Jump to content


Photo

Gays/lesbians And Being Armenian


  • Please log in to reply
188 replies to this topic

#161 Azat

Azat

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,969 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA
  • Interests:wine, beer, food, art, jokes

Posted 10 June 2007 - 09:07 PM

ok you guys. please stop the personal attacks. You both are very intelligent andyou both know that you have crossed the line. there is no need get personal on each other

#162 Anonymouse

Anonymouse

    Julius Caesar was a salad dressing dude!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 10 June 2007 - 09:07 PM

QUOTE(Azat @ Jun 10 2007, 10:07 PM) View Post
ok you guys. please stop the personal attacks. You both are very intelligent andyou both know that you have crossed the line. there is no need get personal on each other


Very well kind sage. I will behave.

#163 nairi

nairi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,704 posts

Posted 11 June 2007 - 05:32 AM

QUOTE(Anonymouse @ Jun 11 2007, 04:38 AM) View Post
The point was that in relation to the modern identity of the homosexual, all previous generations and societies had considered it as a tendency, a behavior, referred to it as an act, as the Greeks did, called it sodomy, etc.


Foucault does not say, as far as I'm concerned, that ALL previous generations and societies considered it to be a tendency or a behavioral aberration. He merely observes Western civilization, and apparently, according to his observations, this seems to be have been the case in Western society. We know the latter. I've been correcting you all along. The point was that you used Foucault as a back-up to argue that homosexuality is a behavioral aberration because you misread Foucault as having invented this designation. It no longer matters, since you're finally beginning to understand what Foucault is saying. And since you now somewhat understand it, you should also understand that historically homosexuality has been labeled as various things by the dominant majority, namely the heterosexual. Apparently it is happening even now. Neither you nor I are homosexuals, so why do we feel such a strong need to speak for them instead of letting them speak for themselves?

QUOTE
You still have no ammo here except mutating and morphing little words here and there to come off as somehow proven a point. What I have said before and now, is quite apart from what Foucault himself said, so if you are intentionally going to manipulate who said in a 'he said/you said' prism you may as well retire from all human contact and conversation.


By ignoring the little details, you are doing precisely that which you accuse me of.

QUOTE
Furthermore, you go on to claim that I cannot handle "difference" because I said I personally do not like homosexuality. How does expressing a personal preference translate to not handling differences?


If you don't like homosexuality, it basically means that you can't handle difference. laugh.gif It's a little obvious, isn't? By extension, it also means that you adhere to the dominant political system, which advocates "white, male, heterosexual" supremacy. In other words, it's perfectly okay for white, heterosexual, men to advertise themselves left and right, but dear oh dear if women, homosexuals, or one-legged black eunuchs dare to advertise themselves, because they are then shoving themselves down your sensitive throat and potentially causing the downfall of your beloved world order.

QUOTE
What you believe is irrelevant, for numerous sociologists and psychologists have referred to the phenomenon that occurs in prison as homosexuality, by virtue of engaging in such an act.


Ah, so the mighty sociologist and psychologist must always be right. Especially after they study this phenomenon in the most closed system, but apparently ignore it in regular society. I wonder if those same sociologists have ever been to Iran to observe how homosexuality occurs even in one of the most repressive countries, where the death penalty awaits those who "cross the line." If homosexuality was truly a behavioral aberration only, or mainly, do you not think that by now there would be many, many more people regularly engaging in homosexual acts? How come the number of people engaging in homosexual acts, or more precisely, loving relationships, is still very low, compared to heterosexual acts and loving relationships?

QUOTE
That you personally find a problem with it because it offends your enlightened and eclectic tastes of tolerance has no bearing on anything.


See, unlike you, I don't feel offended by your behavioral theory, if only because I don't care enough. So what if it is solely behavioral, and therefore highly contagious? I'm neither scared, nor do I care enough.

QUOTE
And even though many of those inmantes would want to bone a woman the first chance they got, they could still be labeled as "bisexual".


Which is why I asked you earlier to make a choice in your argumentation: either we are all heterosexual with homosexual tendencies, or sexuality is largely (if not fully) biologically determined. From what you are saying, we are all bisexual. Depending on the right circumstances, we could all engage in homosexual acts. Which still doesn't explain why most of us make choices when we can.

QUOTE
Yes, I am afraid homosexuality will take over and I will become one myself.


Now, we're getting somewhere. Speaking of emotional appeals. You are clearly a supporter of the behavioral aberration theory simply because you are scared to lose your white, male, heterosexual supremacy. Your argument is not based on facts or logic, but only on your own silly fears.

#164 phantom22

phantom22

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,343 posts

Posted 11 June 2007 - 06:53 AM

Dodge an issue? You have not addressed that issue to me. How conveniently you change the subject after reading the links that I posted. Obviously, after reading them you realized that your argument loses credibility.

Children raised by a homosexual parents will be ostrasized by their peers, but they will grow up without being phobic about homosexual relatiohships.

As for what I think your argument is, no - being raised by homosexual parents does not raise the probabilty that the child will become homosexual. If they happen to be homosexual or bisexual, however, they will have an easier time being comfortable with themselves.



QUOTE(Anonymouse @ Jun 10 2007, 09:42 PM) View Post
Thanks for the links, but it doesn't look good for you to dodge the issue I raised about homosexual parenting.

Consider the study published in The American Sociological Review in April of 2001 titled "Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" by USC professors Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz.

But look at how fixed you are in your position and stance of intolerance to not even consider that homosexuality can at least potentially be induced by environment. Notice, I have not discredited nor denied the biological aspect, but you seem to entirely rule out the nurture aspect. Not very tolerant and open minded of you.



#165 Arvestaked

Arvestaked

    Aspiring Memetic Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Location:Cacapoopoopeepeeshire

Posted 11 June 2007 - 10:24 AM

QUOTE(Edward @ Jun 8 2007, 12:49 PM) View Post
The Bible doesn't say nothing about necrophilia also, would it make them OK also in your book?


You cannot compare homosexuality with necrophilia or pedophilia because neither of the last two have consent between adults.

#166 Arvestaked

Arvestaked

    Aspiring Memetic Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Location:Cacapoopoopeepeeshire

Posted 11 June 2007 - 10:36 AM

QUOTE(Anileve @ Jun 8 2007, 02:21 PM) View Post
Hasn't been proven. If it was, the severe homophobia wouldn't exist. I think that many people feel that gays and lesbians can influence young people. Until this day I am not sure.

For example a long time I met a guy who said that he is attracted to women but he wouldn't have a relationship with them, however he was attracted to men and had a serious relationship with one. Bisexual is a confusing term, to me it's transitional. After a while you either sway this way or that way.

I guess we can debate about this forever. It's not a scientific study but rather a social one.



At this point, it is proven to have a biological cause. There are different ideas about various possible causes (which do not claim -- and nor do they have to -- that there should have to be only one possible cause) and all peer reviewed and credible theories place those causes as influencing the sexual orientation before birth.

#167 Arvestaked

Arvestaked

    Aspiring Memetic Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Location:Cacapoopoopeepeeshire

Posted 11 June 2007 - 10:41 AM

QUOTE(Domino @ Jun 8 2007, 04:26 PM) View Post
People are NOT born homosexual, this is a myth.


No, it isn't a myth. You're completely ignorant on the topic. Don't spread such ridiculous memes.


QUOTE
And sorry Eve, but homosexual parenting CAN induce homosexual behavior...


There are no credible peer-reviewed studies that claim this. Sorry.


QUOTE
Homosexuality is a behavior and unless you adhere to the school of determinism, there is absolutly no way for you to believe that a childs environment and when his/her model (parents) are engaged in a homosexual relation does not affect a child behavioral developpement.

Sip, pro-creating is instinctive yes, but if homosexuality is a switch, some sort of K strategy, a behavioral mechanism, then don't be so sure that your attraction for women can't vanish. smile.gif


?!

#168 Arvestaked

Arvestaked

    Aspiring Memetic Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Location:Cacapoopoopeepeeshire

Posted 11 June 2007 - 10:50 AM

QUOTE(nairi @ Jun 8 2007, 05:48 PM) View Post
... your hero Darwin...


When did this happen? Did Anonymouse switch sides? I never thought that would happen.


#169 Anonymouse

Anonymouse

    Julius Caesar was a salad dressing dude!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 11 June 2007 - 11:02 AM

QUOTE(nairi @ Jun 11 2007, 06:32 AM) View Post
Foucault does not say, as far as I'm concerned, that ALL previous generations and societies considered it to be a tendency or a behavioral aberration. He merely observes Western civilization, and apparently, according to his observations, this seems to be have been the case in Western society. We know the latter. I've been correcting you all along. The point was that you used Foucault as a back-up to argue that homosexuality is a behavioral aberration because you misread Foucault as having invented this designation. It no longer matters, since you're finally beginning to understand what Foucault is saying. And since you now somewhat understand it, you should also understand that historically homosexuality has been labeled as various things by the dominant majority, namely the heterosexual. Apparently it is happening even now. Neither you nor I are homosexuals, so why do we feel such a strong need to speak for them instead of letting them speak for themselves?


By observing Western civilization, and because of that it seems to have been the case in Western society, is the same as Foucault saying that prior to the nineteenth century, homosexuality was not considered anything more than an aberration, a behavior and a tendency, as reflected by names such as sodomy, or by societies such as the damn Greeks. The only thing you have been correcting is your own self-grandeur of thinking you actually know what you have read about Foucault. And lest you are confused, no one has ever used Foucault as the authority, but certainly a. The only reason I even raised Foucault was to combat what you and other proponents of homosexuality exclaimed as the modern idea of the homosexuality as reflected in identity politics, such as homosexuality being a fixed identity, and the scourge of "alternative lifestyle". I only quoted Foucault to show that society at someone point did not consider it as such and it is entirely a modern fixation. This is still the case, despite whatever you may believe or state to make yourself believe.

QUOTE(nairi @ Jun 11 2007, 06:32 AM) View Post
By ignoring the little details, you are doing precisely that which you accuse me of.


The only one ignoring details is yourself, which is why we are still on the topic of Foucault because you not only a) misunderstand Foucault, but you also cool.gif misunderstand my position on why I quoted him, and c) you intentionally obfuscated the truth to have something to argue about.

QUOTE(nairi @ Jun 11 2007, 06:32 AM) View Post
If you don't like homosexuality, it basically means that you can't handle difference. laugh.gif It's a little obvious, isn't? By extension, it also means that you adhere to the dominant political system, which advocates "white, male, heterosexual" supremacy. In other words, it's perfectly okay for white, heterosexual, men to advertise themselves left and right, but dear oh dear if women, homosexuals, or one-legged black eunuchs dare to advertise themselves, because they are then shoving themselves down your sensitive throat and potentially causing the downfall of your beloved world order.


This is the cliche liberal-egalitarian position of "blame everything on the white man". Do you actuall still believe that the WASP is the dominant cultural and political force in America that it once was? If you do, you know nothing about America, nor about "dominant political system". Strangely enough, the dominant political system in any Western society revolves around such conventional wisdom as: We are all equal, there are no racial differences, homosexuals should be tolerated and granted all rights because they are a fixed identity, evolution is truth, religion is evil, global warming is gospel, and government welfare is a must.

So while you made a faint attempt at trying to define the "dominant political system" as white Anglo-Saxon Protestant males, you are mistaken because it only shows you have no idea what the dominant political system is, which I will tell you, is about as far from WASPS as Pluto is from Earth.

QUOTE(nairi @ Jun 11 2007, 06:32 AM) View Post
Ah, so the mighty sociologist and psychologist must always be right. Especially after they study this phenomenon in the most closed system, but apparently ignore it in regular society. I wonder if those same sociologists have ever been to Iran to observe how homosexuality occurs even in one of the most repressive countries, where the death penalty awaits those who "cross the line." If homosexuality was truly a behavioral aberration only, or mainly, do you not think that by now there would be many, many more people regularly engaging in homosexual acts? How come the number of people engaging in homosexual acts, or more precisely, loving relationships, is still very low, compared to heterosexual acts and loving relationships?


The mighty sociologist and psychologist is not always right. What makes you say that? Did I say that? Or did you intentionally manipulate what I said to make it seem as if I said that? I think it's the latter. That homosexuality occurs in one of the most repressive countries is irrelevant. No one is disputing that, and no one is disputing that homosexuality may have genetic predisposition. I think you are so stuck in your ideological prism that you cannot even see beyond this. Whether homosexuality is mainly a behavioral phenomenon or a genetic one is irrelevant, don't you get it? I am not arguing for one or other. The point is, that there is no general consensus, and while it may be genetic it can also be behavioral is all I have ever said. But it has been you and vahan and domino that have thrown emotional tantrums about how I am wrong, and you are all right and homosexuality is entirely genetic.


QUOTE(nairi @ Jun 11 2007, 06:32 AM) View Post
See, unlike you, I don't feel offended by your behavioral theory, if only because I don't care enough. So what if it is solely behavioral, and therefore highly contagious? I'm neither scared, nor do I care enough.


This has nothing to do about being scared. And we know it's entirely behavior either so it's irrelevant. No one is saying homosexuals cannot be homosexuals. However, homosexual marriage and parenting is going beyond mere demands of letting them be, and it actually amounts to "give them inch, and they take miles". There are serious issues with homosexual marriage and parenting, which we have not even begun to get into because of emotional tantrums thrown by many here.

QUOTE(nairi @ Jun 11 2007, 06:32 AM) View Post
Which is why I asked you earlier to make a choice in your argumentation: either we are all heterosexual with homosexual tendencies, or sexuality is largely (if not fully) biologically determined. From what you are saying, we are all bisexual. Depending on the right circumstances, we could all engage in homosexual acts. Which still doesn't explain why most of us make choices when we can.


That is untrue. I have never said that or implied it. That is entirely your interpretation and proposition. Why does it have to be an all or nothing deal?


QUOTE(nairi @ Jun 11 2007, 06:32 AM) View Post
Now, we're getting somewhere. Speaking of emotional appeals. You are clearly a supporter of the behavioral aberration theory simply because you are scared to lose your white, male, heterosexual supremacy. Your argument is not based on facts or logic, but only on your own silly fears.


This is untrue for several reasons I have already pointed out one of them being is that the white Anglo-Saxon protestant males are no longer the dominant cultural force in America, and two I am not Anglo-Saxon, nor Protestant so therefore that effectively rules me out, which pretty much means that here you display nothing more than an emotional tantrum. So when push comes to shove, and you cannot handle a discussion you resort to making things personal and attacking me, and now you accuse me of being the one who makes arguments not based on logic or facts. What a strange world in which the victors can do no wrong.


#170 Arvestaked

Arvestaked

    Aspiring Memetic Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Location:Cacapoopoopeepeeshire

Posted 11 June 2007 - 11:12 AM

QUOTE(Domino @ Jun 9 2007, 08:00 AM) View Post
Marriage is not a right it is a privilage. If you want to discuss about those stuff with me personal message me.


Maybe for religion. But if a government has something called marriage, a legally recognized state between to adults, it cannot be a priviledge that is given to certain citizens or legal residents based on sexual orientation. It must be a right. Especially in a democracy or a democratic republic, etc. where the government is, on principle, a body elected by the people to represent the people. It's all very logical.

#171 Anonymouse

Anonymouse

    Julius Caesar was a salad dressing dude!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 11 June 2007 - 11:19 AM

QUOTE(phantom22 @ Jun 11 2007, 07:53 AM) View Post
Dodge an issue? You have not addressed that issue to me. How conveniently you change the subject after reading the links that I posted. Obviously, after reading them you realized that your argument loses credibility.

Children raised by a homosexual parents will be ostrasized by their peers, but they will grow up without being phobic about homosexual relatiohships.

As for what I think your argument is, no - being raised by homosexual parents does not raise the probabilty that the child will become homosexual. If they happen to be homosexual or bisexual, however, they will have an easier time being comfortable with themselves.


Don't act surprised. You have repeatedly dodged the point of how homosexual parenting can influence children. And now you make it seem as if I am changing the subject when I have never denied the possibility of genetic predisposition. It is entirely you who has argued that homosexuality is genetic and homosexual parenting doesn't affect anyone. Unlike you, I do not create a myopic intellectual Berlin Wall. You have not even read the study I referenced. To get an idea of how much politics influences any study I will post links to this study.

In the following link, the website claims, "SEXUAL ORIENTATION OF PARENTS FOUND NOT TO INFLUENCE SEXUAL ORIENTATION OF CHILDREN".

However, it goes on to include snippets of the following:

QUOTE
While six children from lesbian families (one son and five daughters) had experienced a same-gender sexual relationship (none of the children of heterosexual single mothers did), only two young adults with lesbian mothers identified as lesbians themselves. However, although there were no significant differences in sexual orientation between the two groups, there were some differences in sexual interest and behavior. "Significantly more of the young adults from lesbian family backgrounds stated that they had previously considered, or thought it a future possibility, that they might experience same-gender attraction or have a same- gender sexual relationship or both."


Then it goes on to state this:

QUOTE
[b]Daughters of lesbian mothers were significantly more likely to consider that idea than the daughters of heterosexual mothers,


Then downplays it a bit:

QUOTE
but there was no significant difference between sons from the two family types on that issue.


Then comes back with this:

QUOTE
The authors found that the young adults whose mothers were more open and accepting of lesbian and gay relationships were more likely to report same-gender sexual interest themselves.


On the surface the link would seem to suggest that there really is no difference or impact by homosexual parenting. However, upon closer inspection there is. Furthermore, Fox News ran this story in that year and here it is:

http://www.foxnews.c...3,29901,00.html

QUOTE
Homosexual Parenting Studies Are Flawed, Report Says


Dozens of studies about kids raised by gay parents were mischaracterized for political reasons so as not to draw the ire of homosexual activists or encourage anti-gay rhetoric, a new report suggests.

The report, by sociology professors at the University of Southern California, says that that, contrary to earlier assertions, children of same-sex parents exhibit significant differences when compared to children raised by heterosexual couples.

The study's authors conclude that earlier researchers downplayed those differences when they found them — and this has stunted research that might further highlight and explain these differences.

"The pervasiveness of social prejudice and institutionalized discrimination against lesbians and gay men… exerts a powerful policing affect on the basic terms of psychological research and public discourse on the significance of parental sexual orientation," Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz write in a report in the American Sociological Review.

"It’s not that [researchers] are being dishonest," Stacey said in an interview. "But what we say is there are intriguing, provocative differences found in these studies."

Lots of Research, Much of it Flawed

For several years now, judges and lawmakers have relied on a growing body of research on same-sex parenting to make decisions in cases and legislation regarding custody battles and adoption. The numbers vary, but estimates of the number of gay parents in America is somewhere between 800,000 and 7 million, and the number of dependent children raised by homosexual parents is between 1 million and 9 million.

Until now, most studies have suggested there are no significant behavioral, psychological or sexual differences between children raised by gay parents and those in heterosexual households. The studies are often invoked to erase fears about the developmental health and well-being of children raised by gay parents.

But in their examination of 21 studies conducted between 1981 and 1998 on the affects of gay and lesbian parenting on child development, Stacey and Biblarz say this conventional wisdom is wrong and they "challenge the predominant claim that the sexual orientation of parents does not matter at all."

For example, one 1996 study concluded that "The majority of children who grew up in lesbian families identified themselves as heterosexual in adulthood." Stacey and Biblarz say the finding is "technically accurate" but it "deflects analytic attention from the rather sizable differences in sexual atitudes and behaviors that the study actually reports."


Claiming that "few respectable scholars today oppose [same-sex] parenting," Stacey and Biblarz suggest that most scholars fear that highlighting the differences will be used by opponents of homosexual parenting and marriage to oppose gay adoption and gay marriage.

In reexamining the data from earlier studies, Stacey and Biblarz in fact found significant differences between gay-parented and hetero-parented children. Among them:

• A significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers say they have experienced sexual intimacy with a partner of the same sex. They were not, however, statistically more likely to identify themselves as gay or lesbian.

• Young girls raised by lesbians are more likely to be sexually adventurous and active than their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents. However the sons of lesbians exhibit "an opposite pattern" and are likely to be less adventurous and active than boys raised by heterosexual households.

• Lesbian mothers reported that their children behave in ways that do not conform to "sex-typed cultural norms." And the sons of lesbians are reportedly less likely to behave in traditionally masculine ways than those raised by heterosexual couples.

Stacey and Biblarz claim that "it is difficult to conceive of a credible theory of sexual development that would not expect the adult children of lesbigay parents to display somewhat higher incidence of homoerotic desire, behavior, and identity than children of heterosexual parents."

Researchers, they say, ought to be honest about their personal convictions and let the political chips fall where they may. Stacey and Biblarz admit in their own review that they believe in a "diverse" and "pluralistic" family structure that does not discriminate against same-sex households. Any differences found in research on children do not necessarily constitute "deficits," they say, and ought to be acknowledged and studied more thoroughly.

The 'Politicization' of Research

David Murray of the Washington-based Statistical Assessment Service and co-author of It Ain’t Necessarily So: How Media Make and Unmake the Scientific Picture of Reality, agrees that most of the research on homosexual parenting is politically contaminated. He blames it on a fear of "arousing the dog chained on the left side and arousing the cat chained on the right side" of the political spectrum.

"We have allowed the politicization of this issue to erode our capacity to see clearly and to effectively decide policy issues," Murray said.

"It’s all about the politicization of the academic community, the federal grant-giving community and news reporting on these issues — they’ve all failed to provide good information about these important issues of social change," he said.

As a result, he said, most of the research conducted until now tells us "squat" and only speaks to battling agendas. It has brought the public and the scientific community no closer to knowing the truth about such hot button issues, he said.

Rabbi Daniel Lapin, the President of the conservative public advocacy group Toward Tradition added that "flawed science is not new, right now it’s swirling around the controversial area of sexuality."

But he said that science ultimately may not be able to resolve the fundamental questions some people have about controversial issues, including gay parenting and gay marriage.

"We all have to acknowledge that when push comes to shove this is not an issue that is solved by science," he said. "It will be decided, based on beliefs and convictions."


DISCLAIMER: Lest any of you lefty social butterflies pounce on the fact that this story is not credible because it is from Fox News, I assure you, I do not like Fox News anymore than the next Che Guevera t-shirt wearing hippie, however, to get a certain point across I will use the resource. The link to the actual study is here:

http://www.apgl.asso...ents/stacey.pdf

#172 nairi

nairi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,704 posts

Posted 11 June 2007 - 12:09 PM

QUOTE(Anonymouse @ Jun 11 2007, 07:02 PM) View Post
Blah blah, blah blah.


As you wish, sir. I'm done with this discussion. Everything that needed to be said has been said. Let others be the judge.


#173 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 June 2007 - 12:21 PM

QUOTE(Arvestaked @ Jun 11 2007, 12:41 PM) View Post
No, it isn't a myth. You're completely ignorant on the topic. Don't spread such ridiculous memes.

There are no credible peer-reviewed studies that claim this. Sorry.

?!


I did not wish to continue debating about this issue, so your accusions were unwarranted. If you want your arguments to be more valid you should at least start with terms which refers to possibilities rather than such affirmatives.

Environment includes but is not limited to, the uterus environment in which the child grow, it includes the mothers milk the baby drinks, it includes environment toxins etc.

People can not be born homosexuals because sexual attractions happens later in life. As for CAN induce, well there is a methaanalyses based on 13 studies which was positive for gays and lesbians which provides a significant differences, as those who had homosexual parents had more chances to explore homosexuality. So the CAN applies here perfectly. Also, no one has yet commented the peer reviewed studies on boys being abused by men when young had a very high risk of becoming homosexuals. A recent journal advance 4 times more as a figure. Are people also born pedophiles?

I have never dismissed that there might be some genes predisposing someone, much like there are some genes predisposing someone to have some behaviors rather than others.

On the marriage issue, we've been there and you were here when we discussed the issue. I oppose hetero marriages too, when couples don't want to have kids, many privilages from marriages which the rest of the society pay for is to give an environment for couples to have kids, give the stability children raising requires. Marriage is not a right, people could live with eachothers without getting married, the rest is a collection of privilages.

I stop there, I have repeated I do not wish to engage, but I expect my opinion to be respected the same way I respect yours.

#174 Arvestaked

Arvestaked

    Aspiring Memetic Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 751 posts
  • Location:Cacapoopoopeepeeshire

Posted 11 June 2007 - 01:29 PM

QUOTE(Domino @ Jun 11 2007, 11:21 AM) View Post
I did not wish to continue debating about this issue, so your accusions were unwarranted. If you want your arguments to be more valid you should at least start with terms which refers to possibilities rather than such affirmatives.

Environment includes but is not limited to, the uterus environment in which the child grow, it includes the mothers milk the baby drinks, it includes environment toxins etc.

People can not be born homosexuals because sexual attractions happens later in life. As for CAN induce, well there is a methaanalyses based on 13 studies which was positive for gays and lesbians which provides a significant differences, as those who had homosexual parents had more chances to explore homosexuality. So the CAN applies here perfectly. Also, no one has yet commented the peer reviewed studies on boys being abused by men when young had a very high risk of becoming homosexuals. A recent journal advance 4 times more as a figure. Are people also born pedophiles?

I have never dismissed that there might be some genes predisposing someone, much like there are some genes predisposing someone to have some behaviors rather than others.

On the marriage issue, we've been there and you were here when we discussed the issue. I oppose hetero marriages too, when couples don't want to have kids, many privilages from marriages which the rest of the society pay for is to give an environment for couples to have kids, give the stability children raising requires. Marriage is not a right, people could live with eachothers without getting married, the rest is a collection of privilages.

I stop there, I have repeated I do not wish to engage, but I expect my opinion to be respected the same way I respect yours.



So don't engage. It is unfortunately important that I stop the spreading of memes that could propagate misinformation.

There is a wealth of studies yielding results that prove prenatal origins of homosexuality. If someone states that such a thing is a myth they are necessarily putting their faith in the opinions of someone who has an anti-homosexual agenda and have not actually sought such studies. That is ignorance; the label cannot be avoided.

I will not argue that environmental factors cannot create sexual confusion or cause someone to perform homosexual acts (or heterosexual ones, for that matter) but whether or not someone is inherently homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual is biolgogically determined.

You obviously believe that marriage shouldn't be a right in a hypothetical government to your liking and that is an entirely different topic. The fact is that heterosexuals are favored, with or without children, and that concept in itself is wrong.

#175 vahan79

vahan79

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 11 June 2007 - 02:48 PM

QUOTE(Azat @ Jun 10 2007, 09:07 PM) View Post
ok you guys. please stop the personal attacks. You both are very intelligent andyou both know that you have crossed the line. there is no need get personal on each other


ում հետ ես խոսում?

Also, I pose questions and am ignored. I think it's because Anonymouse doesn't have answers for me. msn-cry.gif ( լալիս եմ)

Edited by vahan79, 11 June 2007 - 02:49 PM.


#176 Anonymouse

Anonymouse

    Julius Caesar was a salad dressing dude!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,244 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 11 June 2007 - 09:48 PM

QUOTE(vahan79 @ Jun 11 2007, 03:48 PM) View Post
ում հետ ես խոսում?

Also, I pose questions and am ignored. I think it's because Anonymouse doesn't have answers for me. msn-cry.gif ( լալիս եմ)


Oh my poor, neglected homosexual proponent, which questions do you seek answers for?


- Your resident homophobe

#177 Sip

Sip

    Buffet Connoisseur

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,366 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Online

Posted 11 June 2007 - 09:50 PM

QUOTE(vahan79 @ Jun 11 2007, 03:48 PM) View Post
Also, I pose questions and am ignored....


Vahan, I think you might have accidentally stepped into some old feuds from some years ago on this forum. I wouldn't take it personally smile.gif

#178 JudoThrow

JudoThrow

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 12 June 2007 - 01:30 AM

Why are there a bunch of non-homosexual people talking about what homosexuality is about?

Don't take it wrong, but there are so many conclusions and none of you are hay.

#179 Sip

Sip

    Buffet Connoisseur

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,366 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Online

Posted 12 June 2007 - 02:47 AM

JudoThrow, are you gay? And more importantly, are you muslim? biggrin.gif

#180 vahan79

vahan79

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 12 June 2007 - 08:40 AM

QUOTE(JudoThrow @ Jun 12 2007, 01:30 AM) View Post
Why are there a bunch of non-homosexual people talking about what homosexuality is about?

Don't take it wrong, but there are so many conclusions and none of you are hay.


Just so I am clear, are you saying none of us are "hay" (as in հայ )? huh.gif

Also, this thread is all about the Armenian perspective (if any) on homosexuality. If you are "homosexual", we'd certainly appreciate your input on this matter, too, of course!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users