Born this way?

[UCFWayne]

I don't think that's true - but if you can show me a study that proves that - fine.



What the actual fck? I can show you some leather daddies or bears who are the very opposite of smaller/weaker. The animal is smaller/weaker - so they have no choice but to be gay?

WHAT?!

how in the hell can you deny the first part? virtually every study proves the basic instincts of animals. we cant really have a conversation if you cant admit this.

i guess you missed the second part where i mentioned some animals like to show dominance that way. showing dominance is a choice.

 

[bqknight]

how in the hell can you deny the first part? virtually every study proves the basic instincts of animals. we cant really have a conversation if you cant admit this.

i guess you missed the second part where i mentioned some animals like to show dominance that way. showing dominance is a choice.

As a species - yes. But I don’t think it’s accurate to say that EVERYONE/ every living thing is hard wired to want to reproduce. I also said if you could link me to a study - I’d gladly read it and accept it.

I just don’t get what dominance has anything to do with being gay. It’s completely irrelevant.

 

[UCFWayne]

As a species - yes. But I don’t think it’s accurate to say that EVERYONE/ every living thing is hard wired to want to reproduce. I also said if you could link me to a study - I’d gladly read it and accept it.

I just don’t get what dominance has anything to do with being gay. It’s completely irrelevant.

it is hard wired in your dna, in fact, it is in everyones dna. but wait, there is more! its hard wired in every creatures dna.

the difference is we have the ability to overcome that and make choices. dna=nature and everything else=nurture.

if you cant get that basic fact, we cant have a conversation.

 

[UCFBS]

All I question is choosing at age 4-5. It's not even remotely close to the age of puberty.

 

[UCFWayne]

All I question is choosing at age 4-5. It's not even remotely close to the age of puberty.

seems more like parental or school teacher involvement than anything.

 

[UCFBS]

seems more like parental or school teacher involvement than anything.

But the state is favoring the parent, and labeling the other parent ... who just wants to wait.

 

[Crazyhole]

I'm not going to argue with you over the definition of nurture.

However what you're doing is false equivalency.

By stating that Hitler wasn't born hating Jews, you're already taking a learned behavior and trying to relate it to being gay to help your argument. This is the definition of false equivalency.

This is a perfect example of how homosexuality has to be set aside, because people automatically take the worst possible scenario from any analogy and use it to create a narrative of bigotry. You may notice that I also referred to how Carnegie wasn't born to be a billionaire philanthropist, he learned it. Why not refer to that analogy to make your point? Take any person that you admire and ask yourself, were they born with the attributes that you like or did they learn them?

 

[anon_ki59ERik4csguoSd]

yes but i have 2 kids that are wildly different. i treat them the same, but have different reactions.

nurture includes environmental factors like friends, family, school, tv, and music. these things all effect people differently. little events early on can have big impacts later on in life.

Alright men. Gather around. Let's learn about logical fallacies.

UCFKnight85 likes to use strawmen. He'll attack a position that you don't actually hold, or misrepresent the argument, in order to "own" you.

Crazyhole likes to use false equivalence. He'll make two incompatible arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. Learning to hate Jews is not the same as finding men sexually attractive.

UCFWayne uses a mix of the Causal Fallacy and False Dichotomy. Without evidence, he'll say environmental factors can make someone gay. With that logic, I can make the claim that water makes frogs gay. Prove me wrong. That's not how things work. The burden of proof is on the accuser.

Trump uses many logical fallacies, but most often:
-ad hominem (attack the person, not the argument)
-red herring (distract from the argument with another argument)
-bandwagon (many people say this so it must be true)
-appeal to ignorance (goes without saying)

Now you know. And knowing is half the battle.

 

[Crazyhole]

Alright men. Gather around. Let's learn about logical fallacies.

UCFKnight85 likes to use strawmen. He'll attack a position that you don't actually hold, or misrepresent the argument, in order to "own" you.

Crazyhole likes to use false equivalence. He'll make two incompatible arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. Learning to hate Jews is not the same as finding men sexually attractive.

UCFWayne uses a mix of the Causal Fallacy and False Dichotomy. Without evidence, he'll say environmental factors can make someone gay. With that logic, I can make the claim that water makes frogs gay. Prove me wrong. That's not how things work. The burden of proof is on the accuser.

Trump uses many logical fallacies, but most often:
-ad hominem (attack the person, not the argument)
-red herring (distract from the argument with another argument)
-bandwagon (many people say this so it must be true)
-appeal to ignorance (goes without saying)

Now you know. And knowing is half the battle.

You literally just used every one of those techniques in one single post. Props on being totally unaware.

 

[BillClintonsTheRapist]

 

[anon_ki59ERik4csguoSd]

You literally just used every one of those techniques in one single post. Props on being totally unaware.

Red herring followed by ad hominem.

 

[anon_ki59ERik4csguoSd]

Appeal to authority followed by mental retardation, sprinkled with "I just took my first AP English class" cringe.

Red herring again. Ad hominem x2.

 

[BillClintonsTheRapist]

Red herring again. Ad hominem x2.

Personal Incredulity, Slothful Induction.

When you finish googling those, read this one.

https://effectiviology.com/fallacy-fallacy/

 

[bqknight]

it is hard wired in your dna, in fact, it is in everyones dna. but wait, there is more! its hard wired in every creatures dna.

the difference is we have the ability to overcome that and make choices. dna=nature and everything else=nurture.

if you cant get that basic fact, we cant have a conversation.

Please cite any scientific data and I’ll read it. That’s all I ask.

 

[anon_ki59ERik4csguoSd]

Personal Incredulity, Slothful Induction.

When you finish googling those, read this one.

https://effectiviology.com/fallacy-fallacy/

Still shifting the argument away from the original topic and attacking the poster. You guys are persistent. Kellyanne Conway would be proud.

 

[ChrisKnight06]

Please cite any scientific data and I’ll read it. That’s all I ask.

Bro are you serious? At some point if we're gonna have any discussions we need to have a reasonable baseline understanding to start from. What is the reasonable competing theory out there that says gene survival and propagation isn't biological mandate #1? Is this not fundamental? And if it's wrong I'm more than open to hearing a better theory but until then... That is what we're gonna go with.

 

[bqknight]

Bro are you serious? At some point if we're gonna have any discussions we need to have a reasonable baseline understanding to start from. What is the reasonable competing theory out there that says gene survival and propagation isn't biological mandate #1? Is this not fundamental? And if it's wrong I'm more than open to hearing a better theory but until then... That is what we're gonna go with.

I’m not saying as a species this isn’t true. I’m just looking for evidence that every single person is hard wired this way.

As an FYI I have tried to research this and am having a hard time coming up with stuff. I’m 100% all ears if you can find something.

 

[BillClintonsTheRapist]

Still shifting the argument away from the original topic and attacking the poster. You guys are persistent. Kellyanne Conway would be proud.

Seeing as she’s a winner, I guess we can agree

 

[goodknightfl]

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2019/09/57342/

Apparently not, according to a genetic study done by Harvard and MIT.

I for one could care less, but I think Gays better hope they never find a gay gene that can be tested for before birth. In countries like Russia, China, and all of the middle east abortion of those babies will be required, and those in western countries who don't want their kids to endure being gay, or just don't want gay kids, will do the same.

 

[UCFWayne]

Bro are you serious? At some point if we're gonna have any discussions we need to have a reasonable baseline understanding to start from. What is the reasonable competing theory out there that says gene survival and propagation isn't biological mandate #1? Is this not fundamental? And if it's wrong I'm more than open to hearing a better theory but until then... That is what we're gonna go with.

he doesnt want to have an honest conversation, and that is sad. for the wc, this one has actually gone pretty well so far.

 

[bqknight]

he doesnt want to have an honest conversation, and that is sad. for the wc, this one has actually gone pretty well so far.

Yes, the one who said he would gladly read and accept information if you could provide it to me is the one who doesn't want to have an honest conversation. Not the one who refuses (or can't) provide that information.

 

[UCFWayne]

Yes, the one who said he would gladly read and accept information if you could provide it to me is the one who doesn't want to have an honest conversation. Not the one who refuses (or can't) provide that information.

virtually every damn book about any species of animal. this is not a leap. this isnt some fringe science. this is actual consensus.

im telling you we can have a conversation, but first you need to acknowledge the sky is blue. your response is you dont think it is and want a reference. no, i dont think you really want a conversation.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Yes, the one who said he would gladly read and accept information if you could provide it to me is the one who doesn't want to have an honest conversation. Not the one who refuses (or can't) provide that information.

Dude, this took me exactly one search. Scientific American, 2013, guest commentary. This basically summarizes, fairly well, what Wayne and Chris have already said - that we ARE biologically born for gene propagation and the continuation of the species, i.e. reproduction. This is true amongst humans as it is amongst animals.

But, as the commentary also says, humans have a self awareness and have developed societal norms that differ from animals, which can "intrude" onto this biological fact and cause someone to not wish to procreate. This is not denying that biologically someone is designed to procreate, it is saying that the existence of free will and self determination is strong enough in humans to "override" what your body was actually designed to do.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/is-the-meaning-of-your-life-to-make-babies/

 

[sk8knight]

virtually every damn book about any species of animal. this is not a leap. this isnt some fringe science. this is actual consensus.

im telling you we can have a conversation, but first you need to acknowledge the sky is blue. your response is you dont think it is and want a reference. no, i dont think you really want a conversation.

I think you aren’t seeing his point. While you’re right as a whole for all species, anyone who participated in animal husbandry will tell you that you run across individuals from time to time that have no drive to reproduce no matter what you try to do. Now, I don’t know if those same individual animals show exclusive or predominant reproductive urges towards same sex animals or not. That would be an interesting study.

 

[bqknight]

I think you aren’t seeing his point. While you’re right as a whole for all species, anyone who participated in animal husbandry will tell you that you run across individuals from time to time that have no drive to reproduce no matter what you try to do. Now, I don’t know if those same individual animals show exclusive or predominant reproductive urges towards same sex animals or not. That would be an interesting study.

Yes, thank you. I will not argue that as a whole, our species and I believe every species has a biological drive to procreate. I said that multiple times. However - I wasn't sure if the statement every single member of that species has that predeposition is true. Is there something that happens genetically that alters ones desire to reproduce? Is it something that happens in the womb? Something that happens as we grow up? That was the question I was asking.

...and thank you 85, that article was quite interesting.

 

[UCFWayne]

I think you aren’t seeing his point. While you’re right as a whole for all species, anyone who participated in animal husbandry will tell you that you run across individuals from time to time that have no drive to reproduce no matter what you try to do. Now, I don’t know if those same individual animals show exclusive or predominant reproductive urges towards same sex animals or not. That would be an interesting study.

you explained it alot better than he did.

 

[Crazyhole]

virtually every damn book about any species of animal. this is not a leap. this isnt some fringe science. this is actual consensus.

im telling you we can have a conversation, but first you need to acknowledge the sky is blue. your response is you dont think it is and want a reference. no, i dont think you really want a conversation.

It's not consensus anymore, just google it and the first 30 links are all for the argument that procreation being secondary to the desire for sex. Common sense would tell you that it's an extremely flawed position because thousands of species procreate without having "sex". Is propagation of the species wasn't a genetic dictate then there wouldn't be birds, crustaceans, amphibians or reptiles anymore. Hog breeders say that it's actually painful for that species so even in some mammals it must be a dominant trait.

 

[UCFWayne]

It's not consensus anymore, just google it and the first 30 links are all for the argument that procreation being secondary to the desire for sex. Common sense would tell you that it's an extremely flawed position because thousands of species procreate without having "sex". Is propagation of the species wasn't a genetic dictate then there wouldn't be birds, crustaceans, amphibians or reptiles anymore. Hog breeders say that it's actually painful for that species so even in some mammals it must be a dominant trait.

male cats have barbs on their dicks and it hurts the female cats and that is why you can hear the female cats screaming out in pain while having sex.

there are exceptions to every rule, but that shouldnt take away from the rule being true the rest of the time.

 

[sk8knight]

It's not consensus anymore, just google it and the first 30 links are all for the argument that procreation being secondary to the desire for sex. Common sense would tell you that it's an extremely flawed position because thousands of species procreate without having "sex". Is propagation of the species wasn't a genetic dictate then there wouldn't be birds, crustaceans, amphibians or reptiles anymore. Hog breeders say that it's actually painful for that species so even in some mammals it must be a dominant trait.

Isn’t the desire for sex a biological impulse to reproduce? We’re lucky that it is pleasurable for us but isn’t that exactly the biological lure to reproduce. And because it’s pleasurable we separate the act and the result, but in actuality it’s the same thing?

 

[bqknight]

you explained it alot better than he did.

I literally said, "I’m not saying as a species this isn’t true. I’m just looking for evidence that every single person is hard wired this way."

While Sk8 said, "While you’re right as a whole for all species, anyone who participated in animal husbandry will tell you that you run across individuals from time to time that have no drive to reproduce no matter what you try to do."

...

 

[Crazyhole]

Isn’t the desire for sex a biological impulse to reproduce? We’re lucky that it is pleasurable for us but isn’t that exactly the biological lure to reproduce. And because it’s pleasurable we separate the act and the result, but in actuality it’s the same thing?

I dont think so but I'm not a biologist. Post-menopausal women still have a drive for sex (like waynes mom when she calls me to come over) and their hormones have changed to the point where I would think the desire to procreate has ended. Maybe they aren't mutually exclusive but they certainly arent mutually inclusive either.

 

[Crazyhole]

I literally said, "I’m not saying as a species this isn’t true. I’m just looking for evidence that every single person is hard wired this way."

While Sk8 said, "While you’re right as a whole for all species, anyone who participated in animal husbandry will tell you that you run across individuals from time to time that have no drive to reproduce no matter what you try to do."

...

I think this is a good example of how nurture can outweigh nature. Personally, I do think that wayne and chris are right in that we are no different than any other species in that we are born with an innate programming to procreate. Like anything else, our mind is more powerful than our nature so it can be reprogrammed (both externally and internally) to overcome that nature. I find it highly unlikely that our propagation is much different than other species and that the only reason we did was a byproduct of sexual desire.

 

[Cubs79]

Isn’t the desire for sex a biological impulse to reproduce? We’re lucky that it is pleasurable for us but isn’t that exactly the biological lure to reproduce. And because it’s pleasurable we separate the act and the result, but in actuality it’s the same thing?

I think it can "just" be pleasurable without a biological impulse to reproduce. We do many things with no chance for reproduction but just for pleasure, oral sex, masturbation etc. Maybe you can argue that is just a simulation of wanting to reproduce, but the actual act is simply for pleasure.

 

[UCFBS]

The funny thing here is ... Conservatives are being more 'scientific' than the Progressives.

We're talking about modifying physical chemisty. All because of alleged psychological need. That's pretty scary.

I.e., there is no single answer, despite the Progressives wanting one.

 

[bqknight]

The funny thing here is ... Conservatives are being more 'scientific' than the Progressives.

We're talking about modifying physical chemisty. All because of alleged psychological need. That's pretty scary.

I.e., there is no single answer, despite the Progressives wanting one.

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Crazyhole]

What the hell are you talking about?

He's talking about hormone therapy and surgical remedies for people who dont feel like their body is right.

 

[UCFBS]

He's talking about hormone therapy and surgical remedies for people who dont feel like their body is right.

Bingo!

My concern is at ages 4-5, well before puberty. The alleged medical argument is puberty, and we have parents 'fighting' over ages 4-5, with the state supporting the one for gender reassignment.

I know a number of Democrats who think the 'T' is going 'too far' on this. That's what Chappelle meant by the 'alphabet people.' The LGB are saying, "whoa!" to the 'T.'

The US Media is avoiding these discussions, because the questions of the most logical, most scientific, of us are against the 'popular assumption.'

I mean, ask yourself ... is the timing of actual, 'physical altercation' -- especially irreversible -- more important that the potential, 'psychological impact'? Or ...

Should we wait until the child is older, when there is doubt? Oh wait, that's 'bigotry' to even ask that question! Huh?!

I guess throw me in with the 'anti-vaxxers' who question 'medical applications' out of alleged 'necessity' while we're at it.

 

[bqknight]

He's talking about hormone therapy and surgical remedies for people who dont feel like their body is right.

That's not at all what this thread is about though...

 

[UCFBS]

That's not at all what this thread is about though...

No, but for every right-winger that talks in absolutes, there's a left-winger that says 'the science is settled.' Ummm ... it's funny to watch the left argue that psychological is more important than physical, but are hypocrites on that when it comes to so many other things.

 

[Crazyhole]

No, but for every right-winger that talks in absolutes, there's a left-winger that says 'the science is settled.' Ummm ... it's funny to watch the left argue that psychological is more important than physical, but are hypocrites on that when it comes to so many other things.

That's why I said in a different thread that the transexual community is an affront to the homosexual community. The homosexual community, right or wrong, suggest that there's no psychological part of it and that they were born that way. The trans community focuses on the feeling (psychology) that their DNA is wrong. To that end it's kind of surprising that the two embrace one another. The only crossover between the 2 is that both revolve around feelings of attraction but the divergence is much more profound.