Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Off-Topic Members Disgust Me


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
136 replies to this topic

#91 Hume

Hume

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 668 posts
  • Joined: 26-January 11

Posted 02 April 2012 - 10:21 PM

I get what you're saying, I honestly do. 99/100 times that would be my approach, to add to the conversation with a reasonable opinion based on logic and proof. In this instance, it's just so mind-numbing that I'm calling shenanigans on the BS. It's worth the effort to stand against the stupidity, it is not worth it to pick it apart. Anyone with two firing brain cells already knows how wrong he is.


his argument is that there isn't 100% proof that sexuality is 100% predetermined, and people should stop acting like it's an issue comparable to the colour of someone's skin, when it's obviously way more complex than that. i think that is a reasonable central argument, don't you?
i've no idea what i am talking about! you'll go to hell for what your dirty mind is thiiiiiiiiiiiiiinkin'.
(i'm trapped in this body and can't get out.) how come i end up where i started?.
REASONABLE AND SENSIBLE.

#92 Remy

Remy

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,195 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 08

Posted 02 April 2012 - 10:24 PM

his argument is that there isn't 100% proof that sexuality is 100% predetermined, and people should stop acting like it's an issue comparable to the colour of someone's skin, when it's obviously way more complex than that. i think that is a reasonable central argument, don't you?


It's not really inflammatory when you put it across that way, I'll give you that. Redacted has a fair point as well. I had a moment, it's all good, but some of the comments I read ... made me see red, and fairly so, I think.

#93 Tocinetaloco

Tocinetaloco

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Joined: 22-July 11

Posted 02 April 2012 - 10:26 PM

Being a politically conservative Blackhawks fan I understand I will get a rough ride here from time to time.
No problems with it in the least, as I have thick skin and sharp elbows... I get equal parts enjoyment and amusement being on CDC with it's cast of "colorful characters".

I see what you did there! :lol:
Tocineta = Bacon
Loco = Crazy
I AM CRAZYBACON

#94 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,078 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 03 April 2012 - 07:30 AM

I'd rather live in a society that didn't have religion and everyone was held accountable for their actions and respected one another.
Than a society that says we have to do what the invisible man wants us to do.
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#95 TimberWolf

TimberWolf

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,870 posts
  • Joined: 28-February 04

Posted 03 April 2012 - 08:43 AM

I'd rather live in a society that didn't have religion and everyone was held accountable for their actions and respected one another.
Than a society that says we have to do what the invisible man wants us to do.


You don't live in either if you are Canadian :)

I was saying Lu-Urns...

star-wars-hockey-goal.gif?w=284

#96 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 03 April 2012 - 08:57 AM

his argument is that there isn't 100% proof that sexuality is 100% predetermined, and people should stop acting like it's an issue comparable to the colour of someone's skin, when it's obviously way more complex than that. i think that is a reasonable central argument, don't you?


Not really. It's highly dubious. Clearly there are people who can choose what sexual acts they like to participate in. However, there are clearly many others who cannot choose their sexuality. This really isn't what the debate is about. It is an issue like someone's skin colour in that sexuality is a fundamental part of a person's character.

The argument that some people choose their sexuality is really just a smoke screen to deny people certain rights based on their sexuality.

#97 Redacted

Redacted

    Comets Prospect

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 205 posts
  • Joined: 12-April 11

Posted 03 April 2012 - 10:12 AM

Not really. It's highly dubious. Clearly there are people who can choose what sexual acts they like to participate in. However, there are clearly many others who cannot choose their sexuality. This really isn't what the debate is about. It is an issue like someone's skin colour in that sexuality is a fundamental part of a person's character.

The argument that some people choose their sexuality is really just a smoke screen to deny people certain rights based on their sexuality.


Where did Glassjaw say anything about denying someones rights because they are gay? You're assuming motives.

I think the problem with this argument is people are assuming those who think that they choose are out to get the homosexual population or have an underhanded motive trying to make them less then human when that's not the goal of all of them. You can think that they are born gay and still think gays aren't people but it seems that sort of thinking is only attached to one side of the argument.

I don't think they choose, but it always seems that the other point of view has a negative connection that people are making on their own regardless.

Edited by Redacted, 03 April 2012 - 12:55 PM.

People talk about pressure like it's something negative. Pressure means your actions have meaning, that people care about whether you succeed or fail. Pressure is everything.

#98 Hume

Hume

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 668 posts
  • Joined: 26-January 11

Posted 03 April 2012 - 03:02 PM

Not really. It's highly dubious. Clearly there are people who can choose what sexual acts they like to participate in. However, there are clearly many others who cannot choose their sexuality. This really isn't what the debate is about. It is an issue like someone's skin colour in that sexuality is a fundamental part of a person's character.

The argument that some people choose their sexuality is really just a smoke screen to deny people certain rights based on their sexuality.


i'm not saying people "choose" their sexuality, that's stupid. but perhaps circumstances and events in peoples lives can affect their sexual orientation. i think that is highly possibly, don't you?
i've no idea what i am talking about! you'll go to hell for what your dirty mind is thiiiiiiiiiiiiiinkin'.
(i'm trapped in this body and can't get out.) how come i end up where i started?.
REASONABLE AND SENSIBLE.

#99 Redacted

Redacted

    Comets Prospect

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 205 posts
  • Joined: 12-April 11

Posted 03 April 2012 - 07:32 PM

i'm not saying people "choose" their sexuality, that's stupid. but perhaps circumstances and events in peoples lives can affect their sexual orientation. i think that is highly possibly, don't you?


And this makes complete sense because culture dictates what you find attractive on at least some level.
People talk about pressure like it's something negative. Pressure means your actions have meaning, that people care about whether you succeed or fail. Pressure is everything.

#100 GLASSJAW

GLASSJAW

    LEGENDARY POSER

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,308 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 04

Posted 03 April 2012 - 10:36 PM

If I get a warning for this, well, it was absolutely worth it.

Glassjaw, holy hell are you ever painfully ignorant. I generally like to focus on someone's argument, rather than their character, but in this case the two are inseparable. You are as dumb as your idea is stupid. I don't think I could ever get through to you, and I'm not going to try, but if I didn't say how full of BS I think you are, I would forever feel like a coward. Please go back to your cave and learn how to use fire to cook meat, we'll call that a good start.


what idea are you even talking about?

output_Pdq_B7_F.gif
 
i'm not alone; i'll never be
 


#101 GLASSJAW

GLASSJAW

    LEGENDARY POSER

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,308 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 04

Posted 03 April 2012 - 10:37 PM

I get what you're saying, I honestly do. 99/100 times that would be my approach, to add to the conversation with a reasonable opinion based on logic and proof. In this instance, it's just so mind-numbing that I'm calling shenanigans on the BS. It's worth the effort to stand against the stupidity, it is not worth it to pick it apart. Anyone with two firing brain cells already knows how wrong he is.


burden of proof is on you

output_Pdq_B7_F.gif
 
i'm not alone; i'll never be
 


#102 GLASSJAW

GLASSJAW

    LEGENDARY POSER

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,308 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 04

Posted 03 April 2012 - 10:46 PM

Not really. It's highly dubious. Clearly there are people who can choose what sexual acts they like to participate in. However, there are clearly many others who cannot choose their sexuality. This really isn't what the debate is about. It is an issue like someone's skin colour in that sexuality is a fundamental part of a person's character.

The argument that some people choose their sexuality is really just a smoke screen to deny people certain rights based on their sexuality.


nowhere did i say that it's a conscious decision. in fact, i said it's an "infinitely complex issue" and that it's not a matter of "faking it" or lying or anything. i think it's dismissive to say all human beings can be considered "gay - straight - bi" -- and I expressed frustration and serious eye rolling when that dude tried to fit everyone into a label. it's not that easy.

nowhere did i deny that homosexuality is a legitimate thing.

i'm saying that the claim that people are BORN with homosexuality in their blood is a claim that cannot be supported as fact, yet.

that is ALL i have said.

i've said absolutely nothing, not even a little bit, that suggests i think gay people should be denied any rights at all. and the fact that you idiots--and you are idiots--are smearing my name with such implications and nastiness says more about your character and inability to think (and apparently read) than it does mine.

Edited by GLASSJAW, 03 April 2012 - 10:47 PM.

output_Pdq_B7_F.gif
 
i'm not alone; i'll never be
 


#103 VICanucksfan5551

VICanucksfan5551

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,181 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 04

Posted 04 April 2012 - 01:52 AM

I thought you were done with the subject, Glassjaw. I see you've come back for more grasping at the semantics of what I was saying instead of my actual point. The definitions are completely irrelevant.
Posted Image
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#104 Columbo

Columbo

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,913 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 04

Posted 04 April 2012 - 07:51 AM

Of course gay people are born that way...

IMO whether or not you're born gay is not so black and white. Like with almost everything, it's part genetics, part environment. The whole nature vs. nurture argument. You're not "born" gay just like a human is not "born" tall or fat or introverted or good at basketball etc. You may be predisposed to all these things, but your upbringing and the environment around you is equally important. And of course, being gay vs. being straight is not bimodal either, naturally. I think people on both sides of the argument tend to oversimplify things a bit.

#105 GLASSJAW

GLASSJAW

    LEGENDARY POSER

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,308 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 04

Posted 04 April 2012 - 01:36 PM

I thought you were done with the subject, Glassjaw. I see you've come back for more grasping at the semantics of what I was saying instead of my actual point. The definitions are completely irrelevant.


when people started name calling and implying i'm not educated and am homophobic, i felt i needed to respond

i didn't "grasp" at anything. your entire point was based around definitions, none of which i agreed with.

if you don't think semantics are relevant to an argument, you're insane. you created labels, with definitions of your orchestration, to support your argument (because your argument isn't supported by scientific proof, you had to use sentiment and opinion. your words had vague definitions. and when you did define them, you did so poorly). if i don't even agree with your definitions, how can I even care about your point?

re-read everything you've said. if you don't think definitions are relevant to your 'point' then we're on very different pages, and i couldn't care less about finding common ground with you

output_Pdq_B7_F.gif
 
i'm not alone; i'll never be
 


#106 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 04 April 2012 - 02:36 PM

nowhere did i say that it's a conscious decision. in fact, i said it's an "infinitely complex issue" and that it's not a matter of "faking it" or lying or anything. i think it's dismissive to say all human beings can be considered "gay - straight - bi" -- and I expressed frustration and serious eye rolling when that dude tried to fit everyone into a label. it's not that easy.

nowhere did i deny that homosexuality is a legitimate thing.

i'm saying that the claim that people are BORN with homosexuality in their blood is a claim that cannot be supported as fact, yet.

that is ALL i have said.

i've said absolutely nothing, not even a little bit, that suggests i think gay people should be denied any rights at all. and the fact that you idiots--and you are idiots--are smearing my name with such implications and nastiness says more about your character and inability to think (and apparently read) than it does mine.


Here's the thing. You're wrong about that. Not all "homosexual" people are born homosexual (in that a heterosexual person could, in theory get used to having sex with men, not sure why'd you want to though), but there is certainly an overwhelming amount of science to support the fact that most homosexuals do not choose their sexuality.

The idea that all homosexuals can choose their sexuality leads to other ideas like teaching gays not to be gay. In addition rights are, in general, assigned on the quality of a person and not their actions. Therefore, if you are denying the intrinsic qualities about sexuality, you're opening the door to denying rights. Whether that's your goal or not.

#107 Hume

Hume

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 668 posts
  • Joined: 26-January 11

Posted 04 April 2012 - 02:45 PM

Here's the thing. You're wrong about that. Not all "homosexual" people are born homosexual (in that a heterosexual person could, in theory get used to having sex with men, not sure why'd you want to though), but there is certainly an overwhelming amount of science to support the fact that most homosexuals do not choose their sexuality.

The idea that all homosexuals can choose their sexuality leads to other ideas like teaching gays not to be gay. In addition rights are, in general, assigned on the quality of a person and not their actions. Therefore, if you are denying the intrinsic qualities about sexuality, you're opening the door to denying rights. Whether that's your goal or not.


NOBODY SAID ANYONE "CHOOSES" ANYTHING.
i've no idea what i am talking about! you'll go to hell for what your dirty mind is thiiiiiiiiiiiiiinkin'.
(i'm trapped in this body and can't get out.) how come i end up where i started?.
REASONABLE AND SENSIBLE.

#108 hockeyfan87

hockeyfan87

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,502 posts
  • Joined: 13-February 10

Posted 04 April 2012 - 02:53 PM

If I get a warning for this, well, it was absolutely worth it.

Glassjaw, holy hell are you ever painfully ignorant. I generally like to focus on someone's argument, rather than their character, but in this case the two are inseparable. You are as dumb as your idea is stupid. I don't think I could ever get through to you, and I'm not going to try, but if I didn't say how full of BS I think you are, I would forever feel like a coward. Please go back to your cave and learn how to use fire to cook meat, we'll call that a good start.


Don't misrepresent yourself. Remember the BCTF/government dispute thread? You, as an alleged teacher, personally attacked several members and not their arguments simply because they disagreed with your own position. Ad hoc fallacy 101.

It doesn't surprise me that such a hypocrite reveals himself in a thread like this. But please go ahead and attack my character and make assumptions about where I stand on the issue. All of which is irrelevant.

#109 GLASSJAW

GLASSJAW

    LEGENDARY POSER

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,308 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 04

Posted 04 April 2012 - 03:48 PM

Here's the thing. You're wrong about that. Not all "homosexual" people are born homosexual (in that a heterosexual person could, in theory get used to having sex with men, not sure why'd you want to though), but there is certainly an overwhelming amount of science to support the fact that most homosexuals do not choose their sexuality.

The idea that all homosexuals can choose their sexuality leads to other ideas like teaching gays not to be gay. In addition rights are, in general, assigned on the quality of a person and not their actions. Therefore, if you are denying the intrinsic qualities about sexuality, you're opening the door to denying rights. Whether that's your goal or not.


are you kidding me?

are you even following the conversation? or are you just so paranoid that people are spouting off homophobia that you're just reeling off stock responses?

get with it, or get out of the conversation

output_Pdq_B7_F.gif
 
i'm not alone; i'll never be
 


#110 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,371 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 04 April 2012 - 03:54 PM

At first I thought, "What does a lambasting of Glassjaw over stating a scientific fact which was then stretched into completely unrelated homophobia-phobia have to do with the topic at hand?"

Then I checked the topic, "Off-Topic Members Disgust Me".

Hmmm...wasn't expecting such a compelling demonstration.
Posted Image

#111 suolucidir

suolucidir

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,221 posts
  • Joined: 04-December 05

Posted 04 April 2012 - 04:49 PM

Don't anyone dare be offensive towards gays, transgenders, blacks etc. here, but it's a free for all for attacking religious/beliefs people. Bunch of hypocrites. Probably think you're so intelligent coming here mocking religious people, and how you're so much better just because you're atheist or something. I am not a religous person myself, but some of the most upstanding people I know are good religious folks, you ignorant, hate spewing people. I have nothing against atheists that can argue logically without getting emotional, or still show respect to other peoples beliefs. THIS goes the same for religous people too. If you can't be an adult about it, keep your beliefs to yourself, everyone can have thier own beliefs, just don't try to shove them down my throat. This subforum for years has been populated with high and uppity, holier than thou members.

Sexual orientation and race are not choices. Religion is a belief system and is fair game for criticism.

That said, being an ignorant bigot is bad regardless of your motivation.
PSN: CloakOfSkill

Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists somewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.

It bugs me when people pull out the gold medal for an example... Luongo only had to outplay Brodeur.


#112 suolucidir

suolucidir

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,221 posts
  • Joined: 04-December 05

Posted 04 April 2012 - 05:03 PM

Not that there's anything wrong with it, but why do so many people believe that you're born gay?

There are theories about it - but it's not 100% proven.
That is, I haven't read anything that state's it's a 100% fact that people who are gay were born that way.

Oh, before you think I'm against being gay, think again, one of my daughters is gay and when she told me I wasn't surprised and told her the truth - that I am fine with it and thanked her for telling me. Also, she believes in God (Christian).

Because I didn't choose to be straight, and no homosexual I know of things that they decided to be gay.
Because while I support the rights of gays, I'm pretty disgusted by the idea myself; I couldn't choose to be gay. And to be clear, "gay" means not just performing sexual acts with members of the same sex, but falling in love exclusively or preferentially with the same sex.
Because other species have gays among them, and that makes very little sense.
It's only natural to conclude that others are made much the same way - born wired one way or the other. Which way, is irrelevant.
The only time I think being gay is a choice is when chicks make out for attention. But then they aren't actually gay; they're just attention whores and can be rightly ridiculed for it.

As for proving it, I did read an article where they found that the brains of gays had more in common with women than those of hetero males, and likewise between hetero males and lesbians.
http://www.scientifi...s-brains-of-gay

Also, + for showing some Burkian class regarding your daughter.

Edited by suolucidir, 04 April 2012 - 05:06 PM.

PSN: CloakOfSkill

Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists somewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.

It bugs me when people pull out the gold medal for an example... Luongo only had to outplay Brodeur.


#113 VICanucksfan5551

VICanucksfan5551

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,181 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 04

Posted 04 April 2012 - 07:36 PM

when people started name calling and implying i'm not educated and am homophobic, i felt i needed to respond

i didn't "grasp" at anything. your entire point was based around definitions, none of which i agreed with.

if you don't think semantics are relevant to an argument, you're insane. you created labels, with definitions of your orchestration, to support your argument (because your argument isn't supported by scientific proof, you had to use sentiment and opinion. your words had vague definitions. and when you did define them, you did so poorly). if i don't even agree with your definitions, how can I even care about your point?

re-read everything you've said. if you don't think definitions are relevant to your 'point' then we're on very different pages, and i couldn't care less about finding common ground with you

Fair enough. Personal attacks are worth responding to.

Replace every instance I said "gay" or "homosexual" with "exclusive homosexual attraction" and "heterosexual" with "exclusive heterosexual attraction". Does that clear up the issues you have with the semantics? The original point I was trying to make that you ignored was that someone in the spectrum of bisexuality who chooses one gender over another is not choosing their sexuality (ie. who they're attracted to).

I said before in an earlier post that I had plenty of scientific papers I could cite that show morphological and hormonal differences between homosexual and heterosexual people that imply either genetic or prenatal developmental causes if you wanted me to. Funny that you didn't quote that part of the post and are now accusing me of not having any scientific backing behind what I'm saying.
Posted Image
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#114 GLASSJAW

GLASSJAW

    LEGENDARY POSER

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,308 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 04

Posted 04 April 2012 - 07:56 PM

Fair enough. Personal attacks are worth responding to.

Replace every instance I said "gay" or "homosexual" with "exclusive homosexual attraction" and "heterosexual" with "exclusive heterosexual attraction". Does that clear up the issues you have with the semantics? The original point I was trying to make that you ignored was that someone in the spectrum of bisexuality who chooses one gender over another is not choosing their sexuality (ie. who they're attracted to).

I said before in an earlier post that I had plenty of scientific papers I could cite that show morphological and hormonal differences between homosexual and heterosexual people that imply either genetic or prenatal developmental causes if you wanted me to. Funny that you didn't quote that part of the post and are now accusing me of not having any scientific backing behind what I'm saying.


You have no facts, you have speculation. That should be the end of the discussion, shouldn't it? But you're so stubborn, for some reason.

As someone who actually works in a university setting, where I have to wade through academic papers constantly, I'm well aware of the speculation and verbal hot air that these types of things breed. If you could find any study that was somehow ignored by the mainstream press and proves something as factual basis for sexual orientation being a product of prenatal origin, by all means get it.

The inherent problem with scientific study of "gay brains" (or whatever) is that the definition of homosexuality, as you've recently discovered, isn't a black and white issue. Scientific research of "gay brains" would be relying purely on the shaky grounds of categorization based on impossible to prove backing and speculation. (i.e. what if a person claimed to be gay, but actually had feelings of heterosexual attraction at some point?) Self-identification is not viable information. And naturally, speculation is entirely irrelevant, because that would be research based on sexual behaviour, which is different from sexual orientation, or identity

But if you can find studies that get around these issues and can offer more than academic masturbation and hot air, then I'll gladly read them.

Edited by GLASSJAW, 04 April 2012 - 07:57 PM.

output_Pdq_B7_F.gif
 
i'm not alone; i'll never be
 


#115 Humble Rodent

Humble Rodent

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,792 posts
  • Joined: 08-October 06

Posted 04 April 2012 - 08:34 PM

why am i even posting in this thread nevermind

Edited by Humble Rodent, 04 April 2012 - 08:35 PM.

Posted Image


#116 GLASSJAW

GLASSJAW

    LEGENDARY POSER

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,308 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 04

Posted 04 April 2012 - 08:36 PM

why am i even posting in this thread nevermind


get out while you can

output_Pdq_B7_F.gif
 
i'm not alone; i'll never be
 


#117 VICanucksfan5551

VICanucksfan5551

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,181 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 04

Posted 04 April 2012 - 09:58 PM

You have no facts, you have speculation. That should be the end of the discussion, shouldn't it? But you're so stubborn, for some reason.

As someone who actually works in a university setting, where I have to wade through academic papers constantly, I'm well aware of the speculation and verbal hot air that these types of things breed. If you could find any study that was somehow ignored by the mainstream press and proves something as factual basis for sexual orientation being a product of prenatal origin, by all means get it.

The inherent problem with scientific study of "gay brains" (or whatever) is that the definition of homosexuality, as you've recently discovered, isn't a black and white issue. Scientific research of "gay brains" would be relying purely on the shaky grounds of categorization based on impossible to prove backing and speculation. (i.e. what if a person claimed to be gay, but actually had feelings of heterosexual attraction at some point?) Self-identification is not viable information. And naturally, speculation is entirely irrelevant, because that would be research based on sexual behaviour, which is different from sexual orientation, or identity

But if you can find studies that get around these issues and can offer more than academic masturbation and hot air, then I'll gladly read them.


After 4 years of a biology undergrad degree (with a focus on ecology, so I'm not an expert on endocrinology or neurology by any means), I should hope I'm well aware of the way scientific research works.The fact that you cite the mainstream media as any type of reliable barometer for the validity of scientific research is laughable. This is the same media that heralds every new study on cancer research as a "cure for cancer" and treats the subject of evolution like it's some sort of contentious debate in the scientific community.

For one, I "recently discovered" nothing about that. I was well aware that there was a continuum of bisexuality between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual. Secondly, are you seriously claiming that self-identification is useless in this case? There is going to be some error associated with self-identification, but when a statistically-significant difference in brain structure between the self-identifying heterosexual group and the self-identifying homosexual group has been reaffirmed in many studies, you can't just ignore a massive sample size like that. If it is safe to say that the self-identifying heterosexual group is statistically more likely to contain people with a heterosexual orientation than the self-identifying homosexual group and vice versa for homosexual orientation, then these studies are very valid. Aside from brain structure (which it appears you've already read at least one paper on), there are also numerous other morphological differences between people of homosexual and heterosexual orientations (http://en.wikipedia....n_and_gay_women). All of the bullets are cited with the papers in question. This degree of dimorphism is a good indicator of genetic or developmental differences.

In addition to morphology, you can also look at the influence of fraternal birth order (see Sexual orientation, fraternal birth order, and the maternal immune hypothesis: A review, by Boegart and Skorska (2011) for a good review of this and check out their citations). Multiple studies have shown that the number of older brothers positively correlates with probability of homosexual orientation of the male in question, independent of year of birth, age, socioeconomic status, and whether or not the boys were raised in the same household. This points to pre-natal influence on sexuality by the mother (supported in the review paper nicely).

There are also epigenetic factors. Bocklandt et al. (2006) found that "the number of women with extreme skewing of X-inactivation was significantly higher in mothers of gay men (13/97=13%) compared to controls (4/103=4%) and increased in mothers with two or more gay sons (10/44=23%)". Differences in genetics are also correlated with differences in sexual orientation (eg. A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation by Hamer et al. (1993)), but not strongly enough to single out any gene as "the gay gene" (which may not exist).

None of this discounts the possibility of environmental influences on sexuality, obviously, but it's pretty clear that prenatal influences play at least some role in sexuality.
Posted Image
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#118 GLASSJAW

GLASSJAW

    LEGENDARY POSER

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,308 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 04

Posted 04 April 2012 - 10:52 PM

After 4 years of a biology undergrad degree (with a focus on ecology, so I'm not an expert on endocrinology or neurology by any means), I should hope I'm well aware of the way scientific research works.The fact that you cite the mainstream media as any type of reliable barometer for the validity of scientific research is laughable. This is the same media that heralds every new study on cancer research as a "cure for cancer" and treats the subject of evolution like it's some sort of contentious debate in the scientific community. For one, I "recently discovered" nothing about that. I was well aware that there was a continuum of bisexuality between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual. Secondly, are you seriously claiming that self-identification is useless in this case? There is going to be some error associated with self-identification, but when a statistically-significant difference in brain structure between the self-identifying heterosexual group and the self-identifying homosexual group has been reaffirmed in many studies, you can't just ignore a massive sample size like that. If it is safe to say that the self-identifying heterosexual group is statistically more likely to contain people with a heterosexual orientation than the self-identifying homosexual group and vice versa for homosexual orientation, then these studies are very valid. Aside from brain structure (which it appears you've already read at least one paper on), there are also numerous other morphological differences between people of homosexual and heterosexual orientations (http://en.wikipedia....n_and_gay_women). All of the bullets are cited with the papers in question. This degree of dimorphism is a good indicator of genetic or developmental differences. In addition to morphology, you can also look at the influence of fraternal birth order (see Sexual orientation, fraternal birth order, and the maternal immune hypothesis: A review, by Boegart and Skorska (2011) for a good review of this and check out their citations). Multiple studies have shown that the number of older brothers positively correlates with probability of homosexual orientation of the male in question, independent of year of birth, age, socioeconomic status, and whether or not the boys were raised in the same household. This points to pre-natal influence on sexuality by the mother (supported in the review paper nicely). There are also epigenetic factors. Bocklandt et al. (2006) found that "the number of women with extreme skewing of X-inactivation was significantly higher in mothers of gay men (13/97=13%) compared to controls (4/103=4%) and increased in mothers with two or more gay sons (10/44=23%)". Differences in genetics are also correlated with differences in sexual orientation (eg. A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation by Hamer et al. (1993)), but not strongly enough to single out any gene as "the gay gene" (which may not exist). None of this discounts the possibility of environmental influences on sexuality, obviously, but it's pretty clear that prenatal influences play at least some role in sexuality.


The birth order idea, when applied to a larger sample size, didn't work, according to this research: http://userwww.servi...Orientation.pdf

Taken from the wikipedia link you supplied: "No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated. Various studies point to different, even conflicting positions, such as a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences" -- yikes, it sounds like a more articulate version of what I've been saying all along! But as they say, wikipedia isn't reliable, and it must have been a homophobe who wrote that.

But when you say "Massive sample size like that" -- what do you mean "like that"? I have no idea what sample size is being examined, and I don't know whose brains are being examined in any sort of comparison. Are the brains of self-identified gay men being compared with staunch, uber-masculine homophobes? Or were they being compared with bisexuals? Were they being compared with heterosexual men who are extremely sensitive, who left behind a wife and children and a handful of older brothers? Were they handfuls of self-identified gay men who DIDN'T display "different" brain structure from heterosexuals? I can't speculate on the sample size at all or what even the samples were, when such information is very, very rarely even provided (http://www.pbs.org/w...t/defining.html)

I never said that prenatal "conditions" don't influence a person's sexuality. I'm sure there are a few contributing factors here and there, both before and after birth. My entire point is that I don't know (and an extension of that point is that you don't know either). So when you conclude your post by saying that the previous thoughts don't even negate the possibility of an environment (nurture) influencing ones sexual interest, I can't help but be totally speechless

output_Pdq_B7_F.gif
 
i'm not alone; i'll never be
 


#119 Satan's Evil Twin

Satan's Evil Twin

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,028 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 04 April 2012 - 11:31 PM

Personally, I can't recall when I chose to be straight. I don't imagine many gay people can either. To say "we don't know" and pretend there's nothing to discuss would leave very few things to talk about. There is plenty of evidence pointing to genetic and environmental factors, and while not all gays may be born gay, some gays quite certainly are. That's the heart of this "discussion", if even a a small minority are born gay, homosexuality cannot be compared to religiousness, as done in the OP. Religion is entirely a choice, and as such is open to criticism unlike race, sexual orientation, color of eyes, etc. et al.

Posted Image


Father (Peace be upon You) Satan (Peace be upon You), I call to you (Peace be upon You) from the deepest parts of my heart, I praise your (Peace be upon You) name with every breath of my body, I worship you (Peace be upon You) with every fiber of my being. You (Peace be upon You) shown me what true strength is. You (Peace be upon You) have shown me what true love is. Out of the darkness you (Peace be upon You) came to show me the true light.


My master (Peace be upon You), my father (Peace be upon You) and my friend (Peace be upon You) what a great gift that is.


Posted Image Hail to the King (PBUH)! Posted Image


#120 VICanucksfan5551

VICanucksfan5551

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,181 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 04

Posted 04 April 2012 - 11:40 PM

I'll answer the rest later, as I have to finish a paper tonight, but holy hell Glassjaw, you really need to stop putting up strawmen. When have I ever claimed that the explanation of sexuality is not complex? When did I ever imply that you were a homophobe? When in any of my posts did I discount the possibility of post-natal factors playing a role in sexuality? My only point in my last post is that the consensus of the scientific community is that pre-natal factors play a role in sexuality. That is all. Somehow you managed to miss that.

Personally, I can't recall when I chose to be straight. I don't imagine many gay people can either. To say "we don't know" and pretend there's nothing to discuss would leave very few things to talk about. There is plenty of evidence pointing to genetic and environmental factors, and while not all gays may be born gay, some gays quite certainly are. That's the heart of this "discussion", if even a a small minority are born gay, homosexuality cannot be compared to religiousness, as done in the OP. Religion is entirely a choice, and as such is open to criticism unlike race, sexual orientation, color of eyes, etc. et al.


Well said
Posted Image
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.