Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #441
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:
Hmmm, good point. But what about the so-called "Homosexual animals" they have no tastes, just instinct... Which is kind of funny..
-
-
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.
-
i still dont understand how this can be a topic of debate when there is a definitive answer that nobody knows
-
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.
-
I see it more as a personality. it all depends on your environment. it is not a gene.
-
The purpose of a debate is to compare knowledge and rationally determine the likelihood of proposed solutions to a question.
-
People like to feel smart. Dont take anything seriously.
-
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.
-
Lukasaurus has it all right.
-
It makes me feel better that there's someone here with at least half a brain.
-
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
-
Until you can find sources, your words mean nothing.
-
Are you high
no
-
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.
-
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.
-
Why is there a debating thread about a simple binary fact that has yet to be determined by modern science?
-
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.
-
I believe we've already had this discussion. Stop.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Would you like to stop crying about what's wrong with us and explain your argument in a solid form?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
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.
-
Doesn't "turning" gay half way through your life require some kind of pre-existing attraction?
-
He can't because he doesn't have one, if he did he would have already.
-
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:
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.
-
that's not the way you use object i don't know what any of this means
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
