'That's So Gay!'

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
441

[quote]Mishima wrote:
AlisaV wrote:
Well, it turns out that a gay man’s female relatives tend to be more fertile than average. It’s as though there’s a “man-loving” genetic trait carried on the X chromosome. It confers no Darwinian advantage if it winds up in a man, but in a woman it increases reproduction. I don’t think this is quite conclusive yet, but it’s intriguing and it makes sense.

stunning!
[/quote]

A few more references, if you’re interested:

In 2004, Camperio-Ciani studied 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives, which included more than 4,600 people overall. The female relatives on the mother’s side of the homosexual men tended to have more offspring than the female relatives on the father’s side. This suggests that women who pass on the gay trait to their male offspring are also more fertile. In comparison, the female relatives on both the mother’s and the father’s side of the heterosexual men did not appear to be as fertile, having fewer offspring.

In 2006, research published in the journal “Human Genetics” found that the genetics of mothers of multiple gay sons act differently than those of other women. Scientists looked at 97 mothers of gay sons and 103 mothers without gay sons to see if there was any difference in how they handled their X chromosomes. They found that almost one fourth of the mothers who had more than one gay son processed X chromosomes in their bodies in the same way. Normally, women randomly process the chromosomes in one of two ways – half go one way, half go the other. The research “confirms that there is a strong genetic basis for sexual orientation, and that for some gay men, genes on the X chromosome are involved,” said study co-author Sven Bocklandt, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California at Los Angeles. “When we looked at women who have gay kids, in those with more than one gay son, we saw a quarter of them inactivate the same X in virtually every cell we checked,” Bocklandt said. “That’s extremely unusual.”

In 2005, Dr. Brian Mustanski and his colleagues at the University of Illinois at Chicago, in the first-ever study combining the entire human genome for genetic determinants of sexual orientation, identified several stretches of DNA linked to sexual orientation on three different chromosomes. The bottom line, according to Mustanski, is that “genes play an important role” in determining whether or not men are gay or straight.

A recent study conducted by Canadian researcher and psychologist Anthony Bogaert reported that there was “no evidence that social interactions among family members played a role in determining whether a man was gay or straight.” What he found was that having one or more older brothers increases the likelihood that males will be gay - not based on social or environmental factors but based on biological events that occur in the womb.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_35335.html

442

[quote]forlife wrote:
By virtue of only 5% of the population being gay, it will clearly be the exception rather than the rule.[/quote]

Sorry, that is to vague… It is not about the number, but about the status: Should gay and heterosexual couples be treated exactly the same when they want to adopt a child?

And of course we agree about children in foster homes. They are hell on earth.

443

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Humans place value on things both for themselves and in terms of others. There’s no denying that we love to live in a big home, for ex, both because of the home itself AND that we earned it while others did not.[/quote]

I would submit that valuing something specifically because you have it and someone else does not, tends to reflect false pride, insecurity, and emotional immaturity. Why not value it for its own sake, rather than needing it as an ego boost over others? It is my hope that my daughter will learn this lesson as she matures, and hopefully a few adults will learn it as well.

Besides, in the case of gay marriage, it isn’t anything that you “earned while others did not”. You didn’t do squat, you just happened to be born with a heterosexual orientation.

444

[quote]forlife wrote:
Mishima wrote:
AlisaV wrote:
Well, it turns out that a gay man’s female relatives tend to be more fertile than average. It’s as though there’s a “man-loving” genetic trait carried on the X chromosome. It confers no Darwinian advantage if it winds up in a man, but in a woman it increases reproduction. I don’t think this is quite conclusive yet, but it’s intriguing and it makes sense.

stunning!

A few more references, if you’re interested:

In 2004, Camperio-Ciani studied 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives, which included more than 4,600 people overall. The female relatives on the mother’s side of the homosexual men tended to have more offspring than the female relatives on the father’s side. This suggests that women who pass on the gay trait to their male offspring are also more fertile. In comparison, the female relatives on both the mother’s and the father’s side of the heterosexual men did not appear to be as fertile, having fewer offspring.

In 2006, research published in the journal “Human Genetics” found that the genetics of mothers of multiple gay sons act differently than those of other women. Scientists looked at 97 mothers of gay sons and 103 mothers without gay sons to see if there was any difference in how they handled their X chromosomes. They found that almost one fourth of the mothers who had more than one gay son processed X chromosomes in their bodies in the same way. Normally, women randomly process the chromosomes in one of two ways – half go one way, half go the other. The research “confirms that there is a strong genetic basis for sexual orientation, and that for some gay men, genes on the X chromosome are involved,” said study co-author Sven Bocklandt, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California at Los Angeles. “When we looked at women who have gay kids, in those with more than one gay son, we saw a quarter of them inactivate the same X in virtually every cell we checked,” Bocklandt said. “That’s extremely unusual.”

In 2005, Dr. Brian Mustanski and his colleagues at the University of Illinois at Chicago, in the first-ever study combining the entire human genome for genetic determinants of sexual orientation, identified several stretches of DNA linked to sexual orientation on three different chromosomes. The bottom line, according to Mustanski, is that “genes play an important role” in determining whether or not men are gay or straight.

A recent study conducted by Canadian researcher and psychologist Anthony Bogaert reported that there was “no evidence that social interactions among family members played a role in determining whether a man was gay or straight.” What he found was that having one or more older brothers increases the likelihood that males will be gay - not based on social or environmental factors but based on biological events that occur in the womb.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_35335.html[/quote]

I am no scientist but this makes sense. I don’t buy into that a man turns out gay because he has a strong mother or was molested by the local priest… Sexual orientation is such a strong force I don´t think you can choose it. Maybe you can learn to hide it and think of man while f*cking your wife thinking what a wonderful straight person you are.

445

[quote]Mishima wrote:
Sorry, that is to vague… It is not about the number, but about the status: Should gay and heterosexual couples be treated exactly the same when they want to adopt a child?[/quote]

Yes, they should be treated exactly the same. If they weren’t, agencies would be holding onto a child in “hope” that a straight couple would eventually adopt it, with no guarantee that would ever happen.

446

[quote]forlife wrote:
Yes, they should be treated exactly the same. If they weren’t, agencies would be holding onto a child in “hope” that a straight couple would eventually adopt it, with no guarantee that would ever happen.[/quote]

here I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Gay couple should not have the same rights as a heterosexual couples, because this undermines the basis of every society -the family. We cannot just choose what is a family and what isn’t.

447

[quote]Mishima wrote:
here I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Gay couple should not have the same rights as a heterosexual couples, because this undermines the basis of every society -the family. We cannot just choose what is a family and what isn’t. [/quote]

Or, god forbid, we could acknowledge that children with gay parents are a family too.

448

[quote]forlife wrote:
Mishima wrote:
here I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Gay couple should not have the same rights as a heterosexual couples, because this undermines the basis of every society -the family. We cannot just choose what is a family and what isn’t.

Or, god forbid, we could acknowledge that children with gay parents are a family too.[/quote]

not in the traditional sense. A man and man cannot get children on a natural way (even if they are both perfectly healthy). Defining family just as we like it is crazy. You destroy the backbone of society.

449

So adopted children don’t belong to “real families” because they weren’t literally conceived by their adoptive parents? These families (straight or gay parents) weren’t created in the “natural way”, but how does that make them any less families?

Or is it just the idea of same sex parents that bothers you? Would it make any difference to know that children raised by same sex parents are equally healthy and well adjusted on all measures, compared to children raised by opposite sex parents?

Do you think children with gay parents would appreciate you telling them that they don’t belong to a real family? Do you think they love their parents any less?

450

[quote]forlife wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Humans place value on things both for themselves and in terms of others. There’s no denying that we love to live in a big home, for ex, both because of the home itself AND that we earned it while others did not.

I would submit that valuing something specifically because you have it and someone else does not, tends to reflect false pride, insecurity, and emotional immaturity. Why not value it for its own sake, rather than needing it as an ego boost over others? It is my hope that my daughter will learn this lesson as she matures, and hopefully a few adults will learn it as well.

Besides, in the case of gay marriage, it isn’t anything that you “earned while others did not”. You didn’t do squat, you just happened to be born with a heterosexual orientation.[/quote]

Do you know what marriage even is? Marriage is an announcement to the community that these two people (modern version now) choose to stay exclusively with each other. They intend to form a family.

What’s the difference between that and co-habitation? None, except recognition by society of a public bonding. And until gays can convince the public to accept marriage between gays in the same way as marriage between heterosexual couples, then you don’t have the right to marry. Its that simple.

451

[quote]Mishima wrote:
forlife wrote:
Mishima wrote:
here I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Gay couple should not have the same rights as a heterosexual couples, because this undermines the basis of every society -the family. We cannot just choose what is a family and what isn’t.

Or, god forbid, we could acknowledge that children with gay parents are a family too.

not in the traditional sense. A man and man cannot get children on a natural way (even if they are both perfectly healthy). Defining family just as we like it is crazy. You destroy the backbone of society.[/quote]

Yup. The very definition of gay marriage empties meaning from the concepts like ‘family’ and ‘marriage’. And what Forlife doesn’t understand is that new laws to re-define marriage will, in fact, destroy the concept, the very thing that gives marriage its value.

When marriage is reduced to cohabitation, marriage disappears. To use a simple analogy he might get: a big juicy hamburger with all the trimmings gets turned into a McDonald’s burger.

452

As I have written above two men cannot get children even if they are perfectly healthy.

My problem is: The combination of a man and a woman is necessary to produce offspring as nature intended. So it is obvious the child shoud have a father and a mother. That is just the normal thing. The whole discussion about gay couples is a construct. I don’t understand why we should outsmart a proven system just because it is on the pc agenda.

453

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Oh but it doesn’t. There has certainly not been enough time to see if this is true in the US. As far as the Netherlands gays still have incredible high rates of disease and mental illness.

That’s pretty funny stuff…showing a decrease in STDs for gay married couples doesn’t matter, because they “still have incredible high rates of disease and mental illness”. So unless gay marriage completely eliminates STDs, the fact that it reduces STDs doesn’t matter?[/quote]

I’ve posted statistics from the CDC and other reputable sources which demonstrate that it matters not whether two homosexuals say they are in a committed relationship they still have sex partners outside of that relationship.

When you whined about the fact that they do this because they’re not actually married I pointed out how in the Netherlands where gay marriage has been around for almost 10 years the homosexuals who are married STILL have higher rates of STD’s, HIV, anxiety, depression, suicide etc…

You forlife live in la la land.

You want to believe so badly that you’d trade your very soul for it to be true (and in fact may have already done so).

[quote]
I don’t know WTF you’re smoking, but I just gave you a quote directly from the APA stating just the opposite[/quote]

And you must be Mr. Short Term Memory, we had this debate on previous pages and this is what the APA had to say:

"The American Psychological Association admits reorientation therapy is not harmful. Dr. E. Mark Stern, Ed. D. Fellow of the A.P.A. and Professor Emeritus of The Graduate Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Iona College N.Y., has acknowledged that “the APA [American Psychological Association at its summer 2001 meeting] did admit that there was no body of evidence to prove that reorientation therapies are harmful.”

The Executive Director of the American Psychological Association, Raymond Fowler states:

The APA’s position on reparative therapy is that those who wish to explore developing heterosexual feelings or behavior have a right to do so as part of every client’s right to self-determination. If an individual is comfortable with homosexuality, it is not the role of the therapist to convince the client otherwise. If one’s feelings are ego-dystonic and there is a desire to talk about changing, that is an acceptable choice and a psychologist may participate if he or she desires. Ã?¢?? Ray Fowler, CEO, APA"

The reason that no one likes to debate you on this topic is NOT because you’re so good at it, it’s because they don’t want to get dizzy in that revolving door of misstatements, bad memory and wishful thinking that you try to dazzle us with.

454

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I think I’ll repost these facts and if you can actually rebut them please do, otherwise just ignore the post as you are not helping your cause

Oh, I dunno…for starters how about we address the fact that you completely misrepresented the data by drawing sweeping conclusions about homosexuality, solely based on studies of gay men, which ignore the entire population of lesbian women?

There’s plenty more to discuss if you’re up for it, but that seems as good a starting point as any.[/quote]

I see another dodge coming my way.

First of all I have rarely argued any statistic regarding lesbians and you know that. Most of the data (and opinions) that I’ve produced involved gay men. Now you suddenly don’t want to discuss any of those statistics because they don’t include lesbians? That borders on the pathetic forlife. Just admit that you’ve not had any sort of retort worth a thimble full of spit.

455

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Do you know what marriage even is? Marriage is an announcement to the community that these two people (modern version now) choose to stay exclusively with each other. They intend to form a family.

What’s the difference between that and co-habitation? None, except recognition by society of a public bonding. And until gays can convince the public to accept marriage between gays in the same way as marriage between heterosexual couples, then you don’t have the right to marry. Its that simple.[/quote]

It’s far more than social recognition. Marriage entails a large set of legal responsibilities and benefits designed to support that mutual commitment.

456

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
When marriage is reduced to cohabitation, marriage disappears. [/quote]

Which is why marriage shouldn’t be reduced to cohabitation. It should entail legally binding responsibilities and benefits that apply, irrespective of whether the couple is the same or opposite gender.

457

[quote]forlife wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
This - this - is why I don’t take you seriously.
[/quote]

No one who has a handle on the facts can take forlife very seriously. He is obviously led by his emotions in life and on this board. That might make him more boisterous and tenacious, but that has little to do with good arguments and sound judgement which continues to escape him.

458

[quote]Mishima wrote:
As I have written above two men cannot get children even if they are perfectly healthy.

My problem is: The combination of a man and a woman is necessary to produce offspring as nature intended. So it is obvious the child shoud have a father and a mother. That is just the normal thing. The whole discussion about gay couples is a construct. I don’t understand why we should outsmart a proven system just because it is on the pc agenda.[/quote]

Did you just flush the entire line of conversation we had over the past several posts?

WTF do you not understand about the fact that thousands of children WILL be raised in foster care UNLESS gay couples provide a loving home for them?

459

No. I said it is better to be brought up by a loving gay couple is better than in a foster home. But where we disagree is when you assume that therefore they should have per se the same rights as a heterosexual couple. Just like: I think a bird that falls of its nest is better brought up by loving humans than leaving it to die.

460

[quote]ZEB wrote:
When you whined about the fact that they do this because they’re not actually married I pointed out how in the Netherlands where gay marriage has been around for almost 10 years the homosexuals who are married STILL have higher rates of STD’s, HIV, anxiety, depression, suicide etc…[/quote]

That is blatantly false, since you know as well as I do that gay married couples have LOWER rates of STDs than unmarried gays. Do I need to post the research again or are you going to acknowledge it?

  1. You are misquoting this source. Saying that there is no evidence to date that reparative therapy is harmful is NOT the same as saying that reparative therapy is not harmful. You’re smart enough to know the difference.

  2. This was 8 years ago, and a lot of research on reparative therapy has been done since then, showing that it can in fact be harmful.

  3. You completely ignored all of the statements I provided by the medical and mental health organizations, to the effect that reparative therapy is NOT recommended and can be harmful.

  1. Where is your reference on this source? I would like to see this from an official statement, along with the date of the quote, rather than an anecdotal cherry picked quote from NARTH.

  2. Supporting someone who is 100% determined to try changing their orientation is more ethical than letting them try to change their orientation on their own. Knowing that this attempt is likely to result in increased suicidal thoughts, anxiety/depression, and alcohol/drug abuse, it would be irresponsible NOT to ameliorate these negative outcomes as much as possible.

  3. That is a far cry from stating that people actually CAN change their sexual orientation, which every medical and mental health organization has concluded cannot be done, based on REAL research rather than the crap pushed by NARTH.

Now how about actually addressing the dozen or so quotes I provided from the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, etc.? Do you have the integrity to do it, or are you just going to ignore it as usual?