do with why I asked Lootifer the question, which related to something Lootifer said before. Adoption, I have to agree, doesn't really have an impact on limited government. Of course, I never have thought it did, or tried to say it was. So idk wtf you are talking about, unless you are doing this on purpose.

I just asked Lootifer a question, and besides everyone trying to get in the way and yell as loud as they can, I still await an answer.

Why did you ask Lootifer the question? Couldn't you look it up yourself?

I asked Lootifer the question, because I was curious about Lootifers answers. IS THAT OKAY WITH THE GREEKDOG??

seriously, wtf

You seem to have overlooked the rest of thegreekdog's posts. I'm sure it was just an oversight, because you've stated plainly that you don't ignore reasonable questions. Or was thegreekdog just trolling?

You are trying to blame me for something that is your specialty??

I saw them, I read them. What you overlooked is that the questions are asked under a false premise, not to mention are way down the path of budging in on me and Loot's conversation, to which other have very successfully tried to bury.

First, I deal with the first issue, me and Lootifer and the question I asked him. Then, when Greekdog understands that I asked the question for totally different reasons than he assumed, and when he sees what my question was trying to accomplish, THEN he will be asking very different questions. I'm not dealing with them because the premise is flawed, and the case he is questioning me on is not the case I was trying to make, so the questions he is asking do not ask about what I was trying to say, they ask about what he thinks I was trying to say, which I wasn't trying to say. But now I am just uncovering your strategy, to twist things out of context into a question that doesn't deal at all with what we were talking about, and then you can accuse me of dodging questions of which their only intent was to confuse the conversation.

So we need to back up, because you have been trying to protect him from answering the question for about 3 pages.

[Lootifer]

I am relatively impressed by the article; seems fairly sound. I do wish it was not found on a god blog, but i'll overlook that for obvious reasons...

Its an interesting study, however it is certainly not the leading, nor definitive study on the matter. There have been, as expected, many studies into this topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_an ... rientation

Provides a pretty good summary (and being wikipedia they do at least attempt to be neutral).

Basically there are a number of reasons why twin homosexual concordance may not be 100%, though other studies on twins have found high levels of concordance.

So you saying with definitive certainty that "homosexuality is not something you are born with, it is something you learn" is not correct. There is certainly some evidence in your favor, but there are equal amounts of evidence that homosexuality is a trait you are born with.

The reality is currently unknown. What is most likely (from my point view) is that there is a spectrum of biological/genetic/hormonal attributes that at one end point to "likely to be gay", and at the other "likely to be straight" with plenty of range inbetween. You then lay on early cognitive development, social conditioning and a whole lot of other external factors and the end result is someone who is gay, or not.

With respect to the specific case of the young girl; I think the parents are irrelevant in this case. The only difference having lesbian parents has made from my perspective is that they were more open to the little boy becoming a girl from a holistic point of view; it should be noted that even they were against the treatment to begin with. In no way to I think that because the little boy had lesbian parents made him want to be a girl. Do you think this?

[PLAYER57832]

It's not a disorder. That's the psychologists on the DSM-IV speaking--you know, the people who deemed homosexuality as a disorder (in the 1960s).

Haha, yeah I agree, but lines up with what you say later on.

Are you asserting that the parents sexuality has something to do with the little boy having the gender disorder?

Great question. I'm sure PS can tap into his vast knowledge of gender identity and give us a worthy answer.

He never did answer that one

Isn't it great though? Now that I have tapped into vast knowledge, I am ready to hear why the vast knowledge doesn't matter.


Of course I assert it has something to do with ruining the child's life. It's learned (sometimes the questions are just stupid, or the questioner is operating with a false premise/repeating lies)

and here is proof. people aren't born gay. It's learned. But if you want to argue that married gay couples do not try to teach their children about homosexuality, and that young children are not confused about sexuality, and young children are not vulnerable, or that young children who do not have a father in the home know what it's like to have a father in the home or know how a father acts, I'm all ears.

It would be really, really, nice if you actually bothered to STUDY and LEARN science before you start blathering on more with your misinformation.\

ONE instance does not prove anything. Among other issues,even the most "identical" of twins is not necessarily a true 100% genetic match. Also, no one is claiming that the tie-in is absolute. That is, saying there is a genetic link or a biologic link (previously you have ignored that there could be a distinction there, but it is very significant... hormone influxes in the womb, for example would impact both fetus', but would not be a genetic cause) doesn't mean that every single set of twins will be of the same sexuality, it means that the rate of same sexuality is much, MUCH higher among twins than other areas of the population.

Beyond that, the fact that the standards have changed is not a failure of science, it is a success. Beyond that, there is a LOT we still need to learn in the area of psychology. Among other issues, testing can be very, very difficult.

And yeah.... why does the genetic link even matter for THIS debate. Aren't we supposed to be a nation that represents freedom of choice... and don't you claim to be a heavy advocate of that freedom?

[Phatscotty]

It's not a disorder. That's the psychologists on the DSM-IV speaking--you know, the people who deemed homosexuality as a disorder (in the 1960s).

Haha, yeah I agree, but lines up with what you say later on.

Are you asserting that the parents sexuality has something to do with the little boy having the gender disorder?

Great question. I'm sure PS can tap into his vast knowledge of gender identity and give us a worthy answer.

He never did answer that one

Isn't it great though? Now that I have tapped into vast knowledge, I am ready to hear why the vast knowledge doesn't matter.


Of course I assert it has something to do with ruining the child's life. It's learned (sometimes the questions are just stupid, or the questioner is operating with a false premise/repeating lies)

and here is proof. people aren't born gay. It's learned. But if you want to argue that married gay couples do not try to teach their children about homosexuality, and that young children are not confused about sexuality, and young children are not vulnerable, or that young children who do not have a father in the home know what it's like to have a father in the home or know how a father acts, I'm all ears.

It would be really, really, nice if you actually bothered to STUDY and LEARN science before you start blathering on more with your misinformation.\

ONE instance does not prove anything. Among other issues,even the most "identical" of twins is not necessarily a true 100% genetic match. Also, no one is claiming that the tie-in is absolute. That is, saying there is a genetic link or a biologic link (previously you have ignored that there could be a distinction there, but it is very significant... hormone influxes in the womb, for example would impact both fetus', but would not be a genetic cause) doesn't mean that every single set of twins will be of the same sexuality, it means that the rate of same sexuality is much, MUCH higher among twins than other areas of the population.

Beyond that, the fact that the standards have changed is not a failure of science, it is a success. Beyond that, there is a LOT we still need to learn in the area of psychology. Among other issues, testing can be very, very difficult.

And yeah.... why does the genetic link even matter for THIS debate. Aren't we supposed to be a nation that represents freedom of choice... and don't you claim to be a heavy advocate of that freedom?

how is a study that spanned 20 years and 3 continents ONE instance? It is one study, of thousands of instances. I have a really hard time understanding you sometimes.

even harder to understand you saying I or the study ignores dismisses genetics, where the study says genetics does play a factor, just a very minor factor (certainly not the main factor).

I am a heavy advocate of Freedom, and our nation is supposed to be a lot of things. But the issue here is not about any of that, it's about whether people are born gay or not, and nothing else.

[Woodruff]

You seem to have overlooked the rest of thegreekdog's posts. I'm sure it was just an oversight, because you've stated plainly that you don't ignore reasonable questions. Or was thegreekdog just trolling?

You are trying to blame me for something that is your specialty??

More Phatscotty obsfucation and distraction, while notably not answering the questions.

I saw them, I read them. What you overlooked is that the questions are asked under a false premise, not to mention are way down the path of budging in on me and Loot's conversation, to which other have very successfully tried to bury.

So you're refusing to answer them because you're afraid of the questions themselves?

First, I deal with the first issue, me and Lootifer and the question I asked him.

Bullshit. This is a coward's response. Man up, Phatscotty...stop hiding.

Then, when Greekdog understands that I asked the question for totally different reasons than he assumed, and when he sees what my question was trying to accomplish, THEN he will be asking very different questions.

IRRELEVANT! Just answer the questions that were asked. You seem to want to demand that everyone answer your questions, yet you don't respect anyone else enough to answer theirs. It's no wonder nobody respects you here.

I'm not dealing with them because the premise is flawed, and the case he is questioning me on is not the case I was trying to make, so the questions he is asking do not ask about what I was trying to say, they ask about what he thinks I was trying to say, which I wasn't trying to say.

IRRELEVANT! Just answer the questions that were asked. You seem to want to demand that everyone answer your questions, yet you don't respect anyone else enough to answer theirs. It's no wonder nobody respects you here.

But now I am just uncovering your strategy, to twist things out of context into a question that doesn't deal at all with what we were talking about, and then you can accuse me of dodging questions of which their only intent was to confuse the conversation.

They're not my questions! They're thegreekdog's questions! Are you stating that thegreekdog's only intent in asking those questions was to confuse the conversation? Just answer the questions that were asked. You seem to want to demand that everyone answer your questions, yet you don't respect anyone else enough to answer theirs. It's no wonder nobody respects you here.

So we need to back up, because you have been trying to protect him from answering the question for about 3 pages.

I'm not trying to protect anyone. thegreekdog is likewise not trying to protect anyone. You demand that others answer your questions, yet you weasel around, obfuscate, deny and distract in a multitudinous effort to avoid answer questions directed to you. You are a thoroughly disrespectful individual.

[Woodruff]

And yeah.... why does the genetic link even matter for THIS debate. Aren't we supposed to be a nation that represents freedom of choice... and don't you claim to be a heavy advocate of that freedom?

Only if it's a freedom that Phatscotty likes. Otherwise, no.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's not a disorder. That's the psychologists on the DSM-IV speaking--you know, the people who deemed homosexuality as a disorder (in the 1960s).

Haha, yeah I agree, but lines up with what you say later on.

Are you asserting that the parents sexuality has something to do with the little boy having the gender disorder?

Great question. I'm sure PS can tap into his vast knowledge of gender identity and give us a worthy answer.

He never did answer that one

Isn't it great though? Now that I have tapped into vast knowledge, I am ready to hear why the vast knowledge doesn't matter.

Of course I assert it has something to do with ruining the child's life. It's learned (sometimes the questions are just stupid, or the questioner is operating with a false premise/repeating lies)

and here is proof. people aren't born gay. It's learned. But if you want to argue that married gay couples do not try to teach their children about homosexuality, and that young children are not confused about sexuality, and young children are not vulnerable, or that young children who do not have a father in the home know what it's like to have a father in the home or know how a father acts, I'm all ears.

Identical twin studies prove homosexuality is not genetic

Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

“At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.

Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.

“Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”

Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. “No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.”

Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by “non-shared factors,” things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other.

For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other. “These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate,” he says.

The first very large, reliable study of identical twins was conducted in Australia in 1991, followed by a large U.S. study about 1997. Then Australia and the U.S. conducted more twin studies in 2000, followed by several studies in Scandinavia, according to Dr. Whitehead.

“Twin registers are the foundation of modern twin studies. They are now very large, and exist in many countries. A gigantic European twin register with a projected 600,000 members is being organized, but one of the largest in use is in Australia, with more than 25,000 twins on the books.”

A significant twin study among adolescents shows an even weaker genetic correlation. In 2002 Bearman and Brueckner studied tens of thousands of adolescent students in the U.S. The same-sex attraction concordance between identical twins was only 7.7% for males and 5.3% for females—lower than the 11% and 14% in the Australian study by Bailey et al conducted in 2000.

In the identical twin studies, Dr. Whitehead has been struck by how fluid and changeable sexual identity can be.

“Neutral academic surveys show there is substantial change. About half of the homosexual/bisexual population (in a non-therapeutic environment) moves towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. About 3% of the present heterosexual population once firmly believed themselves to be homosexual or bisexual.”

“Sexual orientation is not set in concrete,” he notes.

Even more remarkable, most of the changes occur without counseling or therapy. “These changes are not therapeutically induced, but happen ‘naturally’ in life, some very quickly,” Dr. Whitehead observes. “Most changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality.”

Numbers of people who have changed towards exclusive heterosexuality are greater than current numbers of bisexuals and homosexuals combined. In other words, ex-gays outnumber actual gays.

The fluidity is even more pronounced among adolescents, as Bearman and Brueckner’s study demonstrated. “They found that from 16 to 17-years-old, if a person had a romantic attraction to the same sex, almost all had switched one year later.”

“The authors were pro-gay and they commented that the only stability was among the heterosexuals, who stayed the same year after year. Adolescents are a special case—generally changing their attractions from year to year.”

Still, many misconceptions persist in the popular culture. Namely, that homosexuality is genetic – so hard-wired into one’s identity that it can’t be changed. “The academics who work in the field are not happy with the portrayals by the media on the subject,” Dr. Whitehead notes. “But they prefer to stick with their academic research and not get involved in the activist side.”

Even though same-sex attraction is not genetic, Dr. Whitehead disagrees with those who content that homosexuals “choose” their orientation. “There can be little informed, responsible choice involved if first attraction is about age 10,” he notes. “At that age no-one chooses lifetime sexual orientation or lifestyle in any usual sense. SSA is discovered to exist in oneself rather than chosen.”

Nice rubbish. You want to swap peer-reviewed research instead of blog pages? Hey, even the "old science" got it wrong (and some still do till today). Cognitive bias outweighs science for some.

[BigBallinStalin]

I just asked Lootifer a question, and besides everyone trying to get in the way and yell as loud as they can, I still await an answer.

Why did you ask Lootifer the question? Couldn't you look it up yourself?

I asked Lootifer the question, because I was curious about Lootifers answers. IS THAT OKAY WITH THE GREEKDOG??

seriously, wtf

And your response supports either (1) you're a troll, or (2) you're stupid. That's the ultimate conclusion about you.

[Phatscotty]

I just asked Lootifer a question, and besides everyone trying to get in the way and yell as loud as they can, I still await an answer.

Why did you ask Lootifer the question? Couldn't you look it up yourself?

I asked Lootifer the question, because I was curious about Lootifers answers. IS THAT OKAY WITH THE GREEKDOG??

seriously, wtf

And your response supports either (1) you're a troll, or (2) you're stupid. That's the ultimate conclusion about you.

yup, that's what my response supports.

[Woodruff]

I just asked Lootifer a question, and besides everyone trying to get in the way and yell as loud as they can, I still await an answer.

Why did you ask Lootifer the question? Couldn't you look it up yourself?

I asked Lootifer the question, because I was curious about Lootifers answers. IS THAT OKAY WITH THE GREEKDOG??

seriously, wtf

And your response supports either (1) you're a troll, or (2) you're stupid. That's the ultimate conclusion about you.

yup, that's what my response supports.

So which is it then?

[Lootifer]

I am relatively impressed by the article; seems fairly sound. I do wish it was not found on a god blog, but i'll overlook that for obvious reasons...

Its an interesting study, however it is certainly not the leading, nor definitive study on the matter. There have been, as expected, many studies into this topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_an ... rientation

Provides a pretty good summary (and being wikipedia they do at least attempt to be neutral).

Basically there are a number of reasons why twin homosexual concordance may not be 100%, though other studies on twins have found high levels of concordance.

So you saying with definitive certainty that "homosexuality is not something you are born with, it is something you learn" is not correct. There is certainly some evidence in your favor, but there are equal amounts of evidence that homosexuality is a trait you are born with.

The reality is currently unknown. What is most likely (from my point view) is that there is a spectrum of biological/genetic/hormonal attributes that at one end point to "likely to be gay", and at the other "likely to be straight" with plenty of range inbetween. You then lay on early cognitive development, social conditioning and a whole lot of other external factors and the end result is someone who is gay, or not.

With respect to the specific case of the young girl; I think the parents are irrelevant in this case. The only difference having lesbian parents has made from my perspective is that they were more open to the little boy becoming a girl from a holistic point of view; it should be noted that even they were against the treatment to begin with. In no way to I think that because the little boy had lesbian parents made him want to be a girl. Do you think this?

Ho hummmmm.....

[Phatscotty]

I am relatively impressed by the article; seems fairly sound. I do wish it was not found on a god blog, but i'll overlook that for obvious reasons...

Its an interesting study, however it is certainly not the leading, nor definitive study on the matter. There have been, as expected, many studies into this topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_an ... rientation

Provides a pretty good summary (and being wikipedia they do at least attempt to be neutral).

Basically there are a number of reasons why twin homosexual concordance may not be 100%, though other studies on twins have found high levels of concordance.

So you saying with definitive certainty that "homosexuality is not something you are born with, it is something you learn" is not correct. There is certainly some evidence in your favor, but there are equal amounts of evidence that homosexuality is a trait you are born with.

The reality is currently unknown. What is most likely (from my point view) is that there is a spectrum of biological/genetic/hormonal attributes that at one end point to "likely to be gay", and at the other "likely to be straight" with plenty of range inbetween. You then lay on early cognitive development, social conditioning and a whole lot of other external factors and the end result is someone who is gay, or not.

With respect to the specific case of the young girl; I think the parents are irrelevant in this case. The only difference having lesbian parents has made from my perspective is that they were more open to the little boy becoming a girl from a holistic point of view; it should be noted that even they were against the treatment to begin with. In no way to I think that because the little boy had lesbian parents made him want to be a girl. Do you think this?

Ho hummmmm.....

Thanks for pulling this up. It's a good post and it's too bad it gets buried by a bunch of crap.

Then we can at least find common ground in that the reality is currently unknown. I'm not saying it was you, but a lot of other people early on in this thread seemed pretty certain that enough studies have been done, that we fully understand what we are doing.

I agree that it's likely the parents were more open to the boy becoming a girl (it can be assumed lesbians know what the T stands for in LGBT), The way you put it... "because the little boy had lesbian parents made him want to be a girl" no I do not agree. But I would point out, that because the parents are lesbian, how does the boy know what boys are like? There is not a man in the house, there isn't a father to learn from, to watch, to talk to. and as my understanding goes, in those relationships there is still usually a masculin/feminin relationship (pitcher and catcher). Take a look at the picture again you will see. So what I am getting at, is the child likely got the boy/man angle from a woman.

And in an effort to try to talk in predictive speak about what the next post will read and people start saying "so you are saying a bunch of stuff you didn't say".....Now that doesn't mean that the parents did not try to expose the boy to male role models, maybe they did, we won't know. But we do also know that lesbians typically aren't attracted to men and don't like them the same way women who are attracted to men like them, and they probably talk a lot about "stupid men!" etc. I think the things the boy likely had to go through in school, explaining why he was 2 moms when a bunch of other 6-7-8 year old kids, who are equally confused might naively ask "why don't you have a daddy?" I mean hey, they are first second and third graders, they haven't even started cursive yet. And there have probably even been some questions or even some teasing about the birds n the bees. There are lots of other things too

[Lootifer]

Having known and worked with a lot of lesbians and gay men I assure you that the whole hating on the sex they are not attracted to is a false stereotype.

My Aunties used a doner to have their own child; and they actually go out of their way to get male role models around their son - pretty sure this is pretty standard (and part and parcel of being a good parent; which to me is by far the single most important factor involved in raising children - sexuality, wealth, political alignment, religion, opinion on discipline and many other things are all meaningless for me).

[Phatscotty]

Having known and worked with a lot of lesbians and gay men I assure you that the whole hating on the sex they are not attracted to is a false stereotype.

My Aunties used a doner to have their own child; and they actually go out of their way to get male role models around their son - pretty sure this is pretty standard (and part and parcel of being a good parent; which to me is by far the single most important factor involved in raising children - sexuality, wealth, political alignment, religion, opinion on discipline and many other things are all meaningless for me).

whoa whoa, I didn't say or mean to imply "hate". I hope we could both agree on "like less". Maybe ask your aunt sometime the reasons why being around a male role model is important. I wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts on the matter either.

I mean, you have to assume that many times in their life, at one time or another in one situation or another, had to say "I don't like men" or "how much do you like men?" or "I hate men" "do you like men at all/are you bi?" "men suck, that's why I like women" and also "I only like women" or "women ONLY! woo hoo!"

I can rephrase. It's not the most pro-male environment, neutral at best. I don't think there is any reason to expect that there is room or even the possibility of the existence of male perspective, which yes implies anti-male, even if it's not intended that is the result, and I believe that had an impact on this child yes. I admit also I could be wrong.

[Lootifer]

You are implying theres a negative rationale for why people become gay.

It's not "I dont like men". It's "I like woman".

There is no converse negative implication involved. Do you like treat other men negatively because you dont want to sleep with them?

[Phatscotty]

You are implying theres a negative rationale for why people become gay.

It's not "I dont like men". It's "I like woman".

There is no converse negative implication involved. Do you like treat other men negatively because you dont want to sleep with them?

well, I'm not sure about that, but you realize you are changing the subject. Or does that just mean you are satisfied with my answer and we are moving onto the way my answer sounded concerning a new matter?

[Lootifer]

You are implying theres a negative rationale for why people become gay.

It's not "I dont like men". It's "I like woman".

There is no converse negative implication involved. Do you like treat other men negatively because you dont want to sleep with them?

well, I'm not sure about that, but you realize you are changing the subject. Or does that just mean you are satisfied with my answer and we are moving onto the way my answer sounded?

Re: male role models being important: Yes they most certainly are, for children of both genders. I don't, however, think that being raised in a lesbian environment will result in meaningful negative consequences for the child (because of lack of male role models) - theres plenty of places for male role models in the world.

Re: being raised in a potentially anti-male environment. I think this is a manifestation of bad parenting, not lesbian parenting (ie its bad parents who happen to be lesbian, rather than lesbians being bad parents). Exposing your children to any bigoted (to clarify: the bad negative kind of bigotry) attitude is 100% bad parenting in my book and should be labelled as such.

I know my aunties to show men just as much respect as they do woman; much like you and I do. Sexuality does not have an impact on this.

[Phatscotty]

Oh yeah, I heard about how Finland handled their marriage situation, and wanted to say that sounds like exactly what I have been saying is the right way for America to go.

Registered partnerships in Finland (Finnish: rekisteröity parisuhde; Swedish: registrerat partnerskap) were created for same-sex couples in 2002. The legislation granting similar rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples as to married opposite-sex couples was passed by the Parliament in September 2001 with votes 99–84.[1] In May 2009, the Parliament revised the law allowing couples to adopt the biological children of their partner.[2] Registered partnerships, which are available only to same-sex couples, are registered and dissolved using a procedure similar to that for civil marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognitio ... in_Finland

[Woodruff]

I agree that it's likely the parents were more open to the boy becoming a girl (it can be assumed lesbians know what the T stands for in LGBT), The way you put it... "because the little boy had lesbian parents made him want to be a girl" no I do not agree. But I would point out, that because the parents are lesbian, how does the boy know what boys are like? There is not a man in the house, there isn't a father to learn from, to watch, to talk to. and as my understanding goes, in those relationships there is still usually a masculin/feminin relationship (pitcher and catcher). Take a look at the picture again you will see. So what I am getting at, is the child likely got the boy/man angle from a woman.

How is that significantly different from a single female parent?

And in an effort to try to talk in predictive speak about what the next post will read and people start saying "so you are saying a bunch of stuff you didn't say".....Now that doesn't mean that the parents did not try to expose the boy to male role models, maybe they did, we won't know. But we do also know that lesbians typically aren't attracted to men and don't like them the same way women who are attracted to men like them, and they probably talk a lot about "stupid men!" etc. I think the things the boy likely had to go through in school, explaining why he was 2 moms when a bunch of other 6-7-8 year old kids, who are equally confused might naively ask "why don't you have a daddy?" I mean hey, they are first second and third graders, they haven't even started cursive yet. And there have probably even been some questions or even some teasing about the birds n the bees. There are lots of other things too

How is that significantly different from a single female parent?

[Woodruff]

Oh yeah, I heard about how Finland handled their marriage situation, and wanted to say that sounds like exactly what I have been saying is the right way for America to go.

Registered partnerships in Finland (Finnish: rekisteröity parisuhde; Swedish: registrerat partnerskap) were created for same-sex couples in 2002. The legislation granting similar rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples as to married opposite-sex couples was passed by the Parliament in September 2001 with votes 99–84.[1] In May 2009, the Parliament revised the law allowing couples to adopt the biological children of their partner.[2] Registered partnerships, which are available only to same-sex couples, are registered and dissolved using a procedure similar to that for civil marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognitio ... in_Finland

"a procedure similar to that for civil marriage"...that phrase simply screams "separate but equal".

[thegreekdog]

Why did you ask Lootifer the question? Couldn't you look it up yourself?

If you are against federal recognition of gay marriage, you should provide reasons why. Nothing you've provided in this thread are reasons why you are against federal recognition of gay marriage. You appear to be against gay proms, gay adoption, any gays raising children, and the move of U.S. culture towards acceptance of gays. These are certainly related to gay marriage, but are points used by those that are not desirous of freedom of choice for gays.

You mention studies saying that being gay may not be genetic. Why does that matter? What does genetic disposition have to do with gay marriage? What does genteic disposition have to do with anything at all?

I'm just going to post this again because I think it got lost in the shuffle. The important questions are in the last paragraph really.

[crispybits]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 29685.html

For some, it’s even more serious. Tory councillor James Malliff said if we legalise gay marriage “we may as well legalise marriage with animals”. Because would any of us react differently to either of the following statements: a) “I’m Brian, and this is my husband, Kevin” or b) “I’m Brian, and this is my husband. I keep him in a matchbox because he’s a wasp.”

[Woodruff]

I agree that it's likely the parents were more open to the boy becoming a girl (it can be assumed lesbians know what the T stands for in LGBT), The way you put it... "because the little boy had lesbian parents made him want to be a girl" no I do not agree. But I would point out, that because the parents are lesbian, how does the boy know what boys are like? There is not a man in the house, there isn't a father to learn from, to watch, to talk to. and as my understanding goes, in those relationships there is still usually a masculin/feminin relationship (pitcher and catcher). Take a look at the picture again you will see. So what I am getting at, is the child likely got the boy/man angle from a woman.

How is that significantly different from a single female parent?

And in an effort to try to talk in predictive speak about what the next post will read and people start saying "so you are saying a bunch of stuff you didn't say".....Now that doesn't mean that the parents did not try to expose the boy to male role models, maybe they did, we won't know. But we do also know that lesbians typically aren't attracted to men and don't like them the same way women who are attracted to men like them, and they probably talk a lot about "stupid men!" etc. I think the things the boy likely had to go through in school, explaining why he was 2 moms when a bunch of other 6-7-8 year old kids, who are equally confused might naively ask "why don't you have a daddy?" I mean hey, they are first second and third graders, they haven't even started cursive yet. And there have probably even been some questions or even some teasing about the birds n the bees. There are lots of other things too

How is that significantly different from a single female parent?

Phatscotty? You haven't stopped "answering every question asked of me" again so soon after that declaration, have you?