Intuition? How about we play, and you tell me of an evolutionary mechanism that would support a primarily homosexual method for admixing genes? Yeah thought so..
You've already demonstrated that, while you believe in evolution, you only believe ideas that don't conflict with your beliefs, which I suspect you've internalized, making changing your mind about more than a simple change of an opinion, vut a change in your identity.
Can it? Social changes like this rarely yield results quickly. However, we can look at nations that have exclusively embraced homosexualism such as the Netherlands for clues; we see an increase of out of wedlock births in the last 15 years to the tune of 50%. In other words, marriage, as it was in Holland, doesn't seem to mean what it used to. Holland's population, like many European nations is being propped up by Muslim immigration. ironic, eh?
All joking aside, you seem like a reasonably intelligent person, which is why it surprises me that you didn't anticipate my response to what you just wrote. Correlation does not prove causation.
So? How does opposing it make someone a bigot?
I don't think I ever actually called you a bigot, though I did accuse you of walking a fine line. Having said that, I think the term is casually tossed around to the point that it's intended meaning is lost. Are you a bigot? Perhaps, but I really wouldn't pretend to know you. I'll concede that maybe your not.
Convenient, and how thoughtful of you, but frankly, I've forgotten more about the topic of homosexuality both scientifically, and psychologically, than you'll ever know. All you can do is exactly what I stated which is point to studies that are methodologically flawed as to be mostly useless, and scientific hypothesis' that are not reproducible, rest mostly on conjecture, and assumptions, and as of yet, entirely 100% unverifiable. Next?
LOL, yikes, I think I hit a nerve. Apparently you know me.... Yes you can find flaws in everything that doesn't meet with your approval. It's amazing that you believe that anything can be known at all.
Yes, that's why I qualified my statement with all things being equal.. I am aware and I agree that a loving parent, or parents that truly care for their children are better than those that don't, but isn't that stating the obvious. I try not to be pretentious when making assertions, as not to be impolite to my audience.
Touche...
All things being equal does not mean that if they aren't equal that they are bad...
Far as impolite, I guess you justify impoliteness on your perceived impoliteness in my previous post? Ok fair enough...But you took the low road...
The difference in that our seedy side doesn't define us as a group.
So seedy lifestyles define people as groups? Really? Wow. Your a piece of work.
And yet you come at me as if I'm some ignorant knuckle dragging know nothing, and yet, you're barely aware of what's actually happening right now in many states. Indoctrination by presenting a singular rosey viewpoint of homosexuality without a qualified alternative opinion is institutionalizing by definition.
"Knuckle dragging know-nothing"....lol...That was good.
Having grown up in the presence of several LGBT people who were good people. They weren't seedy or perverted. They were just people. Because I don't consider information about the acceptance of people free choices in order to break cultural and religious stereotypes as "indoctrination, your right I don't concern myself with it. If you'd like to enlighten me, I will evaluate it and we can continue this discussion....
Peer review by an APA sponsored group or publication with skin in the game is as equally meaningless when attempting to unveil the truth. You're psychological peer review is as equally religious as any Christian opinion. They both rely on a faith in their opinions and speculation.
Again with this "nothing can be know crap"...Moving on.
No, you and others that knee jerk into anyone that disagrees with you are the ones walking the line, and I'd wager that I've proven that in regards to calling people bigots like dishing out candy, you've crossed the line, and I am here to put you back over it.
How's putting me "back over the line" work'in out for you?
All available evidence, on BOTH sides of the issue is haphazard, flawed, poorly misunderstood, and based on one's belief that they really wish it to be true. Whether it is true or can be verified as true doesn't seem to matter to those with skin in the game. I have no skin in the game, I am not a homosexual, nor do I care what they do on their own time, and I believe they have a right to be left alone as long as they're not hurting anyone, but I can't stand when the left attempts to brow beat those in opposition if nothing other than their own belief system, because under it all, and if you take the wrapping off, it's all just really a wanting to believe what they want to believe, but no authoritative reason to do so.
Since when has anyone who held an idea based on religious dogma been able to evaluate an idea objectively?
Having said that, I'll agree that their are "believers" on both sides. At the end of the day I'll err on the side of freedom, thx...
I wrote this in haste....wanted to get you a reply...Didn't proof read, apologies if there are typo's...
-Cheers.
eace
