No, you don't remind me of my old roomate. Your lame "because they haven't proved it yet" argument did. You are significantly more intelligent than himOriginally Posted by LesStrat
In closing, I don't really think all that much of people who feel they know what's best for everyone.
And believing one side is right is okay as long as I agree with you? That doesn't wash. As I said before, and as my cursory review of rd's articles showed, NEITHER side has proof.
Therefore, proclaiming that you are right REGARDLESS of which side you take cannot be supported scientifically at this time.
You and others have loudly proclaimed that homosexuality is biological in origin, "because you can't prove it's not." Neosadist disagreed, "because you can't prove it is."
Neither of you can prove your position. Again, I am a "realistic" behaviorist (that is, with some qualifications). So guess which side I tend to take?
Boy, that Warren Buffet has become generous since his wife passed away.
"Is the rich world aware of how four billion of the six billion live? If we were aware, we would want to help out, we'd want to get involved." - Bill Gates
THE LOST ART OF BEING STOIC
1. Quit your whining.
2. Quit your crying.
3. Suck it up.
If in doubt, ask yourself: What would Clint do?
Way to go, Bill.
Find me where I, Big Black, Skarekrough, or anyone else, said that as anything besides a retort to neosadist, as a way to show how utterly ignorant it sounds.Originally Posted by LesStrat
There are 20 pages of posts. The only offer of "proof" that he was wrong was from rd, and I reviewed his evidence and found it lacking, to put it mildly.
Just because people group together in agreement does not prove their position.
As I said, neither side has been proven scientifically. The only study I saw suggesting a strong link to biological origins is now being reviewed for unacceptable practices by the scientific community.
Boy, that Warren Buffet is generous.
I'm done. Neosadist was right the whole ****ing time. It's awful for people who have been oppressed for years (and still are, as evidenced by this thread) to celebrate their pride. Gays shouldn't have the rights that straight people have, because they chose a lifestyle that has NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER ON THOSE OFFENDED BY THEM.
And yes, you can say people shouldn't be allowed to marry and NOT be discriminating.
I don't recall joining the marriage discussion.
It's unacceptable, apparently, for neosadist to state his opinion without evidence, but it is okay for the opposition to do the same.
Yet, there still is no significant evidence from either side about the origins of homosexual behavior.
The Gates Foundation is REALLY in the money now!
Last edited by LesStrat; 07-03-2006 at 06:40 PM.
Don't lump me in with that group. I don't think I referenced any known study.Originally Posted by LesStrat
At best I provided a colateral link disproving or minimizing the truth to something neosadist proposed.
My experience isn;t clinical; it's one on one. It'd from getting to know people, whatever orientation they are. It's spending quality time with them, being their friends when thingss are good and bad, being with them when they feel safe and when they're being slighted and judged, and learning about the world from their eyes first hand.
All I'm about is people, and people who want to live their lives and love who they're in love with and the freedom that they shoudl be afforded but are slighted because others refuse to believe is real or feel it's the result of a "mental defect."
Let me tell you something...for all the **** they put up with...the only defect they might exhibit is an almost limitless willingness ability to put up with closed-minded miscreants that can't come to grips that they're real persons with real lives and real emotions.
I don't need a study to know that for all the turmoil and mistreating they go through makes their lives harder, or how some live their lives in short bursts of joy until some slack-jawed idiot takes it upon themselves to express that they feel their lifestyle is wrong with a can of spray-paint on thier car, or a brick through thier window or a baseball bat to their skulls.
I just know that whatever posesses others to find that sort of intolerance for someone who has caused them no harm is just flat-out wrong.
I don't need a ****ing study or a Fundamentalist to tell me what's right and what's wrong. Because, let's be fair here, both have been wrong in the past and both will be wrong in the future. What I'm talking about is people and lives and happiness.
And do those three things in any order you choose.
No, it's unacceptable for him to say, "I don't think gays should be afforded the same rights as straight people, but no, I'm not discriminating" and "I'm right because it's not genetic."Originally Posted by LesStrat
And yet you still defend the guy you agree with and his argument, and try to discredit the opposition for the same.Yet, there still is no significant evidence from either side about the origins of homosexual behavior.
Yeah, imagine that.
i think it is clear that , we (the people who see Gays as "normal" ,if not at least "equal" )are asuming from the people who insults Gays or Homosexuals as "choosing it for their pleasure" that they can proove it.I don't have to proove it if it's genetical or not.I never insult anybody ,why should i have to proove anything?.It is like to "arrest" somebody without any proof and ask him to proove his innosense!!!!
When have I insulted a homosexual? You cannot point to a single time. Again, there is alot of projection in this discussion.
I also did not "side" with anyone. I simply pointed out the inconsistency of criticizing one member for not providing evidence, then failing to provide evidence for an opposing view. My personal view has NOTHING to do with anyone else's view in this forum.
I said it before: I am a behaviorist. I do not believe that we are mindless automatons. Dr. Skinner would agree.
In no way have I EVER supported mistreating honest citizens, including the homosexual community. Assaulting ANYONE on the street, destroying their property, or otherwise terrorizing them is unacceptable. Is that clearly stated?
I can't seem to get this point across, so I will continue asking. What part of "neither side has presented clear evidence" or "I am not siding with anyone" is not understood?
I am a behaviorist.
Now, isn't that Buffet donation something?
Yes, it is quite the hefty sum of money.Originally Posted by LesStrat