Are you against gay marriage?

[Umari Senju]

It is genetical. People are born to crawl and then to walk, they don't have to be taught. Gay's being disliked and looked down upon is also genetical, to an extent.

This small percentage is becoming more and more accepted as time is passing by, at an exponential rate may I add. The more they are accepted, the more people will be influenced by gay's. The more people that are influenced by gay's, the more people will see gay's walking around. This will simply create a chain reaction in gay's being accepted by children, thus making it genetically accepted. Hence, our population begins dying out due to the overflow of homosexuals. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying this will happen over night, but by a hundred years or two, it should be at an exceptionally close percentage ration of homosexuals to heterosexuals.

Genetics and being taught are 2 very different things. Genetics is something that is hardwired into your DNA meaning not matter what you are taught you are still a product of your genetics. Accepting gays or being exposed to it in society doesn't turn people gay.

YOU DON'T TURN GAY.

Blacks used to be slaves. Salvery was aboloshied and now today we are widely accepted and a part of everyday society. Heck there is even a black president. Did this change in soceities thinking increase the likelihood of a white child turning black?

What you just posted was ignorant (And I don't mean that disrespectfully) There is so much obligatory and inaccruate data out there that society has on homoesexuality that it's mind boggling. No wonder it is such an issue in society.

 

[Turson]

Because that is the way you were taught. No one is born hating another for anything. These are notions taught by your parents, peers, mentors, and society as a whole. From birth you and everyone else was taught that homosexuality is wrong. Yet homosexuality isn't something that has sprung up over night. Homosexuality has been around as long as the human race. Yet this small percentage of the human race is somehow a danger to the speicies as a whole?

You offend me and my dads with such a negative and bigoted comment. Who are you to judge? Tell me, how does the homosexual lifestyle impede you and your life? Nevermind don't answer that. I know more hate will spill from your mouth. Your entitled to your opinion but let me leave you with this.

Hating and fearing something you don't understand is the natural defense of the human species.

I was never taught that homosexuality is wrong. I myself was creating my own opinions on many cases, including this. And no, I dont hate homosexuals. My cousin is gay (Im one of very few people who knows this) and Im friends with him since... like forever. But does that mean that I would want to be adopted by gay couple? Hell no. Moreover, most people think the same. Not so long ago french government forced a law that allowed gay people to adopt kids. Why forced? Becuase 70% of society was against the idea (and french society is quite tolerant, I live in much more conservative country). That caused whole sequence of demonstrations that were gathering over 100k people. Talk about democracy.

 

[Wolfus]

Genetics and being taught are 2 very different things. Genetics is something that is hardwired into your DNA meaning not matter what you are taught you are still a product of your genetics. Accepting gays or being exposed to it in society doesn't turn people gay.

YOU DON'T TURN GAY.

Blacks used to be slaves. Salvery was aboloshied and now today we are widely accepted and a part of everyday society. Heck there is even a black president. Did this change in soceities thinking increase the likelihood of a white child turning black?

What you just posted was ignorant (And I don't mean that disrespectfully) There is so much obligatory and inaccruate data out there that society has on homoesexuality that it's mind boggling. No wonder it is such an issue in society.

Bold- completely different from the gay situaton, unless homossexualism is genetical, which wasn't proved because some stupid moralists don't let people do their research.

 

[NarutoIndra]

Genetics and being taught are 2 very different things. Genetics is something that is hardwired into your DNA meaning not matter what you are taught you are still a product of your genetics. Accepting gays or being exposed to it in society doesn't turn people gay.

YOU DON'T TURN GAY.

Blacks used to be slaves. Salvery was aboloshied and now today we are widely accepted and a part of everyday society. Heck there is even a black president. Did that this change in soceities thinking increase the likelihood of a white child turning black?

What you just posted was ignorant (And I don't mean that disrespectfully) There is so much obligatory and inaccruate data out there that society has on homoesexuality that it's mind boggling. No wonder it is such an issue in society.

Accepting gay's however, is the first step to becoming gay. Denying them is the first and only required step to not turn gay.

Your second point... My god.. Are you implying black's can affect our world in a negative way.. At all? I don't see how, nor am I willing to believe there's a way. On the other hand, gay's can change this world into a world with no birth rates, but rather high death rates. There being a black president is a symbol to show they should be accepted, all that was done was made to create the feeling of black's being represented, and was the correct thing to do, hence he even received a noble peace prize for nothing, but still allowed him to make them accepted. Making a homosexual a president would idolise him and create a world of non-reproducing homosexuals, which obviously is a negative impact.

Your analogy was ignorant, my point was valid. I have tonnes of knowledge on homo-sexuality, however, the thing is homo-sexulas believe people look down upon them because they have wrong information, when reality is the majority have the correct information yet proceed to deny them because that is the right thing to do.

 

[Scorpio0Pharaoh0Titan]

You're not getting the point. You're just applying the an infinite amount of variables involved to one group, and only the group of the gay parents. Kids raised by straigth parents are also subject to all the other events as well. All the kids are.

However, if these events had the impact you're trying to give them, then we would get a much more higher % of people that turn gay,
I'm NOT saying they don't matter, they matter, they matter a lot. But not as a much as you're saying.

You''re forgeting one single thing: the world, with all of it's events, are already part of the system being considered. I'm already considering these. And like I said, if all of them together had such weigtj, then they would easily overcome or at least get close to the % related to the parents event only.

Not only that, but if they had such impact, then the % of kids raised by straigth that turned gay parents and the % of kids raised by gay parents that turned gay, these %, they would be almost equal.

However, that's not what happens in reality. And with this "and the psicologic researches I mentioned), the weight that having gay parents has is very high, and must be considered,as it's quite obvious that this weigth is high, not only high, but higher than the others.

And your exemple: Would straigth parents play that kind of thing to kids? Wouldn't the impact of the adult material be a indirect consequence of having gay parents?

You have a lot of flaws in your reasoning. The first one being that since there are an infinite amount of variables in the world, we can assume that it would be applied equally to same-*** couples and non same-*** couples.

That is incorrect. Some parents (like i said earlier) place limitations. Therefore, some parents, remove variables or add variables of their own. Freedom of choice if you will.

In order to make a 100 % non-bias experiment to claim what you are claiming, you have to control your variables. Something you would have learned in psych 101.

Therefore, not being able to control your variables, you will NEVER be able to get accurate data. Having INACCURATE data, will make scientists (like myself) laugh and shoot down your statement.

Flaw number 2 lies in the fact that you think the same % would be applied, when in fact, entropy increases in the world. It doesn't decrease. In other words, the more you try to control your variables, the more you realize that the closer you are to achieving a real-world scenario of a kid raising their parent is to be completely random... as literally, almost every child has never had a similar childhood.

Now, you try to say that "forget about that"... all im saying is that the likelihood of a child being raised by same *** parents is higher... based on what though? There is no experiment that has been conducted since 2003 (when the first gay marriage was legalized) with children to even back up your claim. You are grasping at straws and a thin one at that. Especially considering you claim that psychologists did this, when they did not.

Therefore, any % you claim is biased towards the only few examples there are out there.

Especially considering that there are many many more gay men who have heterosexual parents out there than gay men who have non-heterosexual parents.

What? 1000 same *** couples as opposed to 6 billion straight couples? And you're telling me that the % of gay children coming out of same *** couples would be higher? hahaha you're insane dude.

Even if you look at ratios, you would get destroyed...


Also, my example is just an example, the same can be said the other way around:

what if heterosexual parents expose their children at a young age to porn accidentally and their child becomes gay and homosexual parents do not, and therefore their child remains straight?

 

[Umari Senju]

Bold- completely different from the gay situaton, unless homossexualism is genetical, which wasn't proved because some stupid moralists don't let people do their research.

What are you talking about? There are tons of researchers researching this. Their have been many different finds but the research is still ongoing. Gays are a lot like the X-Men. The rest of society is so worried about trying to "cure" homosexuality out that they stomp all over homsexuals rights.

It's funny how I keep seeing statements about gays and lesbians forcing their lifestyles down the throats of society and religious affiliates, yet we watch heterosexual pleasures daily. So homosexuals are suppose to what, stay quiet and be good little citizens hiding who and what they are just so they don't upset the "norm"

Is that not a form of Oppression?

Accepting gay's however, is the firsts yep to becoming gay. Denying them is the first and only required step to not turn gay.

Your second point... My god.. Are you implying black's can affect our world in a negative way.. At all? I don't see how, nor am I willing to believe there's a way. On the other hand, gay's can change this world into a world with no birth rates, but rather high death rates. There being a black president is a symbol to show they should be accepted, all that was done was made to create the feeling of black's being represented, and was the correct thing to do, hence he even received a noble peace prize for nothing, but still allowed him to make them accepted. Making a homosexual a president would idolise him and create a world of non-reproducing homosexuals, which obviously is a negative impact.

Your analogy was ignorant, my point was valid. I have tonnes of knowledge on homo-sexuality, however, the thing is homo-sexulas believe people look down upon them because they have wrong information, when reality is the majority have the correct information yet proceed to deny them because that is the right thing to do.

Point? Completly missed :vincent:

I'm done. There really isn't anything I can tell you to make you understand how misguided your notions about homosexuality are. This is why Homosexuals "force" their views upon heterosexual society.

How are they suppose to accept living in a world where things like you just said are widley accepted by the masses and expect them to be content with how the world views them?

I have nothing more to say.

 

[Spitfire421]

I see nothing wrong with gay marriage. They aren't hurting anyone by loving each other.

 

[Scorpio0Pharaoh0Titan]

Also, posted this on Wolfus's message section of his page. Thought to put it here as well:

"I understand what you are TRYING to say, but you can't simply say that in the first place as you have no way of knowing why a same-*** couple would influence the outcome of being gay. In other words, you would base it off of what? visual stimulation? They see their parents together so they think it's ok? How can you prove that? You don't even know what the cause to be gay to being with is!"

In other words, what I'm saying is that if we don't know what exactly CAUSES a child to be gay, then we CANNOT say that same-*** couples INFLUENCE a child to be gay because if that were true, then basically, what we would be essentially saying is that same-*** couples indirectly cause a child to be gay (the indirect being them placing influence and thus exposing the child to the cause).


However, we don't even know what causes a child to be gay, so Wolfus, you can't say what you are saying as though you have 100 % certainty.

 

[Irie]

What's gay marriage?

All I know is that there's marriage, and people should be allowed to regardless whether they like the opposite *** or not.

 

[Wolfus]

You have a lot of flaws in your reasoning. The first one being that since there are an infinite amount of variables in the world, we can assume that it would be applied equally to same-*** couples and non same-*** couples.

That is incorrect. Some parents (like i said earlier) place limitations. Therefore, some parents, remove variables or add variables of their own. Freedom of choice if you will.

In order to make a 100 % non-bias experiment to claim what you are claiming, you have to control your variables. Something you would have learned in psych 101.

Therefore, not being able to control your variables, you will NEVER be able to get accurate data. Having INACCURATE data, will make scientists (like myself) laugh and shoot down your statement.

Flaw number 2 lies in the fact that you think the same % would be applied, when in fact, entropy increases in the world. It doesn't decrease. In other words, the more you try to control your variables, the more you realize that the closer you are to achieving a real-world scenario of a kid raising their parent is to be completely random... as literally, almost every child has never had a similar childhood.

Now, you try to say that "forget about that"... all im saying is that the likelihood of a child being raised by same *** parents is higher... based on what though? There is no experiment that has been conducted since 2003 (when the first gay marriage was legalized) with children to even back up your claim. You are grasping at straws and a thin one at that. Especially considering you claim that psychologists did this, when they did not.

Therefore, any % you claim is biased towards the only few examples there are out there.

Especially considering that there are many many more gay men who have heterosexual parents out there than gay men who have non-heterosexual parents.

What? 1000 same *** couples as opposed to 6 billion straight couples? And you're telling me that the % of gay children coming out of same *** couples would be higher? hahaha you're insane dude.

Even if you look at ratios, you would get destroyed...


Also, my example is just an example, the same can be said the other way around:

what if heterosexual parents expose their children at a young age to porn accidentally and their child becomes gay and homosexual parents do not, and therefore their child remains straight?

ok , I'll hold everything about the "variables" in item 1.]

1- Placing limitations is not related to the parents being gay or not. Some gay parents might place countless limitationms, and some none, the same for straigth parents. It's barely related to this.
I never said that, did I? I clearly said not 100% accurate. And please, you're a scientist? Don't make me laugh. Unlesss you know only about your field, and nothing about math. Or are you saying that you know science? Because you're not the only one.
The variables, that are what we are considering here, are aplied to both same-*** couples and non same-*** couples. They live in the same society, and they suffer the influence of it. Some different from others, boviously, but that will happen in both cases. These differences of influence will be seen sometimes more in gay parents kids, sometimes in straigth. You're just trying to apply a variable to a variable, getting something very insignificant to consider.

The main point about the variables is not which are them or how many of them are in the situation. That's not the point. The point is how these variables impac the behavior of what we are analysing. If you're really a scientis, you'd know that.
If we got a situation with more than 1000 variables, however they are so insignificant for the event that the result with or without them is basically the same in all cases, then these variables don't matter.
No, I'm not saying this is the case. I'm giving an exemple for you to see the point of the variables.

2-The bold part.That would make any person with math knowledge laugh. That's not how you compare the %. What you do, in this case, is get the relative % of gay kids raisde by gay parents, in relation to the total of kids raised by gay parents. You'll get an X %. Then, you get the relative % of gay kids raisde by straigth parents, in relation to the total of kids raised by straigth parents. You'll get Y.
Then you comapre them.

Your logic is so flawed here, that you tried to compare the quantity instead of the %, when that's an obvious mistake. It would be the same as, for exemple: get a city with 5000 people. There are 2000 criminals there. Now get a city with 5 million people, and there are 10000 criminals there. So, the big city is more dangerous, because it has the double of criminals? No. You should get the % of criminals.

And about the psychologists, are you serious? You're really saying that no psychologist ever stated the weigth of the action of parents on the behavior of kids? You're really saying this?

Again, you're just stating variables of variables, only to say that they don't gewt accounted for, when they're so insignificant to consider. Especific cases countless times. I said it already. %, probability, they're not something "for sure". It doesn't mean that because we have a higher probability, it will always happen. That's never what I said.

You should learn about probability before trying to discuss something related to it.

 

[YowYan]

Yes I am. Why?

Because magnets. With a south pole end and north pole, the magnets stick to each other. But with same poles, the magnets reject each other.

Apparently they attract each other in this case. And?

 

[Wolfus]

Also, posted this on Wolfus's message section of his page. Thought to put it here as well:

"I understand what you are TRYING to say, but you can't simply say that in the first place as you have no way of knowing why a same-*** couple would influence the outcome of being gay. In other words, you would base it off of what? visual stimulation? They see their parents together so they think it's ok? How can you prove that? You don't even know what the cause to be gay to being with is!"

In other words, what I'm saying is that if we don't know what exactly CAUSES a child to be gay, then we CANNOT say that same-*** couples INFLUENCE a child to be gay because if that were true, then basically, what we would be essentially saying is that same-*** couples indirectly cause a child to be gay (the indirect being them placing influence and thus exposing the child to the cause).


However, we don't even know what causes a child to be gay, so Wolfus, you can't say what you are saying as though you have 100 % certainty.

Bold- That's what % is for. One way to check the causes of homossexualism is the phycologic influence. What i'm saying is, if it is something genetical, then no matter the influences, it will be very hard to turn the person gay, as it's genetical that he is not.

However, if the cause is phycological, then the influences would have big amount of results. And phycologically, the actions of parents, and what they teach the kids, have a great impact on the future behavior of kids(not related to homossexualism, but to many things, to most things).Obviously, it's not the only factor in play, but it's a very important one.
I'm considering the physological factor in here. If the cause is genetial, then everything I said would be wrong. And all those variables you mentioned, they'd be useless as well.

 

[avenged sevenfold]

I'm all for it because if straight people are allowed to get married then why not gays

 

[NarutoIndra]

Point? Completly missed :vincent:

I'm done. There really isn't anything I can tell you to make you understand how misguided your notions about homosexuality are. This is why Homosexuals "force" their views upon heterosexual society.

How are they suppose to accept living in a world where things like you just said are widley accepted by the masses and expect them to be content with how the world views them?

I have nothing more to say.

My point is the more people are homosexual, the worse the impact will be on this world. If you didn't notice that, you are clearly lacking comprehension skills.
Homosexuals force their views and know they are unaccepted is what you just said. However, if this is what everyone thinks, and only a few (gay's) disagree, then how can you say the homosexuals are correct? Usually, one can realise he is incorrect when the rest of the world disagrees with him, you have to be stubborn to still think you are right when the vast majority disagrees.

I have nothing more to say to a person who implied black's are unequal to white's.

 

[fasterthanminato]

Yes. It is not in human nature.

 

[Ōkami]

Are you guys still arguing about butt ***?

Why not just take turns so all of you can be happy.

 

[Pavoneo]

Oh look, another homosexuality thread that blew up. :|.

 

[Wolfus]

What are you talking about? There are tons of researchers researching this. Their have been many different finds but the research is still ongoing. Gays are a lot like the X-Men. The rest of society is so worried about trying to "cure" homosexuality out that they stomp all over homsexuals rights.

It's funny how I keep seeing statements about gays and lesbians forcing their lifestyles down the throats of society and religious affiliates, yet we watch heterosexual pleasures daily. So homosexuals are suppose to what, stay quiet and be good little citizens hiding who and what they are just so they don't upset the "norm"

Is that not a form of Oppression?
.

Sigh... the classic moralism. "Oh, society is opressive, ah, opression, bla bla bla, the system bla bla bla. Don't make me laugh.
Gays are like x men. You 'really think society bothers that much? Gay moralists makes more drama, way more drama, making it seems as if everybody that isn't gay is opressing gays. That's not reality, that's not even close.
The researches in order to try fo find the cause, they are not necessarily to find a "cure", but to understand it. We study a lot of things. Moralists are the people who are making drama and forcing "opressive situations" in situations that weren't opressive at all.
But I got it explained in these 2 threads.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

 

[Prime Rib]

Im against gay marriage but that should not stop a person from loving another person.

 

[Pavoneo]

Sigh... the classic moralism. "Oh, society is opressive, ah, opression, bla bla bla, the system bla bla bla. Don't make me laugh.
Gays are like x men. You 'really think society bothers that much? Gay moralists makes more drama, way more drama, making it seems as if everybody that isn't gay is opressing gays. That's not reality, that's not even close.
The researches in order to try fo find the cause, they are not necessarily to find a "cure", but to understand it. We study a lot of things. Moralists are the people who are making drama and forcing "opressive situations" in situations that weren't opressive at all.
But I got it explained in these 2 threads.

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

I'm just going to jump in this conversation and add my quick two cents. Homosexuality isn't really too frowned upon when looking at it as a whole. They have more or less equal rights and acceptance and such politically speaking. The overall distaste of them is a lot more prevalent when you look at it from the perspective of a gay person themselves. Most of the aggression is a bit more passive given the era we live in, but it's still there. Some people are a bit more outspoken about it than others on a small level, but it's not that bad to be gay in today's society in my opinion.