They're already on my /ignore list. People like that don't want to hear the truth because the ignorance they wrap themselves around makes them feel comfortable.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Code in watchOS 4.3.1 Hints at Upcoming Apple Watch Face Inspired by Rainbow Flag
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They're already on my /ignore list. People like that don't want to hear the truth because the ignorance they wrap themselves around makes them feel comfortable.
What I love about you @tshrimp is your insistence on scientific studies then all you have to offer is anecdotal evidence.
There are plenty of studies that show forcing left handed kids to use their right hand is detrimental to their development.
Much in the same way forcing gay people to be straight is detrimental to their mental health.
He also suggests that I can change my sexuality, because it’s not biological but gives me no advice on how to do it.
No one said anything about DNA.
If being gay is a choice, have sex with a man. Choose to be gay, and have sex with a man. You can go back to being straight right after, but I will believe you and agree with you if you do this.
Not sure if you noticed why I went there....Because the previous poster brought up the left hand right hand thing, so responded in kind. And you are correct in that I like to look a science. If you want to provide biological evidence for homosexuality, I am all ears (or in the case of the internet..all eyes
).Never heard of trying to teach someone to use a different hand was "detrimental". Taught myself, and never noticed any difference
. Maybe this is when I became a conservative . In all seriousness, are you okay if someone who is gay trying to change, or should it be illegal like California wants it? I know someone who went through this, and is grateful he did. He is happily married to a woman with kids.[doublepost=1528131665][/doublepost]
I brought it up. I can actually be the person who starts the section of a conversation, but when someone brings up that homosexuality is the same as race or sex, I will go there. They can find race and sex within DNA, so if it is the same then homosexuality should be there as well.
You're misunderstanding. You can be born with an inherent, unchangeable aspect of yourself that isn't encoded in your DNA, and so DNA is not an argument for homosexuality being a choice, it's irrelevant.
This is a topic that has been explored extensively and scientific evidence is apparently not far off where it can be claimed beyond reasonable doubt that homosexuality is hereditary. Personally I don’t need that evidence as I know quite a few gay people, a few of which tried to deny they were gay for many years. I think there is enough social evidence to demonstrate it’s not a choice and dinosaurs like yourself are becoming quite rare in my society I am happy to say.
Next thing you’ll be telling us you’re a practising Christian who believes in something that has never even been close to be proven, but you know it exists lol.
Not sure if you noticed why I went there....Because the previous poster brought up the left hand right hand thing, so responded in kind. And you are correct in that I like to look a science. If you want to provide biological evidence for homosexuality, I am all ears (or in the case of the internet..all eyes
Never heard of trying to teach someone to use a different hand was "detrimental". Taught myself, and never noticed any difference
[doublepost=1528131665][/doublepost]
I brought it up. I can actually be the person who starts the section of a conversation, but when someone brings up that homosexuality is the same as race or sex, I will go there. They can find race and sex within DNA, so if it is the same then homosexuality should be there as well.
I said FORCING left handed KIDS to write with their right hand is detrimental to their DEVELOPMENT. Since you were neither a child nor developing nor forced, kind of makes your scientific "sample of one" study even less relevant.
Much like your "my friend says" anecdotal evidence that you keep wheeling out about gay conversion therapy. (Assuming that is we are talking about a friend and not first hand experience.) You don't truly know what's going on in his head. You're happy to take one guy's word over actual medical professionals and other people on here with FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE of trying really hard to not be gay to the point it's either stay in the closet, come out or kill yourself. And why do people feel they need to try to kill/cure themselves? Being gay isn't a mental disorder - it's the societal ignorance, prejudice and pressure to conform to heterosexual desires that are the real dangers to gay people's mental health.
So you like science? Where's your "science" that says gay conversion therapy works?
And the big f******* question is why the hell are we wasting millions of pounds trying to find a "gay gene"? Why the hell does it matter? Use it on curing cancer or wiping out global poverty.
[doublepost=1528139011][/doublepost]
It's like at school in GCSE biology when we were told there was a gene that meant you could curl your tongue up. And everyone tried it and we counted how many people could/could't.....
Then at A-Level we were told it was all lies and it was just used as a really basic way of getting people to understand the fundamentals of genetics.
People who think we are looking for one gene is on the level of understanding of a 16 year old child.
I love the way that all the muppets who trot out 'conversion therapy' and give 'success' stories seem to ignore the fact that the 'successes' where almost certainly bisexual and not 100% gay. In other words, not one single 'conversion therapy success' means anything more than a hill of beans. Yet they continue to believe it's all true.
Ask them to prove to you that it's a choice, by them being totally gay for a couple weeks.
Aren’t many more people bisexual than are gay? Because it’s a continuum.
I'd hazard a guess and say yes. Not got any figures in front of me, but it would make a lot of sense.
Oh, I have, but I don't expect a response on this from @tshrimp as it would force him to confront how ridiculous and baseless his opinions are. A lot of people in this thread aren't the explain and back up your opinion types, more of the... Drop a controversial opinion and prance around with your fingers in your ears until logic goes away types.
Heterosexuality isn’t generally something that requires admitting to, I also can’t think of a situation where admitting to being heterosexual would put someone’s life at risk. I know many heterosexual people who go to gay prides - it’s not as if they’re exclusively gay or prevent straights from attending. A more accurate term would probably be sexuality pride/parade as that is essentially what they promote - acceptance of sexuality. The suggestion that such a straight pride needs to exist supports the need to form a distinction, which is why it’s somewhat ignorant and potentially highly offensive. It would be like having a fundraiser for the rich.
But they have. There are gene markers in gay people that aren't in straight people. And:
"Other studies have found evidence that sex hormones influence the development of very different gendered traits between gay and straight people; that there are differences in brain organisation between gay and straight people; and that birth order influences sexual orientation in men."
So, now what? You claim that these aren't real facts or some other crap to try and convince yourself that you are right?
https://australiascience.tv/science-of-sexuality/
Also,
just thought I'd leave this here:
http://www.psypost.org/2018/06/stud...ce-linked-greater-prejudice-sex-couples-51357
@tshrimp we're waiting on an answer from you. Science doesn't back your agenda, do you want to try again?
Why not let them if they want it? Why would you care? Do you really want to squash their rights in the name of yours? As for your first example. There is nothing "discriminatory" with someone thinking or stating that homosexuality is wrong. It is an opinion. And, we as a free society, have the privilege of of believing and stating what we like. It may offend some, but I do not remember there being anything about the ability to go through life without ever being offended.
As for the person who states "God hates fags" needs to read their bible. It states the opposite. God may not like the actions, but loves the person. That is very clear. You can love someone without loving their beliefs or actions. Thank God for this, as my wife would have left me long ago if that was not the case
FYI...I am not the one who brought up the straight parade, but did point out the double standard on the post afterward, so kind of got pulled in
God loves the gays AND their actions. I mean, just look at how close Jesus was with his disciples. Guuuuuurl, that was full on Falcon Studios action right there.
Last edited:
Unless I missed something, there was no biological science pertaining to DNA mentioned in any of your links. I specifically brought up that by testing DNA you could see sex and race, but not homosexuality.
We can’t see religion in DNA either, and yet we’ve been pandering to religious people for the last few centuries while making them a protected class and exempting their churches from paying taxes. What’s your point? Talk about wanting special privileges...unbelievable.
Because we are not born religious. However I am not sure why you are bringing up religion, and what that has to do with our DNA discussion?
Even though the respondent to my DNA post went another direction, I do like how he/she left out some interesting tidbits such as. ....
“While it should be noted that the hypothesis has not yet been tested with real data, many researchers believe something of the kind could be in play.”
Much of the info provided in the links were admitted hypothesis’.
...and where did I ask for any special privileges?
Last edited:
I brought up religion because you seem to be using being able to identify DNA as a standard for establishing protected classes, and that’s silly. You can argue this until you’re blue in the face. Just because something isn’t identifiable in DNA, it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t still have a biological cause. I was born gay. I was different since I was a child and never developed an attraction to females around puberty, but I loved me some men. I started having crushes on boys in middle school and couldn’t figure out what was going on with me or how to handle it. For someone to imply that I have any say whatsoever in my sexual orientation is quite laughable, to say the least. The medical community disagrees, the scientific community disagrees, the psychological community disagrees. How many more professional communities do you need to tell you that you’re wrong before you accept it? The best part about facts is that they’re true whether you believe them or not.
For someone to be born a certain way you realise not every trait is genetically inherited? It could be a result of hormonal fluctuations in the mother, external environmental conditions, medication.