Indiana GOP passes law making it a crime for clergy to perform gay weddings

Papa bull · Jul 17, 2013

roguenuke said:
A theory has evidence to support it and no evidence against it. The theory of genetics influencing personality traits, including sexuality and attraction, has a lot of evidence to support it and no real evidence against it. You don't want to believe it, fine. But you obviously can't refute it with real evidence.

You are equivocating. You use the word "theory" imply scientific theory and, therefore, validate your claims. Now you use the loose meaning of the word "theory" because genetic theory regarding homosexuality has NOT been validated. This is classic equivocation and is fallacious argumentation.

Papa bull · Jul 17, 2013

zgoldsmith23 said:
No, there's scientific theories, not hypotheses. Genetics, epigenetics, and social upbringing can all play a role.

Very well. We know that a theory is formally validated. Can you cite the formally validated theory of the cause of homosexuality?

Here. I'll help: https://www.google.com/webhp?source...,pv.xjs.s.en_US.QXiTEk6XjhM.O&biw=853&bih=597

Note that there are numerous "theories", including "new" theories. There is no scientific theory with multiple contradicting theories. Does that give you a clue as to how scientifically the word "theory" is used in these headlines?

zgoldsmith23 · Jul 17, 2013

Papa bull said:
Very well. We know that a theory is formally validated. Can you cite the formally validated theory of the cause of homosexuality?

Quote from myself, earlier. You just didn't like it.

zgoldsmith23 said:
I'm sorry you're ignorant of modern science.

"Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences." Source.

"Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and 64–.66 for unique environmental factors. Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior." Source.

"Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences have any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation (Bell and Weinberg, 1978).

It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by genetic factors (Mustanski et al, 2005) and/or the early uterine environment (Blanchard et al. 2006)." Source.

Here's plenty of publications on the matter:

BMC Genetics | Full text | Male-like sexual behavior of female mouse lacking fucose mutarotase
A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation - Springer
Extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation in mothers of homosexual men - Springer
Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity.
PsychiatryOnline | American Journal of Psychiatry | Sexual Orientation in a U.S. National Sample of Twin and Nontwin Sibling Pairs

That should keep you busy. Of course, you also have to explain away the homosexual behavior found in other animals that are not able to choose. Read these:

Homosexuality Common in the Wild, Scientists Say | Fox News
1,500 animal species practice homosexuality
Neural control of homosexual courtship in Droso... [J Neurogenet. 1989] - PubMed - NCBI

Papa bull · Jul 17, 2013

zgoldsmith23 said:
Quote from myself, earlier. You just didn't like it.

Here's plenty of publications on the matter:

BMC Genetics | Full text | Male-like sexual behavior of female mouse lacking fucose mutarotase
A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation - Springer
Extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation in mothers of homosexual men - Springer
Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity.
PsychiatryOnline | American Journal of Psychiatry | Sexual Orientation in a U.S. National Sample of Twin and Nontwin Sibling Pairs

That should keep you busy. Of course, you also have to explain away the homosexual behavior found in other animals that are not able to choose. Read these:

Homosexuality Common in the Wild, Scientists Say | Fox News
1,500 animal species practice homosexuality
Neural control of homosexual courtship in Droso... [J Neurogenet. 1989] - PubMed - NCBI

So you don't have an actual theory. You've got "links". Lots of "links". None of which actually go to a validated theory. Because there ISN'T one. Thanks for playing.

Dittohead not! · Jul 17, 2013

The question of the evolutionary advantage of homosexuality has been the subject of a lot of study, and much speculation. The bottom line is that no one really knows how, but, for homosexuality to have survived, it must have some sort of survival advantage.

Here's a discussion, for anyone willing to take the time to read what science has to say about the issue:

The Evolutionary Mystery of Homosexuality

Some excerpts:

First the mystery.

The sine qua non for any trait to have evolved is for it to correlate positively with reproductive success, or, more precisely, with success in projecting genes relevant to that trait into the future. So, if homosexuality is in any sense a product of evolution—and it clearly is, for reasons to be explained—then genetic factors associated with same-sex preference must enjoy some sort of reproductive advantage. The problem should be obvious: If homosexuals reproduce less than heterosexuals—and they do—then why has natural selection not operated against it?

Nor can we solve the mystery by arguing that homosexuality is a "learned" behavior. That ship has sailed, and the consensus among scientists is that same-sex preference is rooted in our biology. Some of the evidence comes from the widespread distribution of homosexuality among animals in the wild. Moreover, witness its high and persistent cross-cultural existence in Homo sapiens.

One study has found that female relatives of gay men have more children than do those of straight men. This suggests that genes for homosexuality, although disadvantageous for gay men and their male relatives, could have a reproductive benefit among straight women.

zgoldsmith23 · Jul 17, 2013

Papa bull said:
So you don't have an actual theory. You've got "links". Lots of "links". None of which actually go to a validated theory. Because there ISN'T one. Thanks for playing.

Well, I know you didn't read those papers as that's 2 - 3 papers per minute. Why don't you quit being dishonest and just admit you don't want your opinion questioned?

shrubnose · Jul 17, 2013

rocket88 said:
Indiana GOP passes law making it a crime for clergy to marry gays

Speaking of ****ting all over religious freedom ... I thought the GOP was all about that, guess not when it comes to gays.

Granted, not the most unbiased source in the world. However, don't you think that a religion should be free to perform a religious ceremony?

What does the First Amendment say?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." ~Text of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution

It looks to me like this new Indiana law violates the First Amendment.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Papa bull · Jul 17, 2013

Dittohead not! said:
The question of the evolutionary advantage of homosexuality has been the subject of a lot of study, and much speculation. The bottom line is that no one really knows how, but, for homosexuality to have survived, it must have some sort of survival advantage.

Here's a discussion, for anyone willing to take the time to read what science has to say about the issue:

The Evolutionary Mystery of Homosexuality

Some excerpts:

First the mystery.

I disagree that for a behavioral trait to survive that it must have an evolutionary advantage. It is behavior. If it is genetic, it would likely not survive at all and I think we can eliminate genetics as the cause. If you can't think of any behavioral traits that humans have that have no evolutionary advantage, let me suggest a few: drug use, incest, pedophelia, suicide. These are things people have been doing for all of recorded history without any evolutionary advantage associated with them.

On another note... why is any study that supports one's own theories presented as what "science has to say", as though anything any "scientist" or group of "scientists" postulates is the official message of "science"? Whassupwithat?

Papa bull · Jul 17, 2013

zgoldsmith23 said:
Well, I know you didn't read those papers as that's 2 - 3 papers per minute. Why don't you quit being dishonest and just admit you don't want your opinion questioned?

I don't need to read the papers. There is no validated theory and that's the point of the argument. The "links" were smokescreens and busy-work. Diversion is a popular tactic for those with lost positions.

If you have the one, true, valid scientific theory of homosexuality, cough it up. Lots of links to lots of hypotheses being erroneously CALLED theories isn't going to cut it.

zgoldsmith23 · Jul 17, 2013

Papa bull said:
I don't need to read the papers. There is no validated theory and that's the point of the argument. The "links" were smokescreens and busy-work. Diversion is a popular tactic for those with lost positions.

Links aren't smokescreens. They are scientific explorations in to the very think you denounce. You not liking something is not evidence there's not a validated theory. Now, read those papers, please. If you have any critcisms of the papers (after you've read them, of course) then why don't you bring it up? Perhaps you could get a grant and do research - just kidding, you're no scientist.

What if...? · Jul 17, 2013

Dittohead not! said:
The question of the evolutionary advantage of homosexuality has been the subject of a lot of study, and much speculation. The bottom line is that no one really knows how, but, for homosexuality to have survived, it must have some sort of survival advantage.

Here's a discussion, for anyone willing to take the time to read what science has to say about the issue:

The Evolutionary Mystery of Homosexuality

Some excerpts:

First the mystery.

Seems like the "harem" phenomenon might have something to do with it.

The strongest males claiming all the women for themselves.

Leaves a bunch of males with no sexual outlet and a bunch of women with only one between them.

Over thousands of generations, a homosexual "option" for those not getting any or enough may serve to strengthen a social animal as a species, if not as an individual.

Doesn't much animal homosexuality manifest when population densities are high or male/female ratios are severely out of balance?

Papa bull · Jul 17, 2013

zgoldsmith23 said:
Links aren't smokescreens. They are scientific explorations in to the very think you denounce. You not liking something is not evidence there's not a validated theory. Now, read those papers, please. If you have any critcisms of the papers (after you've read them, of course) then why don't you bring it up? Perhaps you could get a grant and do research - just kidding, you're no scientist.

There is no validated scientific theory. There are many hypothesis ranging from psychological to biological. But there is no true scientific theory. Why are you so reluctant to admit this true fact?

zgoldsmith23 · Jul 17, 2013

Papa bull said:
There is no validated scientific theory. There are many hypothesis ranging from psychological to biological. But there is no true scientific theory. Why are you so reluctant to admit this true fact?

I'm reluctant to admit it because it's not true. Those "hypotheses" aren't hypotheses at all, but are theory based on evidence. The theory includes genetics, epigenetics, and environmental factors - why are you so reluctant to admit this?

Papa bull · Jul 17, 2013

What if...? said:
Seems like the "harem" phenomenon might have something to do with it.

The strongest males claiming all the women for themselves.

Leaves a bunch of males with no sexual outlet and a bunch of women with only one between them.

Over thousands of generations, a homosexual "option" for those not getting any or enough may serve to strengthen a social animal as a species, if not as an individual.

Doesn't much animal homosexuality manifest when population densities are high or male/female ratios are severely out of balance?

It does seem to be a behavioral phenomenon much more than a biological imperative. Your example seems to have a parallel in prison environments.

Papa bull · Jul 17, 2013

zgoldsmith23 said:
I'm reluctant to admit it because it's not true. Those "hypotheses" aren't hypotheses at all, but are theory based on evidence. The theory includes genetics, epigenetics, and environmental factors - why are you so reluctant to admit this?

If you want to equate your multiple "theories" of homosexual genesis to actual validated scientific theory, there is no point in debate because honest debate is not possible if you cannot accept true facts.

Here is how a SCIENTIST explains their research.

“It’s not genetics. It’s not DNA. It’s not pieces of DNA. It’s epigenetics,” says Sergey Gavrilets, a NIMBioS researcher and an author on the paper that outlines the new theory of homosexuality, published in The Quarterly Review of Biology. “The hypothesis we put forward is based on epigenetic marks,” he says.

Read more: New Insight into the (Epi)Genetic Roots of Homosexuality | TIME.com

Note that the SCIENTIST calls it what it really is: A hypothesis. Note that the article wrongly calls it a "theory" many times in spite of that FACT. Note that the researcher, himself, states that it is NOT genetics. It's not DNA. It's not even a part of DNA. Not according to their research. They do have a hypothesis, but it's certainly not a "theory".

If you want to pretend to be discussing this rationally, you should at least try to understand the words you are using and their implications. If you want to pretend to honestly discuss this, then you should at least acknowledge true facts when presented.

At this point, I am convinced you are not interested in either honest OR rational discussion on this. And the pretense of either one is utterly transparent.

Somerville · Jul 17, 2013

Oftencold said:
Two persons "who love each other" can form a club and join it together. There now, they're joined.

Marriage hover, is for eligible and willing men and women. Only Moderns would need these things explained.

I'll ask it again; (bigger this time, maybe you missed it before as you didn't answer the question)

How does legal same sex marriage harm you and yours?

zgoldsmith23 · Jul 17, 2013

Papa bull said:
If you want to equate your multiple "theories" of homosexual genesis to actual validated scientific theory, there is no point in debate because honest debate is not possible if you cannot accept true facts.

Here is how a SCIENTIST explains their research.

Again, you don't post the journal articles? Why is that? It's also strange the own author uses theory. Oh, and by the way, that study was already published - before your little non-scientific piece was. That shows how informed you are. JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Note that the SCIENTIST calls it what it really is: A hypothesis. Note that the article wrongly calls it a "theory" many times in spite of that FACT. Note that the researcher, himself, states that it is NOT genetics. It's not DNA. It's not even a part of DNA. Not according to their research. They do have a hypothesis, but it's certainly not a "theory".

If you want to pretend to be discussing this rationally, you should at least try to understand the words you are using and their implications. If you want to pretend to honestly discuss this, then you should at least acknowledge true facts when presented.

At this point, I am convinced you are not interested in either honest OR rational discussion on this.

Again, very strange he says it's not DNA. One of the very own sources from the publication states that " Nonetheless, there is now clear evidence that environmentally induced epigenetic modifications of genes expressed in male mice (e.g., DNA methylation; Franklin et al. 2010) that feminize their brains and behavior can be transgenerationally inherited by their offspring (Morgan and Bale 2011)." Source and source.

You've just shown you are not really interested in honest debate, but will find slivers of information that help you back up your misguided opinion.

Papa bull · Jul 17, 2013

zgoldsmith23 said:
You've just shown you are not really interested in honest debate, but will find slivers of information that help you back up your misguided opinion.

Yeah, slivers of information like the definition of "scientific theory".

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid - See more at: What is a Scientific Theory? | Definition of Theory | LiveScience

One last time. Show me where any of the "theories" you've posted links to has been accepted and validated as a scientific theory. I've been asking this for a half a dozen posts or so and you keep coming back with obfusctation instead of the proof you need to maintain your position that there is a valid homosexual genesis THEORY. You know... the sort of "theory" that you can put on the same level of faith as evolution, relativity or fluid mechanics; the sort of "theory" that you can claim to be the default truth instead of a mere postulate that has yet to be properly tested by scientific method.

davidtaylorjr · Jul 17, 2013

roguenuke said:
I was wrong about the fact that none of the apostles had met Paul. (Some had.) I was not wrong about the fact that Paul never met Jesus. He claims to have had a vision of Jesus (and even that is sketchy). I'm willing to bet that he was able to convince the apostles he did meet of what he believed and then started manipulating them, considering they knew he never actually met Jesus. People were much less skeptical back then. Someone said they saw Jesus and he spoke to them, they were probably very likely to believe them (especially those who themselves believed that they saw Jesus after his death).

Things that people write are almost certainly going to have them appear to be in the right, the person on the positive or just side of a situation. We see this in the Bible. It is all just opinions of men. It includes their biases, prejudices, personal beliefs, insecurities, and faults.

It is merely your opinion that he never saw Jesus.

What if...? · Jul 17, 2013

Papa bull said:
It does seem to be a behavioral phenomenon much more than a biological imperative. Your example seems to have a parallel in prison environments.

Many behaviors have a genetic origin. ALL instinctive ones do.

Humans are able to accept or reject "instinctive" behaviors. But that doesn't mean we don't have them.

Lemmings don't ALWAYS run off the cliff, just when population gets too dense. Running off a cliff isn't an INDIVIDUAL survival trait but a SPECIES one.

zgoldsmith23 · Jul 17, 2013

Papa bull said:
Yeah, slivers of information like the definition of "scientific theory".

One last time. Show me where any of the "theories" you've posted links to has been accepted and validated as a scientific theory. I've been asking this for a half a dozen posts or so and you keep coming back with obfusctation instead of the proof you need to maintain your position that there is a valid homosexual genesis THEORY. You know... the sort of "theory" that you can put on the same level of faith as evolution, relativity or fluid mechanics; the sort of "theory" that you can claim to be the default truth instead of a mere postulate that has yet to be properly tested by scientific method.

I'm well aware of the definition of "scientific theory" if that's what you're trying to imply.

You ask for proof when dealing with science? How ignorant. I've presented this repeatedly but you refuse to read it. Those papers all contain evidence, you just seem to not want to read them. And, yes, it has been tested by the scientific method .... that's why there are scientific papers on the matters.

Papa bull · Jul 17, 2013

What if...? said:
Many behaviors have a genetic origin. ALL instinctive ones do.

I agree.

Humans are able to accept or reject "instinctive" behaviors. But that doesn't mean we don't have them.

I agree again.

Lemmings don't ALWAYS run off the cliff, just when population gets too dense. Running off a cliff isn't an INDIVIDUAL survival trait but a SPECIES one.

Actually, it's not a "trait" at all, let alone a survival trait. The misconception that lemmings leap off cliffs to commit suicide when populations get too dense has been throughly debunked. In fact, the film that popularized it "White Wilderness" won an academy award but faked the "mass suicides". It faked the mass migration and actually had lemmings launched off the cliffs with a turntable. Interesting even if it's not got much to do with the topic at hand.

Dittohead not! · Jul 17, 2013

Papa bull said:
I disagree that for a behavioral trait to survive that it must have an evolutionary advantage. It is behavior. If it is genetic, it would likely not survive at all and I think we can eliminate genetics as the cause. If you can't think of any behavioral traits that humans have that have no evolutionary advantage, let me suggest a few: drug use, incest, pedophelia, suicide. These are things people have been doing for all of recorded history without any evolutionary advantage associated with them.

On another note... why is any study that supports one's own theories presented as what "science has to say", as though anything any "scientist" or group of "scientists" postulates is the official message of "science"? Whassupwithat?

Good to know that you disagree.

You're still wrong, of course, but by all means, disagree away. Lots of people disagree with science, while using automobiles, airplanes, computers, and, of course, fire.

Oh, and I'd be willing to bet that you didn't read the article I linked to.

Papa bull · Jul 17, 2013

zgoldsmith23 said:
I'm well aware of the definition of "scientific theory" if that's what you're trying to imply.

You ask for proof when dealing with science? How ignorant.

There is nothing ignorant about asking for proof when dealing with science.

But there is something ignorant about insinuating valid scientific theory when "proposed hypothesis" is actually correct. There is no settled science on the genesis of homosexuality. That's why there are so many qualifiers used when discussing what people "think" or "believe" causes homosexuality. Science still doesn't know, despite lots of "theories" that aren't actually validated theories at all.

zgoldsmith23 · Jul 17, 2013

Papa bull said:
There is nothing ignorant about asking for proof when dealing with science.

But there is something ignorant about insinuating valid scientific theory when "proposed hypothesis" is actually correct. There is no settled science on the genesis of homosexuality. That's why there are so many qualifiers used when discussing what people "think" or "believe" causes homosexuality. Science still doesn't know, despite lots of "theories" that aren't actually validated theories at all.

Science doesn't dwell in "proof" - proofs are for logic, mathematics, and law. Try again.

And, it's further than a proposed hypothesis. A hypothesis has not been tested. Again, read those papers - they have evidence within them.

Indiana GOP passes law making it a crime for clergy to perform gay weddings

Papa bull

Papa bull

zgoldsmith23

Antichrist

Papa bull

Dittohead not!

master political analyst

zgoldsmith23

Antichrist

shrubnose

Papa bull

Papa bull

zgoldsmith23

Antichrist

What if...?

Papa bull

zgoldsmith23

Antichrist

Papa bull

Papa bull

Somerville

zgoldsmith23

Antichrist

Papa bull

davidtaylorjr

Well-known member

What if...?

zgoldsmith23

Antichrist

Papa bull

Dittohead not!

master political analyst

Papa bull

zgoldsmith23

Antichrist