The Problem with "Fighting" Homosexuality

[Storm]

Most pagan gods do not give a single solitary damn who or what you happen to be ****ing. Make of that what you will.

Well... they don't care about whether the plumbing matches, anyway.

 

[Sand Dancer]

There are studies out there pointing to homosexuality possibly being the result of a gene that actually HELPS women have more children.

And another that shows homosexual births go up after disasters. This makes sense in the Evolutionary need to survive. Their births mean more workers to rebuild the destroyed society, while producing no extra children that would have to be fed, clothed, housed, etc. Evolution at work. Forgot to add they would also be able to take in and raise the children of the dead, which heterosexuals with their own kids to feed - would be less likely to do.

I'm getting tired of gay people being called unnatural, or a defect, etc.

*

Good post! Gay males tend to have older brothers, so there is a disruption or reduction in testosterone. Do you have any citations for me? I'd love to read it.

 

[Ingledsva]

Good post! Gay males tend to have older brothers, so there is a disruption or reduction in testosterone. Do you have any citations for me? I'd love to read it.

1.
Pheromone studies have shown that heterosexual men's brains responded sexually only to female pheromones. Gay men's brains responded to MALE pheromones.
That was with pheromones only, no human in the room to trigger the sexual response.

Another recent study has shown differences in the brains of heterosexual and gay men.
“Animal models have indicated that androgenic steroids acting before birth might influence the sexual orientation of adult humans. Here we examine the androgen-sensitive pattern of finger lengths1, and find evidence that homosexual women are exposed to more prenatal androgen than heterosexual women are; also, men with more than one older brother, who are more likely than first-born males to be homosexual in adulthood, are exposed to more prenatal androgen than eldest sons. Prenatal androgens may therefore influence adult human sexual orientation in both sexes, and a mother's body appears to 'remember' previously carried sons, altering the fetal development of subsequent sons and increasing the likelihood of homosexuality in adulthood.”
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/readings/homofinger/homo_finger.html
PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects
“The present study shows sex-atypical cerebral asymmetry and functional connections in homosexual subjects.”
PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects
Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual men.
“These findings show that our brain reacts differently to the two putative pheromones compared with common odors, and suggest a link between sexual orientation and hypothalamic neuronal processes.”
Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual men. - PubMed - NCBI
Biological and psychosocial determinants of male and female human sexual orientation.
Biological and psychosocial determinants of male and female human s... - PubMed - NCBI
Male sexuality may be decided in the womb
Male sexuality may be decided in the womb - life - 26 June 2006 - New Scientist
Studies of the causes of homosexual orientation
Essay 1: What causes sexual orientation?
AND as I said earlier –
A newer study says there is a variation on some X chromosomes that result in homosexuality.

A female is XX, and a male is XY.

It has been found that females with direct male homosexual relatives, are more attracted to men, and sex, and produce more children than average females.

It is thought that the reason this continues is the advantage to the female - more offspring - passing of the genes.

When the advantageous X is passed to a female baby she will have more children.

When that X is passed to a male baby to form his XY, he also is attracted to men = homosexuality = with a reason in nature!
Genetic benefits http://www.danaanpress.com/hsex.html
Gay animals reasons Gay animals out of the closet? - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience | NBC News
Study in Royal Society journals presents evidence for inherited factors in homosexuality | EurekAlert! Science News
narth
http://www.google.com/search?source...ives+of+Gay+men+have+33+percent+more+children
http://www.google.com/search?source...-8&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS408US408&q=parthenogenesis

 

[Ingledsva]

Good post! Gay males tend to have older brothers, so there is a disruption or reduction in testosterone. Do you have any citations for me? I'd love to read it.

2. These are interesting sites and studies.

Elias and Valenta (1992) discuss consistencies among the neuronal density of hypothalamic nuclei (see LeVay, 1991) and heterosexual activity in non-human primates and in homosexual and heterosexual men. They suggest anatomic differences in the anterior hypothalamic nuclei that regulate sexual orientation in males may lead to alteration in GnRH pulse frequency and to a more female-type pattern of gonadotropin secretion in homosexual males.

Though some sexual differences may exist prior to the formation of the gonadal ridge (Binstock 1994; 1995a), the prenatal secretion both of E and of T is primarily responsible for establishing traditionally conceived sexual dimorphism both in the olfactory systems and in many other neuronal pathways and neurohormonal systems of all terrestrial mammals by acting on apoptosis, (Nordeen, et al. 1985), on synaptogenesis, and on synaptolysis (Arai, Matusumoto, & Nishizuka, 1986).

Either endogenous or exogenous steroid hormones alter the frequency of the prenatal GnRH pulse and thus predispose sexual orientation and sexual behavior or both (Adkins¬Regan, 1988; Giusti, et al. 1995). Similar effects might be induced by prenatal stress on GnRH pulsatility and thus on steroid hormone secretion (Kinsley, 1995).

Human sexuality is thereby conditioned via a neuroendocrine response to olfactory stimuli (Graham & Desjardins, 1980), which are paired with other consciously perceived and subliminally detected sensory stimuli (Cooper, et al. 1994).

Furthermore, it now appears that sex¬specific organizing effects of steroid hormones in the human do not prevent activating effects of steroid hormones from becoming manifest in both cognition and behavior (Van Goozen, et al. 1995). Human pheromones may exert both organizing and activating effects via their influence on GnRH pulsatility, which may either directly affect neurotransmission, or indirectly affect neurotransmission via steroidogenesis.

http://www.sbu.ac.uk/stafflag/simonlevay.html

Bellarmine University logical_ba.htm

There is also a study that shows the more male births a woman has, the more likely she is to produce a homosexual baby, because of the hormones and immune response antibodies in her body.

Big brothers 'may make boys gay' - smh.com.au

 

[Ingledsva]

Good post! Gay males tend to have older brothers, so there is a disruption or reduction in testosterone. Do you have any citations for me? I'd love to read it.

3. Some of these are probably overlapping now.

A newer study says there is a variation on some X chromosomes that result in homosexuality.

A female is XX, and a male is XY.

It has been found that females with direct male homosexual relatives, are more attracted to men, and sex, and produce more children then average females.

It is thought that the reason this continues is the advantage to the female - more offspring - passing of the genes.

When the advantageous X is passed to a female baby she will have more children.

When that X is passed to a male baby to form his XY, he also is attracted to men = homosexuality = with a reason in nature!

Genetic benefits http://www.danaanpress.com/hsex.html
Gay animals reasons Gay animals out of the closet? - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience | NBC News
Study in Royal Society journals presents evidence for inherited factors in homosexuality | EurekAlert! Science News
narth
http://www.google.com/search?source...ives+of+Gay+men+have+33+percent+more+children
http://www.google.com/search?source...-8&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS408US408&q=parthenogenesis

*

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Good night nurse this is one long post. Must have dedicated the whole weekend to it.

I have not listed any specific sexual acts I think "are so terrible".
I am not in favor of heterosexual risky behavior either. BUT THIS IS NOT A HETEROSEXUAL THREAD.

This is ridiculous.

1. In the US heterosexual marriages reach the ten year mark 70.7% of the time and the 20 year mark 50.7% of the time. Male on male marriages reach the ten year mark 14% of the time and the 20 year mark 5%.
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2001)
Source: Current Population Reports: U.S. Census Bureau (2002)

2. In Norway, male same-sex marriages are 50 percent more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages, and female same-sex marriages are an astonishing 167 percent more likely to be dissolved.
The Gay Divorcees | National Review Online

3. After controlling for age, region, country of birth, education, and duration of the partnership, male couples in Sweden were 35 percent more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples, and lesbian partners were over 200 percent more likely to divorce. Whether the couples had children made little difference in the relative rates.
Why Gay Couples Divorce More Than Straight Couples

4. A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.
5. In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."
6. In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.

I can't spend much time on any one issue because this post is so long so I will leave it there for now. Your stats also seem to be off at places. No groups divorce rate is 1% unless your talking about yearly rates. So I think your getting things confused.




I would if that was the only statistic that has an impact here. I have heard of this claim before. I always ignored it because it sounds like propaganda (even if true I have no idea what it means).

Since I am pressed for time and this post so long let me say that for the time being I will reserve judgment of the divorce rate issue. I have seen the data that supports my view but I do not have enough time currently to dig it up. I have learned quite a bit about why the data set is far to low to have any good homosexual marriage statistics at this time. One being that same sex couples will go to a state that allows the marriage to be married but many move back and will not return to get divorced, another being that most divorce administrations do not record what type of marriage it was that dissolved (so they actually get recorded as heterosexual divorces in statistics), another explaining that the trends in females instigate divorce accounts for the disparity between the rates. Some make your numbers no good, some make mine no good, some that make others misleading. I need to investigate this further.

I made no argument about banning any marriage.

I said compensating gains, I must have distinguished between claims to a gain and gains that offset costs a hundred times and it still is not understood. I even said it in what you responded to.

For pity's sake. What you responded to was statement that said that nothing I have said is exclusive to homosexuality but seemingly aggravated by it. You show you do not understand my simplistic claims in the arguments you make to show you do understand them.

I will repeat them until they are understood or I get sick of doing it. So far you've demonstrated you either will not or cannot understand what I stated. You did manage to challenge one of the many aspects that support one of my claims but that alone will never invalidate the claim it's self. You will need to tear down the primary supports for that claim (mainly the health issues) to do any serious damage. So in my book we are at a temporary stale mate on one of the secondary pillars of one of my points and the rest are still intact. That is the best you have done and the closest anyone has gotten to countering even a small portion of my argument. So don't ruin the small gain you made in dentin the fender of the freight train by claiming you knocked it off the tracks.

That statement is an explanation of what I was doing and has nothing to do with my argument and would have never been mentioned if my faith was not used as an excuse to dismiss my position.

Yes, some of those sexual acts but mainly the destructive consequences of them do disgust me and they should do so from either a secular view or a theological one. In the military you are shown the most graphic pictures of STD and physical damage (both homosexual and heterosexual) that are so disgusting you will almost commit to celibacy then and there. There is nothing unnatural or illogical about that.

Nope, I wish you had. I came here to see if it could be done. You have done so (temporarily) for open secondary issue among many that support one of my claims. The fact I admit this despite not having enough time to properly investigate it is proof of my willingness to do so. So far its' been like a child fighting Muhammad Ali. Ali has dominated every aspect of the fight but the child landed a grazing punch to Ali's shin and is now running around the ring claiming he won and Ali can't fight.

When what I have posted about the destruction is effectively challenged it will be effectively defended, and when I claim 100% of the negativity is exclusively homosexual I will defend that.

The very simple fact of the matter with the "statistics" is this.

Are all demographics of individuals treated equally or are there GREAT differences in discrimination and bigotry aimed towards one side or the other. At one point in time you told me that you did something int he past with statistics and as someone who claims to work in a laboratory wouldn't you know that to find the reason for certain things one must isolate a single factor? So if you had an experiment in the lab testing dozens of variables at the same time wouldn't you expect to have skewed results if you only looked at the results though the lens of a single variable?

 

[1robin]

Oh okay, that's news to me. It's not up to the person presenting the data to prove the case he was trying to make by presenting the data in the first place? I didn't realize we were now in Bizarro World. Please excuse me.

Bizarro world or not that is legal criteria. It even stands for expert testimony. I was actually on a trial where many experts were hauled in. We were instructed that their expertise was considered validation unless disproven. They did not spend 1 second explaining why their determinations were correct. They simply stated what they were. In fact that is what made us resolve the decision we did. It was a medical case where someone was suing a hospital. Doctors examined here (in a private room where we were not even in) and acme back. They said what she claimed was the cause would not result in the symptoms she had. That was taken a fact and we denied the claim. This is even true for ancient documents as well. They have a few additional criteria like their being acquired from the source they should be expected to be found in. But generally they are granted as true until shown to be false. I agree with you that many times that may produce a false deduction but we are left with having to establish some criteria. Yours would require and endless regression of "oh yeah prove that", "oh yeah prove the proof", etc..... Competent authorities are considered competent until shown otherwise.

 

[1robin]

Yeah, about as much as modern science has proven that the suspicions about left-handed people were well founded.

What? I have no suspicion of left handed people. My Dad is left handed. I have never known anyone who did. I don't know what your talking about or what the analogy is suppose to mean.

 

[1robin]

I'll just address this one quickly while I have a minute and will get to the rest of it later ...

How about instead of cherry-picking the data you think supports your arguments (e.g. Like focusing in only on Norway and Sweden and ignoring the rest), why don't you address the entirety of it?

I'm also wondering how you think you have so much data on gay marriage in the US when it's a fairly new concept there. Like I said, it seems rather incomplete to me.

That is fine with me. I have little time and have been in poor health here lately.

I did not Cherry pick those places. Why in the world would I have? As you said the data is not easy to find. In the few minutes I happen to have that was all I found. I really did not pay attention to the nation in question anyway.

I don't recall saying I have a lot of data on it. It is the weakest point I have made which I imagine is why you cherry picked it out of all the others. My primary contentions are supported by health related issues. The other related issues are just window dressing. I in fact said the exact opposite. I gave several theories about how the data we have is too premature and has all kinds of control problems that skew it one way or another. That is one reason I called stalemate instead of saying you were wrong. It is going to be hard to prove this one way or another.

You act as if I defeated your position and so you are impugning related issues to undermine the data I gave. I did not think that was the case. I thought you gave more data than I and my data was not really that conclusive. I do not have time to really investigate this and so called a truce. I said this was the best point raised against my contentions.

The only thing I said that undermines your claims was about applicability not data. I said my position was supported by a few central columns and there were some secondary and minor columns as well. You dented one of the minor columns (which I specifically stated and which implies I regarded your data as meaningful) but you have done nothing to effect the structure it's self. Which is only the latest instance of people claiming they stopped the train when they only scratched the paint.

 

[1robin]

You’ve alluded to the sexual acts that you find abhorrent many times in the past. Your main problem seems to lie with sexual acts involving two men.

Nope, I said describing some of the damage is too disgusting to do for me. I am simply not going into Gerbils, light bulbs, warts etc...... I am not exposed to any of the sexual acts so they offend me very little. Of course I find them so unappealing they baffle me but I was talking about the results not the acts.

And yes I know, it is a heterosexual thread.

No that is what you acting like it is. It is a homosexual thread.

I’ve noticed. What I’m telling you is that it seems obvious to me, that given your arguments and general point of view, that you don’t actually have a problem with homosexuality. In actuality, your problem lies with any kind of risky and/or promiscuous sex. You energies would be better served making cost-benefit analyses around that issue rather than using them to pick on gay people as a whole, who are not the only sexual orientation that engage in those behaviors. You say gay people engage in them at higher rates than heterosexuals do and so we cannot justify allowing gay people to be who they are or whatever or wherever it is you think gay people disappear to when we pretend they don’t exist. Well men, on average, seem to engage in risky and/or promiscuous sexual behaviors more than women do, in general. Maybe it’s a man problem. But wait, women do it a lot too. In fact, stats show that its women who are more likely to end marriages and/or long-term relationships than men are, regardless of their sexual orientation. Maybe it’s immoral to be a woman!. Or maybe, like I said, it’s a problem with human behavior, in general.

I do have a problem with it. That problem has no relevance to my argument. Even if I was secular I should be put off by the behavior. What I think about a behavior is not driven by and does not produce what I think about a person. I hate and condemn many things I have done but I don't hate myself.

My primary claim is a cost benefit analysis. The only time I am not discussing it is because others have abandoned the attempt to contend with it and instead have opted to kill the messenger. I have been correcting them as I felt like doing but my purpose here is a secular argument not defending against or making personal commentaries.

I addressed this earlier, and yes, it is ridiculous.
I did acknowledge that the numbers are incomplete, given that gay marriage is a relatively new thing in some parts of the western world. The track record just isn’t long enough. I pointed that out in my last post. Gay marriage has only been legal in the UK since around March I think, so obviously that accounts for such a small number.

I know and agree but in another post you seem to suggest I think the opposite.

It means that people who don’t support divorce and the breakup of the family unit should support gay marriage because it boosts the marriage rate.

That is like supporting theft because it reduces incarcerations. The only thing of interest to me about this is why. I can't think of any reason this would be true though I think it probably is. Killing everyone who gets divorced would lower the divorce rate so by your logical I should support that.

Oh, so now it’s all of a sudden a very complicated matter that isn’t so simplistic after all.
I’m happy to see you finally acknowledge that, given it’s been what many people have been telling you throughout the course of the discussion.

It has always been though my initial investigation did not lead me to believe it would be.

Oh, so you support gay marriage?

What part of I did not make the argument means I am for a thing? Come off it.

I think you’re just playing with words here.

That is absurd. There are gains to all kinds of things we do not accept. The reason drugs are so bad is because they work. When me mother was dying I by accident found that pain killers helped my depression. I eventually started taking them for only that reason and they actually helped without any serious effects in my specific situation but that does not make them right in general. The case is far worse for homosexuality. There are gains and there are justifying gains.

So start railing against promiscuity in general, and leave gay people alone.

No, I am an equal opportunity offender. I "rail" against whatever wrong I happen to be exposed to a debate setting. Never seen a thread on promiscuity.

You always jump to this “you’re arguing against secondary pillars of my main argument” stuff when someone makes a dent in any of your assertions. And that’s after you’ve repeated that nobody has managed to make a dent in any of your assertions. Divorce rates were one of the items on the list in your cost-benefit analysis. Sorry for addressing it, I guess. Maybe I should just assume that you were only off on just the one stat and take your word for it that the rest are spot on.
So know you want to focus on the health issues. Okay, which ones? We’ve already discussed HIV/AIDS and that didn’t really lean in your favour of your assertions either. What else?

No I do not. I do not recall having ever said that before. Find any post in the past 10,000 where I mentioned secondary pillars before this. I called a stalemate for the time being on divorce rates but considered what it would mean if they are not what I have said. I determined it would have a very minimal impact on my argument which is mainly supported by other things. This is a fact and so I mentioned it. You are not sorry for addressing it nor did I suggest you should be. Get a grip. I gave you at least as much credit as what you posted deserved.

Your faith wasn’t being used as an excuse to dismiss your position. Your flimsy arguments were.

It most certainly was and the later most certainly was not. You are the first to even potentially dent one the secondary supports of my argument. That is all that has occurred so far.

Yes I remember you talking about the military and some doctor who was disclosing his patient’s medical information to apparently anyone who would listen.

Doctors disclosing general details about general behaviors have not done anything wrong or illegal. They in fact do so in published journals every single day. In fact that is the basis for the entire medical field.

Are you supposed to be Ali?

In my analogy yes. In an actual ring I would have been out in 10 seconds.

Several components of your arguments have been effectively challenged but when that happens you just end up claiming that they are only secondary to your main points and therefore doesn’t really mean anything.

Nope, you potentially dented (or perhaps even negated) a secondary issue that supports my claims among many others and several primary supports. My argument stands until the primary supports are all destroyed and no one has dented one yet.

 

[1robin]

The very simple fact of the matter with the "statistics" is this.

Are all demographics of individuals treated equally or are there GREAT differences in discrimination and bigotry aimed towards one side or the other. At one point in time you told me that you did something int he past with statistics and as someone who claims to work in a laboratory wouldn't you know that to find the reason for certain things one must isolate a single factor? So if you had an experiment in the lab testing dozens of variables at the same time wouldn't you expect to have skewed results if you only looked at the results though the lens of a single variable?

If you are claiming that competent authorities are not competent then it is your burden to prove.

When the CDC says 4% of us that are homosexual produced 60% of new aids cases I take it as probably true. Even if they had some bias it is not going to explain the disparity in figures here from an organization like this. If you want to show me how the CDC got the numbers backwards then do so. However merely suggesting that bias exists somewhere will not do it.

Yes I am an electronics trouble shooter. I use patterns to identify problems efficiently. I have also had three college level classes on statistics and probability. Both make me even more accepting of the data I have used. I know where stats don't work, I know how the causes can be separated from incidental issues that are not causal, and I know what impact bias can have on data. Actually once you do it long enough these technical matters become feel. Just like the physics involved in a gold swing becomes automatic and a function of feel after a while. Yes I know and use what you have mentioned and my confidence in the primary health statistics has only grown because of that. If you would start posting reasons to think something is not right instead of suggesting that somewhere out there may be something wrong I can evaluate this much better. It is very unlikely the CDC is wrong. It is even more unlikely that even if wrong they are that wrong. But if they are wrong then how and how do you know?

 

[ahamtatsat]

Ti've bumped into some heavily anti-gay people on various sites over the years (who hasn't) and i always get themto stop when they throw their alleged "christian" (how would Jesus attack gay people- bumper sticker?) arguments at me.TThis is the gist of my response.

"Your Bible says that gays are an abomination and need to be stoned. In the surrounding verses people that wear two (shudder) types of clothing AT THE SAME TIME (nearly fainted THERE!) are an abomination, and need stoning. No, not to get stoned as in high, but as in beaten to death with thrown projectiles of geologic nature. Did you ever plant a beet seed - and did you know that it is a CLUSTER of seeds? OH NO! That means you put more than one seed into a hole and YOU became an abomination - and guess what?

"Well, here is the good news: WE ARE NOT LIVING IN ISRAEL CIRCA 1200 BC OR SOMETHING so YOU don't need to get killed, and don't have the "right" to kill others for those stupid reasons either. I'd say i'm sorry, but i want to be honest here and i don't regret that aspect of modern times."

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nope, I said describing some of the damage is too disgusting to do for me. I am simply not going into Gerbils, light bulbs, warts etc...... I am not exposed to any of the sexual acts so they offend me very little. Of course I find them so unappealing they baffle me but I was talking about the results not the acts.

No that is what you acting like it is. It is a homosexual thread.

I do have a problem with it. That problem has no relevance to my argument. Even if I was secular I should be put off by the behavior. What I think about a behavior is not driven by and does not produce what I think about a person. I hate and condemn many things I have done but I don't hate myself.

My primary claim is a cost benefit analysis. The only time I am not discussing it is because others have abandoned the attempt to contend with it and instead have opted to kill the messenger. I have been correcting them as I felt like doing but my purpose here is a secular argument not defending against or making personal commentaries.

I know and agree but in another post you seem to suggest I think the opposite.

That is like supporting theft because it reduces incarcerations. The only thing of interest to me about this is why. I can't think of any reason this would be true though I think it probably is. Killing everyone who gets divorced would lower the divorce rate so by your logical I should support that.

It has always been though my initial investigation did not lead me to believe it would be.

What part of I did not make the argument means I am for a thing? Come off it.

That is absurd. There are gains to all kinds of things we do not accept. The reason drugs are so bad is because they work. When me mother was dying I by accident found that pain killers helped my depression. I eventually started taking them for only that reason and they actually helped without any serious effects in my specific situation but that does not make them right in general. The case is far worse for homosexuality. There are gains and there are justifying gains.

No, I am an equal opportunity offender. I "rail" against whatever wrong I happen to be exposed to a debate setting. Never seen a thread on promiscuity.

No I do not. I do not recall having ever said that before. Find any post in the past 10,000 where I mentioned secondary pillars before this. I called a stalemate for the time being on divorce rates but considered what it would mean if they are not what I have said. I determined it would have a very minimal impact on my argument which is mainly supported by other things. This is a fact and so I mentioned it. You are not sorry for addressing it nor did I suggest you should be. Get a grip. I gave you at least as much credit as what you posted deserved.

It most certainly was and the later most certainly was not. You are the first to even potentially dent one the secondary supports of my argument. That is all that has occurred so far.

Doctors disclosing general details about general behaviors have not done anything wrong or illegal. They in fact do so in published journals every single day. In fact that is the basis for the entire medical field.

In my analogy yes. In an actual ring I would have been out in 10 seconds.

Nope, you potentially dented (or perhaps even negated) a secondary issue that supports my claims among many others and several primary supports. My argument stands until the primary supports are all destroyed and no one has dented one yet.

I'm sorry, I can't address all this now. But as to the bolded part, look further down in your post to the underlined part. There's just one example.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If you are claiming that competent authorities are not competent then it is your burden to prove.

When the CDC says 4% of us that are homosexual produced 60% of new aids cases I take it as probably true. Even if they had some bias it is not going to explain the disparity in figures here from an organization like this. If you want to show me how the CDC got the numbers backwards then do so. However merely suggesting that bias exists somewhere will not do it.

Yes I am an electronics trouble shooter. I use patterns to identify problems efficiently. I have also had three college level classes on statistics and probability. Both make me even more accepting of the data I have used. I know where stats don't work, I know how the causes can be separated from incidental issues that are not causal, and I know what impact bias can have on data. Actually once you do it long enough these technical matters become feel. Just like the physics involved in a gold swing becomes automatic and a function of feel after a while. Yes I know and use what you have mentioned and my confidence in the primary health statistics has only grown because of that. If you would start posting reasons to think something is not right instead of suggesting that somewhere out there may be something wrong I can evaluate this much better. It is very unlikely the CDC is wrong. It is even more unlikely that even if wrong they are that wrong. But if they are wrong then how and how do you know?

You are so full of it. No one, and I repeat, no one in this thread has stated (at least that I have read) that the CDC was wrong. That is not my position. My position is that YOU are wrong. You are not synonymous with the CDC and you are not repeating what they say. You have added on your own arguments that are both fallacious and incorrect based off of misinterpreting the data from the CDC.

I liked the shirt's analogy earlier. Just because HIV is transmuted more by homosexuals does not mean it was caused by homosexuality? Why because we are ignoring many other measurable factors. All of which you simply ignore and fall behind the CDC as if it protected your argument (which it does not).

Lets take African Americans for example. In America they are far more likely to commit a crime than Caucasians on average. They are also far more likely to be convicted. This is supported by data. Do you assume that African Americans are simply more violent and more prone to commit crimes? Or is it that a disproportional amount of African Americans live in poverty or near poverty and it is statistically proven that this directly corrolates with crime? And why do so many live in poverty or near poverty? There could be several arguments made. My favorite is that they were slaves in this country till 150 years ago and then they suffered a hundred years of law based oppression and it wasn't till the 60's that they got equal rights. And even then racism continued to thwart advances by African Americans to get better jobs till very very recently. And this kind of systematic oppression doesn't simply disappear even after much of the racism is gone. The cycle of poverty is a strong one.

But no we should assume that All African Americans are prone to commit crimes. That is what the data supports. Is that right? Or would you like to amend your position on homosexuality? Or surely you have other supporting data other than the CDC to link causality to THAT particular variable?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

no one in this thread has stated (at least that I have read) that the CDC was wrong.

I did. Not only is a government source, which should automatically raise all the red flags you have and be sufficient enough reason to examine the claim underneath a microscope, it is a statistic that is that only works when examined from a certain angle. The whole "lies, damn lies, and statistics" thing. Maybe 60% of new HIV cases in America are homosexual men. It hardly proves any sort of causation, it doesn't suggest HIV is a "gay disease," and it's just looking at America.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I did. Not only is a government source, which should automatically raise all the red flags you have and be sufficient enough reason to examine the claim underneath a microscope, it is a statistic that is that only works when examined from a certain angle. The whole "lies, damn lies, and statistics" thing. Maybe 60% of new HIV cases in America are homosexual men. It hardly proves any sort of causation, it doesn't suggest HIV is a "gay disease," and it's just looking at America.

Alright so one person is saying the CDC was wrong. However that doesn't change the fact that my argument has never been against the CDC as if the numbers are correct or not the bias caused by alternative factors that are not being considered make them null in void anyway.

 

[1robin]

You are so full of it. No one, and I repeat, no one in this thread has stated (at least that I have read) that the CDC was wrong. That is not my position. My position is that YOU are wrong. You are not synonymous with the CDC and you are not repeating what they say. You have added on your own arguments that are both fallacious and incorrect based off of misinterpreting the data from the CDC.

My entire position comes from statistics from the CDC and
equally competent authorities. I don't know what you specifically said but my sources (the CDC being the primary one) HAVE been constantly dismissed. They have as of yet to give a single reason to dismiss them. They just say that bias exists in the world so any inconvenient statistics are ignored. In fact he statistic I post by far the most is a CDC statistic and all that I need to justify my position.

1. In the US the 4% of us that are homosexual produce 60% of new aids cases.

I liked the shirt's analogy earlier. Just because HIV is transmuted more by homosexuals does not mean it was caused by homosexuality? Why because we are ignoring many other measurable factors. All of which you simply ignore and fall behind the CDC as if it protected your argument (which it does not).

I know what produced it (using monkey blood serum in polio vaccines, it contained HIV but monkeys are immune) but that was not the point. Homosexuality spread the disease at a much higher rate than heterosexuality and does not contain any justification for that cost. It is human suffering and monetary costs I was using in my argument not how diseases came into existence. In this case perhaps it was overzealous evolutionists who thought monkey blood serum should be the same as Human.

Lets take African Americans for example. In America they are far more likely to commit a crime than Caucasians on average. They are also far more likely to be convicted. This is supported by data. Do you assume that African Americans are simply more violent and more prone to commit crimes? Or is it that a disproportional amount of African Americans live in poverty or near poverty and it is statistically proven that this directly corrolates with crime? And why do so many live in poverty or near poverty? There could be several arguments made. My favorite is that they were slaves in this country till 150 years ago and then they suffered a hundred years of law based oppression and it wasn't till the 60's that they got equal rights. And even then racism continued to thwart advances by African Americans to get better jobs till very very recently. And this kind of systematic oppression doesn't simply disappear even after much of the racism is gone. The cycle of poverty is a strong one.

Of course skin pigmentation does not cause theft and color is not a behavior to begin with. Homosexuality of course is involved in fluid exchange in ways that result in HIV remission much greatest then heterosexuality and this is a behavior. So there is no equality here what so ever. The African American culture is the most affluent African culture group in history. This is not the subject and your the one who linked crime with color but I will give you a few things in my opinion that are contributing to this.

1. Welfare has been linked to the breakup of the family. The loss of family units and especially male authority figures lead to lawlessness.
2. Even when they have a father figure it is many times a bad one. A father with 4 different kids by 2 or 3 women and who hangs out at the club all night.
3. Poverty is a factor but poverty is also a symptom.
4. Modern society has given the modern African community which does not contain a single slave a sense of being the victim and entitled to things from people who have never owned a single slave.

IOW it is a social issue not a genetic issue. It is a choice but the behavior is all that can change (and I would condemn the behavior just as I do with homosexuality if we were in a thread on theft).

But no we should assume that All African Americans are prone to commit crimes. That is what the data supports. Is that right? Or would you like to amend your position on homosexuality? Or surely you have other supporting data other than the CDC to link causality to THAT particular variable?

You know the worst possible defense of X is the attempt to condemn Y. In legal circles it is a sure sign the defense has no case. I have explained why what you said it not an equality in any sense and so does not make a rational analogy. However even if it were true we can't change skin pigmentation but we can change sexual behavior. Not that I am proposing any solution at all. I do not need to be able to manufacture medicine to know I am sick.

After probably more than a hundred discussion on homosexuality. It is weird how a books worth of defense condenses down to only 3 or 4 points.

1. Homosexuality is good because something is else is bad. Pitiful.
2. Homosexuality in general is ok because some hypothetical sanitized sub group can be imagined where it would be less risky.
3. To counter, water down, slightly change, or just to even challenge alone, any one of the dozens of facts that support my position is enough to defeat them all without bothering to even attempt it.
or
4. Any gain (even if it is a theoretical gain) offsets any cost. Physical pleasure is apparently worth millions of deaths and billions of dollars (many times of those who do not even engage in the behavior.) Or to say love is involved (despite the fact that we can and do love things that are consider immoral, are self destructive, and that are illegal) is apparently worth people dying faster in African nations than they can be buried.


People dress them up in every conceivable outfit but they always use one of those few and ineffective tactics.

 

[McBell]

... all that I need to justify my position...

yet you go on and on and on and on....

 

[SkepticThinker]

My entire position comes from statistics from the CDC and
equally competent authorities. I don't know what you specifically said but my sources (the CDC being the primary one) HAVE been constantly dismissed. They have as of yet to give a single reason to dismiss them. They just say that bias exists in the world so any inconvenient statistics are ignored. In fact he statistic I post by far the most is a CDC statistic and all that I need to justify my position.

1. In the US the 4% of us that are homosexual produce 60% of new aids cases.

I know what produced it (using monkey blood serum in polio vaccines, it contained HIV but monkeys are immune) but that was not the point. Homosexuality spread the disease at a much higher rate than heterosexuality and does not contain any justification for that cost. It is human suffering and monetary costs I was using in my argument not how diseases came into existence. In this case perhaps it was overzealous evolutionists who thought monkey blood serum should be the same as Human.

Of course skin pigmentation does not cause theft and color is not a behavior to begin with. Homosexuality of course is involved in fluid exchange in ways that result in HIV remission much greatest then heterosexuality and this is a behavior. So there is no equality here what so ever. The African American culture is the most affluent African culture group in history. This is not the subject and your the one who linked crime with color but I will give you a few things in my opinion that are contributing to this.

1. Welfare has been linked to the breakup of the family. The loss of family units and especially male authority figures lead to lawlessness.
2. Even when they have a father figure it is many times a bad one. A father with 4 different kids by 2 or 3 women and who hangs out at the club all night.
3. Poverty is a factor but poverty is also a symptom.
4. Modern society has given the modern African community which does not contain a single slave a sense of being the victim and entitled to things from people who have never owned a single slave.

IOW it is a social issue not a genetic issue. It is a choice but the behavior is all that can change (and I would condemn the behavior just as I do with homosexuality if we were in a thread on theft).

You know the worst possible defense of X is the attempt to condemn Y. In legal circles it is a sure sign the defense has no case. I have explained why what you said it not an equality in any sense and so does not make a rational analogy. However even if it were true we can't change skin pigmentation but we can change sexual behavior. Not that I am proposing any solution at all. I do not need to be able to manufacture medicine to know I am sick.

After probably more than a hundred discussion on homosexuality. It is weird how a books worth of defense condenses down to only 3 or 4 points.

1. Homosexuality is good because something is else is bad. Pitiful.
2. Homosexuality in general is ok because some hypothetical sanitized sub group can be imagined where it would be less risky.
3. To counter, water down, slightly change, or just to even challenge alone, any one of the dozens of facts that support my position is enough to defeat them all without bothering to even attempt it.
or
4. Any gain (even if it is a theoretical gain) offsets any cost. Physical pleasure is apparently worth millions of deaths and billions of dollars (many times of those who do not even engage in the behavior.) Or to say love is involved (despite the fact that we can and do love things that are consider immoral, are self destructive, and that are illegal) is apparently worth people dying faster in African nations than they can be buried.


People dress them up in every conceivable outfit but they always use one of those few and ineffective tactics.

Ummm, I'm not so sure that hypothesis has really panned out. I think the current leading hypothesis is the "hunter theory" where hunters contracted the virus from butchering and ingesting the meat of infected chimpanzees. I'm not so sure what "overzealous evolutionists" have to do with it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

My entire position comes from statistics from the CDC and
equally competent authorities. I don't know what you specifically said but my sources (the CDC being the primary one) HAVE been constantly dismissed. They have as of yet to give a single reason to dismiss them. They just say that bias exists in the world so any inconvenient statistics are ignored. In fact he statistic I post by far the most is a CDC statistic and all that I need to justify my position.

1. In the US the 4% of us that are homosexual produce 60% of new aids cases.

You keep citing this number as though the rest of the world doesn't exist. There's a lot more world out there than just the US. Talk about dismissing "inconvenient statistics."

After probably more than a hundred discussion on homosexuality. It is weird how a books worth of defense condenses down to only 3 or 4 points.

1. Homosexuality is good because something is else is bad. Pitiful.

You're not getting it. What is being said (at least by me) is that you are talking about HUMAN behavior, not homosexual or heterosexual behavior. You clearly have a problem with promiscuity and risky sexual behavior, in general. Your comparison between heterosexual and homosexual is faulty.

2. Homosexuality in general is ok because some hypothetical sanitized sub group can be imagined where it would be less risky.

These "hypothetical sanitized sub groups" actually exist, and we're wondering why you continually ignore them in favour of dissing mainly male-male relationships.

3. To counter, water down, slightly change, or just to even challenge alone, any one of the dozens of facts that support my position is enough to defeat them all without bothering to even attempt it.

I've challenged many more than just one of your "facts" over the very long period of time the two of us have been having this discussion. And yet you keep saying things like this.

or
4. Any gain (even if it is a theoretical gain) offsets any cost. Physical pleasure is apparently worth millions of deaths and billions of dollars (many times of those who do not even engage in the behavior.) Or to say love is involved (despite the fact that we can and do love things that are consider immoral, are self destructive, and that are illegal) is apparently worth people dying faster in African nations than they can be buried.

Where do you come up with this "physical pleasure is worth millions of deaths and billions of dollars" baloney? Why do you think we're talking about mere physical pleasure when it comes to homosexual relationships but not when we talking about heterosexual relationships? I see you threw love in there but only in reference to the love of immoral things. Loving another human being is immoral? Leading a fulfilling life without having to hide who you are from the world is immoral? Wishing to not be ostracized and demonized for existing is immoral? I really don't think you're getting it.

If you want to talk about Africa, you're going to have to wake up to the reality that HIV/AIDS is NOT primarily a homosexual problem on that continent.

People dress them up in every conceivable outfit but they always use one of those few and ineffective tactics.

Yes they do. We can refer to your posts on the subject for that.