1. Post #441
    SuperElektrik's Avatar
    April 2012
    41 Posts
    Can you provide some more credible sources than peer reviewed scientific articles? More than prepared to use them if you tell me what they are
    No, because I have nothing to prove to you. I was just saying articles aren't always a good source (or the only one) for information/education and should not be used as such.

    Edited:

    That's a very self-centered world view. Just because you didn't choose, doesn't exclude the possibility of others choosing.

    We can choose practically all of our preferences to some extent. Musical taste, favourite movies, foods, etc. It's all mental properties.
    So it's a matter of having a will and desire to learn and understand the positive aspects of aquired tastes. I don't see why sexuality should be the exception.
    Hmmm, good point. But what about the so-called "Homosexual animals" they have no tastes, just instinct... Which is kind of funny..

  2. Post #442
    foxcock
    Bletotum's Avatar
    June 2008
    6,873 Posts
    No, because I have nothing to prove to you. I was just saying articles aren't always a good source (or the only one) for information/education and should not be used as such.
    So you are saying that you do not have to prove that you are right? You can not simply post in debate to make a claim and then tell us that you don't have to prove it.

  3. Post #443
    Gold Member
    Big Blue's Avatar
    December 2006
    6,509 Posts
    i still dont understand how this can be a topic of debate when there is a definitive answer that nobody knows

  4. Post #444
    SuperElektrik's Avatar
    April 2012
    41 Posts
    So you are saying that you do not have to prove that you are right? You can not simply post in debate to make a claim and then tell us that you don't have to prove it.
    Like I'm going to find an article about how articles aren't always a credible source. Nice job thinking about that one genius. But if it's going to make your life so much better then here: http://mason.gmu.edu/~montecin/web-eval-sites.htm. It has some relevance.

  5. Post #445
    ADSmaster724's Avatar
    July 2011
    100 Posts
    I see it more as a personality. it all depends on your environment. it is not a gene.

  6. Post #446
    foxcock
    Bletotum's Avatar
    June 2008
    6,873 Posts
    i still dont understand how this can be a topic of debate when there is a definitive answer that nobody knows
    The purpose of a debate is to compare knowledge and rationally determine the likelihood of proposed solutions to a question.

  7. Post #447
    SuperElektrik's Avatar
    April 2012
    41 Posts
    i still dont understand how this can be a topic of debate when there is a definitive answer that nobody knows
    People like to feel smart. Dont take anything seriously.

  8. Post #448
    Lukasaurus's Avatar
    October 2010
    1,166 Posts
    It doesn't matter. When people make homosexuality into an issue, it is very easy to forget about people. I say this from a Christian perspective. Regardless of my views on the issue, I have decided to view it from a people perspective and see that behind the issue are people, that feel love, joy, pain, want friends, want comfort, compassion etc.

    Jesus got angry at a few people. The religious right (Pharisees) and his own disciples. The pharisees he got mad at for being so self righteous on the outside, while having no love or compassion for people, as they kept the letter of the law. He got mad at his disciples for stopping people from coming to him. The adulterers, the prostitutes, the lepers, the unwanted, the undesirables. He ate with them. In Jewish customs, eating with someone was saying "I accept you". He loved them and was a friend of sinners.

    By arguing the point of whether it is a choice or not completely sidelines the people who are homosexual, making them faceless. It's very easy to hate a faceless crowd. Not so easy when those people are your friends, family, workmates etc.

  9. Post #449
    SuperElektrik's Avatar
    April 2012
    41 Posts
    Lukasaurus has it all right.

  10. Post #450
    Dennab
    May 2010
    1,020 Posts
    Like I'm going to find an article about how articles aren't always a credible source. Nice job thinking about that one genius. But if it's going to make your life so much better then here: http://mason.gmu.edu/~montecin/web-eval-sites.htm. It has some relevance.
    It makes me feel better that there's someone here with at least half a brain.

  11. Post #451
    toastedjam's Avatar
    April 2012
    179 Posts
    Scientifically, we can't say that homosexuality is caused by genes. Genes are a hereditary thing, meaning that something is passed from one generation to another. I believe in the theory that it may be caused by a disorder within a male/female hormones, making them sexually attracted to the same sex, though there hasn't been proof of any biological or genetic differences. Also it could also be by choice and personal experiences at an early age.

    Sources:
    http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF08L41.pdf

  12. Post #452
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,768 Posts
    It makes me feel better that there's someone here with at least half a brain.
    Until you can find sources, your words mean nothing.

  13. Post #453
    Clops with bisousbisous daily <3
    Mr. Smartass's Avatar
    December 2010
    9,188 Posts
    it is a choice if youre bisexual.
    Are you high
    no

  14. Post #454
    foxcock
    Bletotum's Avatar
    June 2008
    6,873 Posts
    Scientifically, we can't say that homosexuality is caused by genes. Genes are a hereditary thing, meaning that something is passed from one generation to another. I believe in the theory that it may be caused by a disorder within a male/female hormones, making them sexually attracted to the same sex, though there hasn't been proof of any biological or genetic differences. Also it could also be by choice and personal experiences at an early age.

    Sources:
    http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF08L41.pdf
    What exactly are you saying that your source supports, and where? That is a very large article; it covers a broad range of things.

  15. Post #455
    toastedjam's Avatar
    April 2012
    179 Posts
    What exactly are you saying that your source supports, and where? That is a very large article; it covers a broad range of things.
    i just scanned through it and gave my opinions. what it is is a history of homosexuality, and it explains how others try to find the cause of sexuality. But honestly no one knows and neither has the cause been proven.

  16. Post #456
    Dennab
    May 2010
    1,020 Posts
    Until you can find sources, your words mean nothing.
    Until you learn about human behavior, your words mean nothing.

    See, I can do it too.

  17. Post #457
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,768 Posts
    Until you learn about human behavior, your words mean nothing.

    See, I can do it too.
    Can you source this human behaviour which you base your research on? Any peer reviewed article at least helps you.

    Otherwise you're just saying things, with no evidence. I can do that on the Internet too.

  18. Post #458
    Gold Member

    December 2006
    2,632 Posts
    Why is there a debating thread about a simple binary fact that has yet to be determined by modern science?

  19. Post #459
    Gold Member
    scorpinat's Avatar
    July 2005
    2,367 Posts
    Why the hell would someone choose to be gay with so much hate towards them by narrow minded fucking people. it would be way easier telling everyone you banged some blonde chick.

    You dont choose to be gay.

  20. Post #460
    MEGA SENPAI KAWAII UGUU~~ =^_^=
    Megafan's Avatar
    September 2008
    14,606 Posts
    Until you learn about human behavior, your words mean nothing.

    See, I can do it too.
    I believe we've already had this discussion. Stop.

  21. Post #461
    foxcock
    Bletotum's Avatar
    June 2008
    6,873 Posts
    i just scanned through it and gave my opinions. what it is is a history of homosexuality, and it explains how others try to find the cause of sexuality. But honestly no one knows and neither has the cause been proven.
    In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from
    its list of mental disorders. That decision did not come as a result of new
    research. Ronald Bayer, author of the most exhaustive treatment of the 1973
    decision, has described what actually happened:19
    • “A furious egalitarianism that challenged every instance of authority
    had compelled psychiatric experts to negotiate the pathological
    status of homosexuality with homosexuals themselves. The result
    was not a conclusion based on an approximation of the scientific
    truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by
    the ideological temper of the times.”
    This article is heavily slanted towards decrying any possibility of nature, in favor of nurture arguments, and is infused with indirect homophobia. For instance, the above implies that homosexuality is a disorder, and that any fellow psychologist who disagrees with his findings is merely caving into social pressure.

    “And, in a recent publication by West, a number of contemporary
    investigators are cited who independently have reached the same
    conclusion concerning the mother-son factor in male homosexuality.
    In this same publication, West presents his own study in England
    of 50 homosexual males and 50 matched control (nonhomosexual)
    males. His findings clearly show that male homosexuals are much
    more likely to come from a family constellation involving an overintense mother and unsatisfactory father relationship.
    We know this to be nonsense.

    Quotes like these go undisputed in your source, unlike contrary points, which are the only ones to be criticized.

    Edited:

    Additionally, the source is not at all a history of homosexuality, as you claimed.

  22. Post #462
    toastedjam's Avatar
    April 2012
    179 Posts
    This article is heavily slanted towards decrying any possibility of nature, in favor of nurture arguments, and is infused with indirect homophobia. For instance, the above implies that homosexuality is a disorder, and that any fellow psychologist who disagrees with his findings is merely caving into social pressure.




    We know this to be nonsense.

    Quotes like these go undisputed in your source, unlike contrary points, which are the only ones to be criticized.

    Edited:

    Additionally, the source is not at all a history of homosexuality, as you claimed.

    Thank you for explaining the source i found. I appreciate you helping me learn to double check my source and it will help me in the future in other circumstances and debates. I'll be sure to read any sources thoroughly before posting them next time.

  23. Post #463
    Dennab
    May 2010
    1,020 Posts
    I believe we've already had this discussion. Stop.
    Denying my claim without the slightest understanding of what I'm trying to tell them is pretty stupid and ignorant of them. Then again, this forum section is pretty much just a giant competition of 'who can find the best sources hence making that person win the debate'.

  24. Post #464
    Gold Member
    hexpunK's Avatar
    August 2008
    15,281 Posts
    Denying my claim without the slightest understanding of what I'm trying to tell them is pretty stupid and ignorant of them. Then again, this forum section is pretty much just a giant competition of 'who can find the best sources hence making that person win the debate'.
    Denying your claims because you aren't telling us where we can read this information for ourselves is what people are doing. Not because we don't have any understanding of it. If you just started sourcing your claims without going "lol i went 2 class u stupids" then maybe you'd have a valid argument. But right now your arguments are essentially being pulled from thin air as you aren't providing any evidence your argument might be correct. Taking a class in a subject doesn't exempt you from sourcing your arguments. Especially in an objective topic.

    And no, we won't take your word for it. You need sources of some form. Peer-reviewed scientific papers preferable.

    Edited:

    Oh and fyi, finding the best, most accurate sources is kinda how you win a debate. Short of being the most convincing speaker ever. Which you aren't.

  25. Post #465
    Gold Member
    UnidentifiedFlyingTard's Avatar
    March 2009
    8,297 Posts
    Denying my claim without the slightest understanding of what I'm trying to tell them is pretty stupid and ignorant of them. Then again, this forum section is pretty much just a giant competition of 'who can find the best sources hence making that person win the debate'.
    Because you can't back up your claims, saying "I know about human behavior" means nothing if you cannot back it up.

    And don't tell me internet sources aren't reliable, they are about as reliable as books these days, unless you are just thinking about Wikipedia.

  26. Post #466
    Gold Member
    DanTehMan's Avatar
    May 2008
    2,539 Posts
    Because you can't back up your claims, saying "I know about human behavior" means nothing if you cannot back it up.

    And don't tell me internet sources aren't reliable, they are about as reliable as books these days, unless you are just thinking about Wikipedia.
    Even then Wikipedia cites all of its sources at the bottom of the page and usually doesn't have baseless claims.

  27. Post #467
    foxcock
    Bletotum's Avatar
    June 2008
    6,873 Posts
    Denying my claim without the slightest understanding of what I'm trying to tell them is pretty stupid and ignorant of them. Then again, this forum section is pretty much just a giant competition of 'who can find the best sources hence making that person win the debate'.
    Would you like to stop crying about what's wrong with us and explain your argument in a solid form?

  28. Post #468
    Ginger gizzard amateur~
    Dennab
    July 2011
    5,135 Posts
    Saying homosexuality is a gene would be like saying religions or opinions run through blood.

    No, it's not. Some people end up turning gay half-way through their lives.

  29. Post #469
    Dennab
    April 2010
    5,256 Posts
    Well, there can be chemical reasoning unrelated to genetics. For example, pregnant women that have already given birth to a son have typically higher levels of androgenic steroids. This can cause noticeable changes in men, such as a more feminine ratio between the length of the index and ring fingers that are characteristic of homosexual men, among other things.

    See also
    2d;4d ratio is a really poor area of study, since every researcher comes to his own conclusions on it.

    See: one researcher says gay men have feminine ratio, another says excessively masculine ratios are associated with homosexuality etc.

    Besides higher levels of prenatal androgen exposure would make more masculine ratios, which is the opposite of what you are saying.

  30. Post #470
    Gold Member
    Contag's Avatar
    July 2010
    11,828 Posts
    Why is there a debating thread about a simple binary fact that has yet to be determined by modern science?
    Probably because homosexuality is extremely complex, is produced and reproduced discursively in innumerable ways (as any cross-cultural or historical-comparative research would make quite clear - e.g. the greeks), and is in no way a binary.

    Edited:

    2d;4d ratio is a really poor area of study, since every researcher comes to his own conclusions on it.

    See: one researcher says gay men have feminine ratio, another says excessively masculine ratios are associated with homosexuality etc.

    Besides higher levels of prenatal androgen exposure would make more masculine ratios, which is the opposite of what you are saying.
    I concur with this.

    The biological determinist side of a causal mechanism for homosexuality is extremely problematic, and there have been a couple of high profile cases where research published in a major peer reviewed paper (I think it was Nature in the early 90s) was shown to be significantly methodologically flawed.

  31. Post #471
    Gold Member
    fluke42's Avatar
    November 2011
    484 Posts
    Saying homosexuality is a gene would be like saying religions or opinions run through blood.

    No, it's not. Some people end up turning gay half-way through their lives.
    Doesn't "turning" gay half way through your life require some kind of pre-existing attraction?

  32. Post #472
    Gold Member
    UnidentifiedFlyingTard's Avatar
    March 2009
    8,297 Posts
    Would you like to stop crying about what's wrong with us and explain your argument in a solid form?
    He can't because he doesn't have one, if he did he would have already.

  33. Post #473
    >implications unpleasant
    xxncxx's Avatar
    June 2008
    10,935 Posts
    Denying my claim without the slightest understanding of what I'm trying to tell them is pretty stupid and ignorant of them. Then again, this forum section is pretty much just a giant competition of 'who can find the best sources hence making that person win the debate'.
    Get off your high horse and show some sources or stop talking. "i am educate" is not a license to tell people everything you say is absolutely correct.

  34. Post #474
    Dennab
    May 2010
    1,020 Posts
    Get off your high horse and show some sources or stop talking. "i am educate" is not a license to tell people everything you say is absolutely correct.
    See, but that's the thing. You guys aren't even educated on my argument and yet you guys still say I am wrong.

    Edited:

    Denying your claims because you aren't telling us where we can read this information for ourselves is what people are doing. Not because we don't have any understanding of it. If you just started sourcing your claims without going "lol i went 2 class u stupids" then maybe you'd have a valid argument. But right now your arguments are essentially being pulled from thin air as you aren't providing any evidence your argument might be correct. Taking a class in a subject doesn't exempt you from sourcing your arguments. Especially in an objective topic.

    And no, we won't take your word for it. You need sources of some form. Peer-reviewed scientific papers preferable.

    Edited:

    Oh and fyi, finding the best, most accurate sources is kinda how you win a debate. Short of being the most convincing speaker ever. Which you aren't.
    You're right. It doesn't exempt me from having to provide proof. But that doesn't exempt you from having to learn. And no, reading a source doesn't make you the most educated on a subject. Providing one doesn't make you win a debate, either.

  35. Post #475
    Awesome Member
    Dennab
    January 2006
    40,352 Posts
    You're right. It doesn't object me from having to provide proof. But that doesn't object you from having to learn.
    that's not the way you use object i don't know what any of this means

  36. Post #476
    Dennab
    May 2010
    1,020 Posts
    And don't tell me internet sources aren't reliable, they are about as reliable as books these days, unless you are just thinking about Wikipedia.
    I'm not saying internet sources aren't reliable. I'm saying that you guys shouldn't base your entire argument on one. Not only that, but as said before, you guys are disregarding my argument completely because you know nothing about it.

    Edited:

    that's not the way you use object i don't know what any of this means
    Sorry, I goof'd.

  37. Post #477
    >implications unpleasant
    xxncxx's Avatar
    June 2008
    10,935 Posts
    I'm not saying internet sources aren't reliable. I'm saying that you guys shouldn't base your entire argument on one. Not only that, but as said before, you guys are disregarding my argument completely because you know nothing about it.

    Edited:



    Sorry, I goof'd.
    Except we aren't basing it on one, we are basing it on multiple. Whereas you, on the other hand, are basing yours on NONE. This will get you no where in debating.

  38. Post #478
    Gold Member
    hexpunK's Avatar
    August 2008
    15,281 Posts
    You're right. It doesn't exempt me from having to provide proof. But that doesn't exempt you from having to learn. And no, reading a source doesn't make you the most educated on a subject. Providing one doesn't make you win a debate, either.
    Right it doesn't exempt me from learning. Good thing I learn by using multiple sources for my information to make an educated argument on a subject. Learning from one source is damn stupid, but using multiple sources to either confirm or adjust your views on a subject based on what they claim? That's learning baby.

  39. Post #479
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,768 Posts
    I'm not saying internet sources aren't reliable. I'm saying that you guys shouldn't base your entire argument on one. Not only that, but as said before, you guys are disregarding my argument completely because you know nothing about it.
    Either use sources or get out. I'm surprised it's not bannable to do what you're doing, because you're certainly not debating.

  40. Post #480
    Yandere Princess
    Alice3173's Avatar
    April 2010
    22,020 Posts
    Either use sources or get out. I'm surprised it's not bannable to do what you're doing, because you're certainly not debating.
    He's banned for it before. On multiple occasions. In this thread nonetheless...