• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

  • No

    Votes: 99 79.2%
  • Yes, explain

    Votes: 26 20.8%

  • Total voters
    125
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is the fundamental flaw of the liberal. Having a differing opinion means I am ignorant, correct? There have been studies that indicate that homosexuality may be a choice, and there have been studies that say it is a choice. There have been no conclusive studies that prove homosexuality is not a choice. At present, you are no more informed about that issue than is anyone else.

And you have just identified the fundamental flaws of conservatives like you:
1) Inability to listen.
2) Responding to what they want someone to have said, rather than what they really said.
3) When disagreed with, rather than actually debating the issue, go right for the partisan hackery.

I am far more informed about the topic than you. You demonstrate that when you use words like unnatural or unsavory to describe homosexuality.
 
This is the fundamental flaw of the liberal. Having a differing opinion means I am ignorant, correct? There have been studies that indicate that homosexuality may be a choice, and there have been studies that say it is a choice. There have been no conclusive studies that prove homosexuality is not a choice. At present, you are no more informed about that issue than is anyone else.

That's not entirely true.

The studies that have been conducted scientifically, with like... Actual doctors, and credible methods, without cherry picking the candidates or the numbers... Tends to show that it is indeed something physiological.

Yeah, there have been a ton of studies done on the matter, and yeah, they have findings that directly contradict one another. The sad reality is that not all studies people cite are actually worthy of citation.

It's unfortunate that people engage in intellectual dishonesty, but that's what happens, and it only serves to muddy the waters and hold our society back from progression towards a better culture.

That's not to say I think it's all one-sided, or that I'm even positive what the correct stance on the matter is. I'm just saying that the waters are very muddy because of the dishonesty - making it very difficult for those of us that do want to decide what is and isn't best for our society to figure out how to do so.
 
And you have just identified the fundamental flaws of conservatives like you:
1) Inability to listen.
2) Responding to what they want someone to have said, rather than what they really said.
3) When disagreed with, rather than actually debating the issue, go right for the partisan hackery.

I am far more informed about the topic than you. You demonstrate that when you use words like unnatural or unsavory to describe homosexuality.

It was you that implied an inability to listen when you said "I stopped reading after.."
I responded to what you did say, not what I wanted you to say. I did make an assumption however.
I am not a conservative in general, though I agree I may be considered so on this issue...and some others.

Lastly, I didn't refer to homosexuality as unnatural or unsavory. I refereed to disagreeing with it as I do to other acts which are unnatural or unsavory. It is you that jumped to conclusions. My thesis was a comparative study of over 50 studies of homosexuality completed within the last 120 years. It was not a study of homosexuality itself but rather an analysis of the results of other studies. There was not one study that conclusively stated that homosexuality is not a choice. I am, Sir, relatively informed on the issue.
 
This is the fundamental flaw of the liberal. Having a differing opinion means I am ignorant, correct? There have been studies that indicate that homosexuality may be a choice, and there have been studies that say it is a choice. There have been no conclusive studies that prove homosexuality is not a choice. At present, you are no more informed about that issue than is anyone else.

i suggest you read further than research which upholds your views.

Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity.

ScienceDirect - Hormones and Behavior : Fraternal Birth Order and the Maternal Immune Hypothesis of Male Homosexuality

SpringerLink - Journal Article
 
That's not entirely true.

The studies that have been conducted scientifically, with like... Actual doctors, and credible methods, without cherry picking the candidates or the numbers... Tends to show that it is indeed something physiological.

Yeah, there have been a ton of studies done on the matter, and yeah, they have findings that directly contradict one another. The sad reality is that not all studies people cite are actually worthy of citation.

It's unfortunate that people engage in intellectual dishonesty, but that's what happens, and it only serves to muddy the waters and hold our society back from progression towards a better culture.

That's not to say I think it's all one-sided, or that I'm even positive what the correct stance on the matter is. I'm just saying that the waters are very muddy because of the dishonesty - making it very difficult for those of us that do want to decide what is and isn't best for our society to figure out how to do so.

I agree to an extent. I have never accepted any study sponsored by a religious organization, for instance, as I know it to be highly biased. I would like a source for your assertion that there was a study concluding that homosexuality is physiological. I would like to read that study.
 

The top two studies take a genetic approach to what can as easily be explained as environmental influence. Such things as second sons being more likely to be homosexual can be as much explained as the environmental influence of having an older, domineering, brother as to some genetic implication. Regardless of any one persons analysis, the studies only indicate that "it may be possible that". Not conclusive enough for me.
 
I agree to an extent. I have never accepted any study sponsored by a religious organization, for instance, as I know it to be highly biased. I would like a source for your assertion that there was a study concluding that homosexuality is physiological. I would like to read that study.

Well, and there's the crux. The unfortunate reality of it is that there's a bunch of lying on both sides, and I haven't ever had the time to delve into the origins on many of the specific studies or methods on either side.

There are some studies out there that are very scientific and that have been done with a high degree of integrity. Unfortunately, most of us don't get access to them.

Generally there aren't links on the internet to credible scientific proof for any topic, much less homosexuality research. It just doesn't work that way.

Publications of scientific literature are costly - the investigations are costly, they take a lot of time, and the institutions that fund such research put a lot of resources into it. As a result, they want to get the most out of it.

Subsequently, in order for us to see the more significant and credible scientific studies on any topic, we usually need to have access to scientific journals, and that can be expensive.

So no, I can't really post any. For one thing, they're hard to come by. For another, while I support the notion of an integrated society, I have other priorities in my life and haven't allocated the time it would take to finding out if a given study on homosexuality is flawed or not.

I'm more interested in a couple of other topics, so those get the majority of my time, and analyzing a scientific study to see if the methods were credible or not is a pretty daunting task. In this case, it's expensive too.
 
Well, and there's the crux. The unfortunate reality of it is that there's a bunch of lying on both sides, and I haven't ever had the time to delve into the origins on many of the specific studies or methods on either side.

There are some studies out there that are very scientific and that have been done with a high degree of integrity. Unfortunately, most of us don't get access to them.

Generally there aren't links on the internet to credible scientific proof for any topic, much less homosexuality research. It just doesn't work that way.

Publications of scientific literature are costly - the investigations are costly, they take a lot of time, and the institutions that fund such research put a lot of resources into it. As a result, they want to get the most out of it.

Subsequently, in order for us to see the more significant and credible scientific studies on any topic, we usually need to have access to scientific journals, and that can be expensive.

So no, I can't really post any. For one thing, they're hard to come by. For another, while I support the notion of an integrated society, I have other priorities in my life and haven't allocated the time it would take to finding out if a given study on homosexuality is flawed or not.

I'm more interested in a couple of other topics, so those get the majority of my time, and analyzing a scientific study to see if the methods were credible or not is a pretty daunting task. In this case, it's expensive too.

I appreciate your honesty. In a nutshell, though, you can not factually conclude that either my statement is not entirely true or that there is conclusive data supporting a physiological cause for homosexuality. Correct?
 
The top two studies take a genetic approach to what can as easily be explained as environmental influence. Such things as second sons being more likely to be homosexual can be as much explained as the environmental influence of having an older, domineering, brother as to some genetic implication. Regardless of any one persons analysis, the studies only indicate that "it may be possible that". Not conclusive enough for me.

i can't rember in which link, but it does state that adopted younger siblings are immune to the effect, and what about the study that female relatives of homosexual males have ahigher fertility rate, which deomnstrates there is a biological link, and the reason homsexuality has survived darwinism.
 
I appreciate your honesty. In a nutshell, though, you can not factually conclude that either my statement is not entirely true or that there is conclusive data supporting a physiological cause for homosexuality. Correct?

I acknowledge that it's possible that I have drawn bad conclusions.

That said, I do believe that credible academic sources - sources that have historically proven themselves to be scrupulous and diligent in their work - have stated that the studies indicating homosexuality is hereditary are credible.

On one hand we can outright dismiss about 95% of studies done on the topic completely because they're simply crappy studies. The Kinsey Reports are a good example. So is most of the crap produced by Focus on the Family.

That leaves us with a smaller pool of studies, most of which neither you nor I have personal access to.

But institutions such as Harvard, Yale, UCLA, Georgetown and others - institutions that are credible, that know what they're doing, and that have a track record for "good science" have weighed in on the topic to tell people that yeah, the evidence really does tend to show a genetic link.

So no, I haven't personally seen the data or drawn a conclusion on the matter.

I also do not need to personally drown to know I can't breathe under water either.

We can't each individually investigate every issue of curiosity on the planet. We at some stage have to find consistently credible sources and take their word for it. Homosexuality and it's genetic links is one such issue I've chosen to do so on.
 
i can't rember in which link, but it does state that adopted younger siblings are immune to the effect, and what about the study that female relatives of homosexual males have ahigher fertility rate, which deomnstrates there is a biological link, and the reason homsexuality has survived darwinism.

Quoted from the conclusion of your top link:
"This is consistent
with theoretical and empirical studies, which show that
individual experiences are a powerful determinant of
human sexual behaviour and self-identity (Churchill 1967;
Enquist et al. 2002; for other species, see D’Udine & Alleva
1983; Hogan & Bolhius 1994). Indeed, it is still possible
that the higher incidence of homosexuality in the maternal
line results from culturally, rather than genetically, inherited
traits."

The other two say basically the same thing.
 
Quoted from the conclusion of your top link:
"This is consistent
with theoretical and empirical studies, which show that
individual experiences are a powerful determinant of
human sexual behaviour and self-identity (Churchill 1967;
Enquist et al. 2002; for other species, see D’Udine & Alleva
1983; Hogan & Bolhius 1994). Indeed, it is still possible
that the higher incidence of homosexuality in the maternal
line results from culturally, rather than genetically, inherited
traits."

The other two say basically the same thing.

"Possible" does not mean "likely."

Just puttin' that out there.

It's possible to flip a coin and have it come up heads ten times in a row too.

You do that for us. Come back and post when you're done.
 
I acknowledge that it's possible that I have drawn bad conclusions.

That said, I do believe that credible academic sources - sources that have historically proven themselves to be scrupulous and diligent in their work - have stated that the studies indicating homosexuality is hereditary are credible.

On one hand we can outright dismiss about 95% of studies done on the topic completely because they're simply crappy studies. The Kinsey Reports are a good example. So is most of the crap produced by Focus on the Family.

That leaves us with a smaller pool of studies, most of which neither you nor I have personal access to.

But institutions such as Harvard, Yale, UCLA, Georgetown and others - institutions that are credible, that know what they're doing, and that have a track record for "good science" have weighed in on the topic to tell people that yeah, the evidence really does tend to show a genetic link.

So no, I haven't personally seen the data or drawn a conclusion on the matter.

I also do not need to personally drown to know I can't breathe under water either.

We can't each individually investigate every issue of curiosity on the planet. We at some stage have to find consistently credible sources and take their word for it. Homosexuality and it's genetic links is one such issue I've chosen to do so on.

Well, at risk of repeating myself, my thesis was an analytical study of The attempt find a genetic cause for homosexuality. I personally read hundreds of peer reviewed studies on the issue and while many said that there may be a genetic link to homosexuality all said that environmental factors played a greater roll. Most people jump on the fact that scientists are trying to prove a link as "gospel" that there is a link. So far there is no "gay gene." One also has to factor in the scientific community's sometimes overzealous attempts to challenge religious views. While I rarely substitute religious text for plain good science, it's not hard to understand the motive of some scientists. They are often no more opened minded on some issues than the average zealot.
 
"Possible" does not mean "likely."

Just puttin' that out there.

It's possible to flip a coin and have it come up heads ten times in a row too.

You do that for us. Come back and post when you're done.

Despite your condescending tone, you have not proven any physiological or genetic link to homosexuality. Come back and post when you can do that, mkay?
 
It was you that implied an inability to listen when you said "I stopped reading after.."

When I notice comments as I mentioned, an agenda is obvious. It becomes pretty irrelevant to continue on. Your comment did NOT respond to what I said. Perhaps you should read it again.
I responded to what you did say, not what I wanted you to say. I did make an assumption however.
No, you did not. I mentioned zero about choice. That was the gist of your response. Completely uncoordinated with my comment. Your partisan statement also demonstrated that you were addressing what you want to hear, not what was said.

I am not a conservative in general, though I agree I may be considered so on this issue...and some others.

If not, then the "liberal" statement would not have occurred. "If it walks like a duck..."

Lastly, I didn't refer to homosexuality as unnatural or unsavory. I refereed to disagreeing with it as I do to other acts which are unnatural or unsavory. It is you that jumped to conclusions.

My comment stands. You have no evidence that homosexual act are unnatural or unsavory, other than your own opinion that they are unnatural or unsavory. These are logical fallacies that you cannot prove.
My thesis was a comparative study of over 50 studies of homosexuality completed within the last 120 years. It was not a study of homosexuality itself but rather an analysis of the results of other studies. There was not one study that conclusively stated that homosexuality is not a choice. I am, Sir, relatively informed on the issue.

And I have read scores and scores of studies, have posted results of many of these studies here at DP, and have looked into studies on homosexuality going back to Freud. You claim to be informed on the issue, but if that were the case, your use of adjectives would not be as they were. Also, if you were informed, you would have read that researchers have stated that they are unsure precisely where sexual orientation is developed. Notice, I used the words sexual orientation. If you were as informed as you claim, you would know that the issue really isn't about homosexuality when the discussion of the development of sexual orientation is presented, but it is of sexual orientation in general. Also, if you were as uninformed as you claim, you would know that most researchers postulate that sexual orientation develops from a combination of the following components: biology, genetics, brain/hormonal chemistry, environment.

I hope that has informed you a bit more.
 
Despite your condescending tone, you have not proven any physiological or genetic link to homosexuality. Come back and post when you can do that, mkay?

My intent was not to be condescending. It was meant to be hyperbolic and entertaining. It wasn't meant as offense, it was meant to lighten some of the mood.

You've communicated clearly and rationally with me, so I felt a kinship and tossed in some humor. Perhaps I didn't express that very well.

And no, I have not personally proven any physiological link. You have not disproven it either, nor will you be able to.

That leaves us both in about the same boat. I've chosen to take the word of trusted academic and scientific institutions on the matter. You've chosen not to do so. I understand and that's fine. That's your right. We simply chose differently.
 
Last edited:
When I notice comments as I mentioned, an agenda is obvious. It becomes pretty irrelevant to continue on. Your comment did NOT respond to what I said. Perhaps you should read it again.

No, you did not. I mentioned zero about choice. That was the gist of your response. Completely uncoordinated with my comment. Your partisan statement also demonstrated that you were addressing what you want to hear, not what was said.



If not, then the "liberal" statement would not have occurred. "If it walks like a duck..."



My comment stands. You have no evidence that homosexual act are unnatural or unsavory, other than your own opinion that they are unnatural or unsavory. These are logical fallacies that you cannot prove.


And I have read scores and scores of studies, have posted results of many of these studies here at DP, and have looked into studies on homosexuality going back to Freud. You claim to be informed on the issue, but if that were the case, your use of adjectives would not be as they were. Also, if you were informed, you would have read that researchers have stated that they are unsure precisely where sexual orientation is developed. Notice, I used the words sexual orientation. If you were as informed as you claim, you would know that the issue really isn't about homosexuality when the discussion of the development of sexual orientation is presented, but it is of sexual orientation in general. Also, if you were as uninformed as you claim, you would know that most researchers postulate that sexual orientation develops from a combination of the following components: biology, genetics, brain/hormonal chemistry, environment.

I hope that has informed you a bit more.

Cite one peer reviewed study that conclusively proves a physiological and/or genetic explanation for homosexuality.
 
Cite one peer reviewed study that conclusively proves a physiological and/or genetic explanation for homosexuality.

Cite one that disproves it.
 
Cite one peer reviewed study that conclusively proves a physiological and/or genetic explanation for homosexuality.

Cite where I made the claim that homosexuality or sexual orientation in general was conclusively physiological or genetic.
 
My intent was not to be condescending. It was meant to be hyperbolic and entertaining. It wasn't meant as offense, it was meant to lighten some of the mood.

You've communicated clearly and rationally with me, so I felt a kinship and tossed in some humor. Perhaps I didn't express that very well.

And no, I have not personally proven any physiological link. You have not disproven it either, nor will you be able to.

That leaves us both in about the same boat. I've chosen to take the word of trusted academic and scientific institutions on the matter. You've chosen not to do so. I understand and that's fine. That's your right. We simply chose differently.

Well, I believe your interpretation of what the academic and scientific community have said has been greatly filtered by your own personal bias. None have concluded a proven link between homosexuality and genetics.
 
Then you can not prove that it is not a choice.

I'm still waiting for you to quote where I made this claim. This is what I mean about responding to something you wanted to hear, rather than something that was said.
 
Well, I believe your interpretation of what the academic and scientific community have said has been greatly filtered by your own personal bias. None have concluded a proven link between homosexuality and genetics.

You're free to believe what you'd like to believe.

Now you are using the same argument that Christians use to prove the existence of God.

Not really.

It was a contradiction of your own assertion.

Meaning, fundamentally, you used the same argument that Christians use to prove the existance of God. I'm guilty of mimicking it to convey a point.

A point which you made for me, thank you very much.
 
Last edited:
Well, I believe your interpretation of what the academic and scientific community have said has been greatly filtered by your own personal bias. None have concluded a proven link between homosexuality and genetics.

You do understand that there is no proven link between sexual orientation and genetics. Heterosexuality is included in this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom