Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
I doubt there is little if any evidence to support that conjecture. For the most part if a child is labeled as "gay" (or any LGBT orientation beyond the gender they were born with) then it's because of the parents.
That is why I said it's my opinion. You can say the same thing about the opposing view.
Again I doubt there is any evidence to support that conjecture. Any and all behaviours are modifiable, sexual attraction can be manipulated like anything else.
Can you source anything on that? I have never seen this happening, ever.
What's more I think that slavery analogy is complete bullshit. Black slaves were used because of availability, not because of a conscious decision to restrict rights. Don't forget that whites weren't the only ones to buy black slaves from black slavers, and nor were all slaves black even in the west. The argument "for" slavery is that they were sold as slaves, and actually in the US you could even frame it as religious people freeing slaves if you really wanted to...
My point was that preachers used the same arguments in support of racial segregation, as they are now using against gay rights.
Again, I don't think that is true. Children are easily influenced, I recommend you read up on the topic before forming an opinion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_p...nd_gender_role There is little study done in the area.
From your same source: "A 2005 review by Charlotte J. Patterson for the American Psychological Association found that the available data did not suggest higher rates of homosexuality among the children of lesbian or gay parents"
That is quite a homophobic thing to say.
I'm speaking from personal experience. Many stereotypes do hold truth, but not all the time.
.
Sure, ABA is an entire field of study: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_behavior_analysis
Preachers were not the driving force for racial segregation (in any country? let alone the US), landowners were. Want to talk more about this subject, be more specific. Don't forget the entire US was religious.
Way to cherry pick on that study, I suggest you read this page next: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias (joking (not joking))
Firstly you should keep in mind the sample sizes discussed. Patterson talks about a total sample size of less than 100 (!!! this should be raising red flags !!!) - to quote Patterson: "These results were based on a small sample, and they must be interpreted with caution". Do not latch on so tightly to something so faint! In Patterson's conclusion: "It should be acknowledged that research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, though no longer new, is still limited in extent. ... Thus, although a considerable amount of information is available, additional research would further our understanding of lesbian and gay parents and their children."
You should exhibit more caution and skepticism. As I said: "There is little study done in the area."
"I'm speaking from personal experience. Many stereotypes do hold truth, but not all the time."
This is a very problematic statement? If I say "I'm speaking from personal experience, black people steal and commit violent crime frequently" would you say this is racist? Please consider whether what you are saying is hate speech or not.
Preachers were not the driving force for racial segregation (in any country? let alone the US), landowners were. Want to talk more about this subject, be more specific. Don't forget the entire US was religious.
Way to cherry pick on that study, I suggest you read this page next: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias (joking (not joking))
Firstly you should keep in mind the sample sizes discussed. Patterson talks about a total sample size of less than 100 (!!! this should be raising red flags !!!) - to quote Patterson: "These results were based on a small sample, and they must be interpreted with caution". Do not latch on so tightly to something so faint! In Patterson's conclusion: "It should be acknowledged that research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, though no longer new, is still limited in extent. ... Thus, although a considerable amount of information is available, additional research would further our understanding of lesbian and gay parents and their children."
You should exhibit more caution and skepticism. As I said: "There is little study done in the area."
"I'm speaking from personal experience. Many stereotypes do hold truth, but not all the time."
This is a very problematic statement? If I say "I'm speaking from personal experience, black people steal and commit violent crime frequently" would you say this is racist? Please consider whether what you are saying is hate speech or not.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Saying that black people commit crimes frequently IS racist, since that's just not true. Saying that a black male is more likely to commit a crime than any other race IS true. For example, a gay lisp is something that a lot of gay men have. Is every man who has a 'gay lisp' gay? Of course not. But, the majority usually is when studies have been conducted. Read up on it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_lisp
Actually in the US blacks ARE more likely to commit crime, shown here is the much-quoted 2012/2013 statistics: http://2kpcwh2r7phz1nq4jj237m22.wpen...NCFS-Table.jpg
So "it's not racist because it's true"? It's racist to reverse the statistics and claim that because a person is black they are more likely to commit crime, you can't treat them as a criminal because of their skin color.
Similarly you can't assume someone is gay because of they way they look or talk, as I said before "Sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation are all unique and orthogonal." It is very homophobic to make the kinds of claims you are making it. Be careful because innocent ignorance and vile hate are very hard to distinguish on the internet, and previously admins have stated they don't care about intent or context, so you should probably ease up.
So "it's not racist because it's true"? It's racist to reverse the statistics and claim that because a person is black they are more likely to commit crime, you can't treat them as a criminal because of their skin color.
Similarly you can't assume someone is gay because of they way they look or talk, as I said before "Sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation are all unique and orthogonal." It is very homophobic to make the kinds of claims you are making it. Be careful because innocent ignorance and vile hate are very hard to distinguish on the internet, and previously admins have stated they don't care about intent or context, so you should probably ease up.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
If there's no evidence yet you are sure, then you are exhibiting confirmation bias of the highest order.
But let's take your argument for a second and look at it, why are you so sure that homosexuality isn't a choice in lieu of evidence? Actually, why are pro-LGBT supporters so sure of it? It seems to me they are trying to eschew responsibility. If it's not a choice, if it was determined by God, then they don't have to own it, they don't have to answer to anyone. Why does this even matter? Why do they not want to be responsible for their own sexual fetishes? I would say that many LGBT have a persecution complex or are simply immature. Instead of just saying "yeah I like people of the same sex, so what?" they have to make excuses. This is a lot more worrying and important than nature vs nurture.
How silly would it be to just say "huh, i think i like the same sex", and it just be that simple. It was silly of me as well to state that this is correct, just because of biased viewing.
No one is sure, yet people believe what they do. This whole argument is biased in the fact that, like i said, no one knows for certain. Homosexuals give these excuses because religious nuts belittle them and make them feel like they don't deserve to live because they're "different". They'd wish it was that easy to just come out with it and not be ridiculed for it. Their excuse is their own so they don't feel like it's their fault to as why they are how they are. "Its God's fault! It's how i was born! It's my family's fault! etc etc."
"Dear reader, I hope this email finds you before I do."
