Profound insights from MAD on Gay Marriage

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_barrelomonkeys
_Emeritus
Posts: 3004
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:00 pm

Post by _barrelomonkeys »

bcspace wrote:
Indeed. They may have reasons, but no compelling ones. One can find just as much sex, companionship, security, etc. outside marriage. The only thing unique is raising children.

I'm so glad LDS support my sexual lifestyle!


When did I say that? Just because people give reasons does not mean they are moral or ethical.


Oh dagnabit... so should I get married then? To have sex?

Is that a compelling reason?

I would think for all the horny dry humping Mormons it is. :D
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Post by _bcspace »

Now regarding Bogaert.....

You have a 2006 study stating that homosexuality may be inherited. All I need is a study stating that it is not inherited and it can be earlier because may does not overturn what has already been established. I do have such a study.....

P. S. Bearman and H. Bruckner, “Opposite-sex twins and adolescent same-sex attraction” American Journal of Sociology 107 (2002) 1179-1205

Do you have anything else that would cause me to have to up the ante(which I can do)?
_Ren
_Emeritus
Posts: 1387
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:34 am

Post by _Ren »

bcspace wrote:LOL! The statement was made by a popular homosexual columnist.

Ahh - you quoted someone who has an opinion.
Now THAT'S smart...!

So one homosexual speaks, they speak for not only all homosexuals, but all hetrosexuals too...?!

You're hilarious...

I see you have no science to contradict the references I gave. Your traffic comment shows that you are the one who is spinning (because you have no references).

You are asserting that lesbians die more often in traffic accidents.
Oh man, I feel daft even repeating the claim...

Please show the DATA that demonstrates this.
...not some summary that says 'the data shows this'. Practically every single 'summary' of any data I've seen from the anti-homosexual camp turns out to be absolute guff when you inspect the underlying data for more than a few minutes.

It's a rediculous claim. And if you beleive otherwise, then please show the data...

Then you should be able to provide a reference.

As you wish...

Each of these references give evidence for biological roots of homosexuality and how the evidence relates to the 'conditions in the womb'...

http://www.webmd.com/content/article/22 ... %20Stories
http://www.economist.com/science/displa ... id=2121955
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 43,00.html
http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_1997/yax-061.htm

(Look at the section 'CONCORDANCE RATE OF HOMOSEXUALITY
BETWEEN BROTHERS AND TWINS' - near the bottom, and read the summmary underneath:)

What conclusions can we draw from these numbers?

Brothers have a higher incidence of homosexuality than chance alone.

Fraternal (dizygotic) twins seem to have an even higher rate of concordance than common brothers. Genetically, fraternal twins are no closer to each other than common brothers so why should their concordance rate be higher? Since the key difference is that they shared the same pregnancy in the mother, this suggests that there is some factor related to the womb or the mother's hormonal balance during a pregnancy.

Identical twins have the highest rate of concordance, strongly suggesting a genetic factor, because they are the only types of brothers who share the same genes. Yet, genes are not the only explanation, because if they were, the concordance rate among identical twins should have been 100 percent.


All the evidence points directly to biological roots of homosexuality, along with social and phycological ones in a minority of cases.

Between 25 percent and 33 percent of relationships between lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender partners include abuse, a rate equal to that of heterosexual relationships, according to a 1998 report released by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP).

What exactly is this meant to prove bcspace?!
...the above says that the rate of abuse is EQUAL to that of hetrosexual relationships.
Your claim was that the rate was higher.

...perhaps you are forgetting your own words now?
This is what you said:

People who are in any kind of homosexual relationship are far more prone to domestic violence with their partners.

Do you remember saying it? Have you slipped and knocked your head since typing this perhaps?
...no?

Then why have you just provided a reference that states that abuse in homosexual relationships is NO WORSE then hetrosexual relationships.

...is this your way of admitting that you were talking crap? If so, it's welcome. But you could have been a bit more of a man about it, and just admitted it...

Either way, it puts the lie in your implied notion that lesbianism is superior to male homosexuality

It's not superior because abuse within Lesbian relationships happens AT ALL?
Where did you show that abuse in lesbian relationships ISN'T of a lower ratio than hetrosexual relationships?!

You can't even follow your own argument...!

bcspace wrote:a bigot within a bigot you are

Woah.
Deep. Man.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Sep 28, 2007 4:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Post by _bcspace »

I find it interesting that so far his response has amounted to "Oh, yeah? Well, your sources suck too!"



Which was not the gist of my argument. A doctor is simply a better reference than an activist's non referenced opinion. All I said was that I haven't had to pull out the big guns yet.

I'm with guy: this is really lazy research.


The complete lack of scientific references to support your view is the lazy research here. A 'may' does not support.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Sep 28, 2007 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Zoidberg
_Emeritus
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 2:42 am

Post by _Zoidberg »

bcspace wrote:
May is may. Was not the counter argument from a non peer-review activist?

Do you consider the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences to be non-peer-reviewed activists? Good heavens!


Now you're all over the place. The issue with Klamecki was Lesbianism. The only counter response I have so far is from an activist.


Alright, here is the conclusion from the Committee on Lesbian Health Research Priorities of the National Academy of Sciences:

"the committee did not find that lesbians are at higher risk for any particular health problem simply because they have a lesbian sexual orientation."







Committee on Lesbian Health Research Priorities
_barrelomonkeys
_Emeritus
Posts: 3004
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:00 pm

Post by _barrelomonkeys »

bcspace wrote: One can find just as much sex, companionship, security, etc. outside marriage.


oops, I got excited (I didn't sleep last night) and deleted my post! Eek

Let me put it back.

I AM SO PLEASED THE LDS SUPPORT MY SEXUAL LIFESTYLE!!!


HALLELUJAH!!!!!!!!!
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Post by _bcspace »

Alright, here is the conclusion from the Committee on Lesbian Health Research Priorities of the National Academy of Sciences:

"the committee did not find that lesbians are at higher risk for any particular health problem simply because they have a lesbian sexual orientation."


CFR
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Post by _bcspace »

As long as we are repeating ourselves...

I'm so glad LDS support my sexual lifestyle!


When did I say that? Just because people give reasons does not mean they are moral or ethical.
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Post by _bcspace »

Where did you show that abuse in lesbian relationships ISN'T of a lower ratio than hetrosexual relationships?!


Where did I so claim? Where did you show that it isn't higher?

I can't even follow my own argument...!


LOL!
_guy sajer
_Emeritus
Posts: 1372
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:16 am

Post by _guy sajer »

bcspace wrote:The way to debate an issue is to use your weakest argument first. I threw out a quote by a simple doctor expecting to get a quote from an non-degreed activist and that is indeed what I got. Most people would trust a doctor over any activist as I think you'll agree.

When these guys start pulling some actual references, I'll up the ante.


No, I would not agree; it depends. In some cases, yes, in others no. Turns out this Dr. is probably also an activist; someone with, it appears, a transparent anti-homsexual bias and agenda.

Oh yes, you'll up the ante. Egads! I'm sure they're all quaking in their boots.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
Post Reply