|
|
#721 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
Oh, sorry, a bit of a tirade there. I just wanted to say something like that for the longest of time, and your post was an excuse to do so ![]()
__________________
last.fm Last edited by lord_carbo; 07-27-2007 at 01:10 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#722 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1
|
Homosexual Marriage Is good, and i fully approve it, as you said banning heterosexual marriage is no different.
Last edited by x0kruger0x; 07-27-2007 at 01:19 PM.. Reason: i said "...marriage is acceptable" |
|
|
|
|
#723 | ||
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
Quote:
In order for the laws to change, there has to be a movement in popular opinion that says it ought to change, so that elected officials, in order to continue to be elected, need to adpot a platform that reflects popular opinion. If a majority (EVen just a majority among those who bother to speak up) are still of the opinion that it is bad and should be prevented, it becomes a strong strategy for politicians to continue to support that idea, and to quash attempts by the minority to change it. And as for Lord_Carbo's rant. Yes, it is a representative democracy not a pure democracy as much because the population is so large as to make a pure democracy incredibly unwieldly as because the average citizen can't be trusted to make these decisions. But at the same time, they -are- representative of their constituency. If a constituency makes an election issue out of homosexual marriage, all candidates will need to furnish an opinion on the subject, and for the people who think it is important, it will influence who they vote for and who gets elected, and will increase presence in the house and senate of those who support or don't support the change to the law. |
||
|
|
|
|
#724 | |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#725 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: May 2007
Location: D:
Age: 30
Posts: 1,560
|
Unfourtanely, our government is part democracy, part republic. Therefore, the people we vote for to represent us have to be pro gay marriage. Then the president has to verify it (which means for now, we're screwed in a bad way) and the the Justices approve of them and volia! We have a law.
Last edited by Professor Raine; 08-31-2007 at 02:05 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
#726 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2
|
Its ridiculous that our government AND society rejects people for loving someone of the same gender. If you are attracted to and care about someone, even if they are the same gender as you, you should be allowed to walk to streets and persue your life together with the bondage of being married. A cliche' for you, love goes beyond just skin deep.
__________________
-♥- Last edited by xlovexitx808; 05-19-2008 at 06:38 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
#727 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
The government is largely (especially in social issues) a reflection of what the people in the constituencies of these officials feel. The simple fact is a very large percentage of Americans are either a) against gay marriage or b) outright against accepting homosexuality at all.
|
|
|
|
|
#728 |
|
coLSBMidday, zerg sc2 pro
|
I believe that same sex marrige was allowed in Canada, because it was a thing of "freedom."
Yeah right.
__________________
![]() Feel several different pains, before they're colored pure red Make a little chance! Start connecting us into to tomorrow, ready and go! No matter how many times I keep going down, in these unending rounds I'm gonna keep up! We can create hope, it's our story! |
|
|
|
|
#729 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
I think both sides of this debate are ridiculous. The religious gay folk apparently want their union to be holy - so why do you need an official priest to do that? Holy is in the mind, so have yourself put some religious meaning into the ceremony and you have yourself a marriage. The people who are fighting against it are worse. They're trying to keep a definition unchanged. Honestly, what does it matter? We get it, you're homophobes and think that gay relationships are lesser than straight ones, but that's no reason to refuse two people the right to do something anyone straight could do. It doesn't taint your marriage. You have no reason to refuse it. In essence, both sides are just trying to fight for some extra meaning put into something that's subjective. If you tell yourself your union is holy, then it is. If you tell yourself that gay marriages aren't holy, then they aren't. Problem solved.
__________________
Last edited by Tokzic: Today at 11:59 PM. Reason: wait what |
|
|
|
|
|
#730 | |
|
Supreme Dictator For Life
|
Ugh, why was this thread revived?
The problem is and always has been that marriage is a part of the private institution of the Christian church but the status of being married has been put into public policies for various things. Because there are public policies that function differently based on marital status, it would be unconstitutional and contrary to people's pursuit of happiness to keep two adults of sound mind from getting married, regardless of gender. However, on the other side, the Christian church is a private institution and can call a marriage whatever they want it to be. Along those same lines, they don't have to perform marriages for people they don't want to marry. If a priest doesn't want to marry a gay couple it isn't the state's place to tell him he has to. But then, allowing gay marriage and forcing gay marriages really aren't the same thing. I don't see much reason for the abolition of gay marriage. If homophobes don't want to be associated with gay marriage, they can join a particular congregation that opposes it. There will be others that interpret the Bible differently and will perform gay marriages. Those like-minded people will worship the Christian God in their own way. If a gay couple really wants their union to be holy they just need to find the welcoming congregation. Otherwise if it's just for the benefits enjoyed by married couples, the government really should recognize civil unions and marriage as identical.
__________________
Back to "Back to Earth" Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#731 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
Honestly, that's one of the most ignorant arguments i've heard an intellegent person use. Gays want marriage for A) Economic equality B) Social equality.
__________________
He who angers you conquers you. ~Elizabeth Kenny |
|
|
|
|
|
#732 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4
|
devonin writes "There's not a single appeal that can be made against homosexual marriage that can't be easily undone by just showing how that objection reflects upon heterosexual marriage"- This comment reflects a disturbing and contemptuous approach regarding those who may sincerely disagree. If you won't acknowledge the validity of opposing arguments, your opinion is discarded as pure biased conjecture.
devonin asks " Many heterosexual couples don't have children, what about people who are physically unable to have children? Should they be forbidden to get married as well? Further, there's something wrong with creating stable, loving homes in which to raise the thousands upon thousands of children needing to be adopted?- If homosexuals are allowed to marry, it could make it easier for them to adopt. Aside from the molestation issue, what about the poor child who has to grow up without a mother? Do you know how important the bond is between a male child and his mother? I'm sure a few kids could make it through ok, but the majority would be hopelessly emotionally scarred. devonin says "I really love this one, because probably 99.99% of all gay people were born and raised by straight parents, by this logic, the gays should have all straight kids!"- Wouldn't this contradict all natural and hereditary notions? devonin then conjectures "The word unnatural means "contrary to nature" and homosexuality has been observed in nature in many species of animal."- This doesn't necessitate a direct genetic causation. In fact, most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, and cognitive factors. Animals also have sex with juvenliles, kill each other, and eat their young. Just because animals do something, doesnt make it right. By the way, there are other effective means of population control already in existence e.g. China's One Child Policy. devonin then says "Right...a substantial percentage of the population woke up one morning and thought to themselves 'you know what? I'm going to set myself up for years of emotional abuse, mocking, bigoted idiots, risking being fired from my job, disowned by my parents, and beaten up or even killed..."- If homosexuals are simply misunderstood individuals who just want to be accepted, and who would never knowingly choose a path that would result in alienation from family, rejection by friends, disdain from the heterosexual world, why on earth would they choose to have a parade? in which nudity, engaging in sex-acts, either real or simulated, masturbating, taunting, and indecent exposure becomes publically overt? The fact that they prefer alternate sexual preference is beside the point; when they unveil their privacy beyond closed doors they've left themselves susceptible to that kind of scrutiny. People are entitled to their opinion regarding whatever they feel socially infringes; those who choose to identify personally with homosexuals in question have only themselves to blame if generalized critiques offend them. With that said, I don't particularly agree with your suggestion that "the only objection to homosexuality is some misguided appeal to religion". In fact, I find it more than a little disingenuous. Regarding the marriage issue, I'm afraid I can offer no insight. Personally, I believe I'm obligated to distinguish my personal biases from what should be legally optional. However, attempts to justify it by claiming it's natural attribution are futile. |
|
|
|
|
#733 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: OKC
Age: 29
Posts: 51
|
This thread truly irks me.
Honestly, I can say nothing, for I wish not to get in a fight. Yet I shall speak out. Love is love, and that is all we want. Who are you to say what is right and what is wrong? If you throw up the whole Bible arguement, which i cannot begin to describe, or much less understand, you must believe that it says, the earth was "made" or say...came to being and fruition about 5000 years ago. Yet we have fossils which are undoubtedly much,much older than that, and carbon dating proves this.I am not arguing the scientific approach because that is an entirely other side and story to this. This was off topic. Homosexuality is not a disease, Homophobia is. I am not going to blatantly sit here and think that ALL people who might be against us are wrong, because it doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong. Not everyone who is against homosexuality has such extreme views. I know that not all of you think the same, and everyone has their own opinion. I just want to say that, if you were homosexual, would you want to sit in your home, or wherever you may be, and think that because you are supposedly "different" or "not the same" as everyone else, you can't be loved? You can't say that because everyone wants to be loved. Would you want to live your life every day, scared that someone might kill you because they do not understand, or are afraid of you? If your own family hates you, and can't stand to see you, stare you in the face, or even think about you? A random stranger, as many of you on here(though I do not condone you for it because it happens daily) comes up to you and says, " I hate you." Does that seem right to you? If you were homosexual, would you want these things to happen to you? Of course, you will respond with the usual reply of " I am not a *** or queer so I wouldn't know, and so it won't happen to me" Everyone needs, has, and searches for love, whether even if you state you do not, because everyone loves something. Just let us be. I understand I will get possibly banned for this or something, but if so, FFR then isnt where I should be. Love is Love, No matter. ~Scotty |
|
|
|
|
#734 | |||||||
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also, homosexuality cannot be compared to sex with juveniles and eating young because it is a mutual consensual act that does not harm anyone. Your comparisons are biased, and insulting. Quote:
Second, you assume that gay people are ashamed of their orientation, while they may be persecuted and shunned, it doesn't mean that their entire goal is to avoid letting people know they are gay. For a lot of people, being out, and proud of your lifestyle is more important than getting harassed for it. It still doesn't make it an easy choice however, and many gay people remain "in the closet" for years before revealing their orientation, and many don't come out at all, unless caught. (I'm thinking of a specific pastor here )Quote:
__________________
He who angers you conquers you. ~Elizabeth Kenny |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
#735 |
|
SIU Making a COMEBACK
Join Date: Sep 2005
Age: 28
Posts: 513
|
I think killing people and drinking the blood of newborn infants is holy.
Last edited by sayuncle990; 05-28-2008 at 05:34 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
#736 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4
|
Grandiagod writes "To paraphrase Douglas Adams, some opinions are much more valid and robust than others. If I say the moon is made of rock, and you say the moon is made of cheese, well, your opinion deserves none of my intellectual respect."- Aside from your intelligence in question, this statement adopts preconceived implications to the effect of discarding all counterarguments without intention to consider, and sheer blatant dismissal. Similar closed minded subjectives are more appropriately displayed in other regions of this forum (The Garbage Bin). In any case, your analogy is quite correct, if you describe yourself as the cheese claimer.
Grandi conjectures "There is no molestation issue. Homosexuality =/= Pedophilia. There is no study that shows a correlation."- Actually, the FRI’s analysis shows most of those who engage in homosexuality are a result of direct recruitment by seduction or molestation, wherein the clarity of this correlation (though perhaps not this one in particular) is undeniable. Grandi says "I suppose we should take children away from single parents as well. "Daddy died in Iraq, I'm sorry but you have to go to a real family."- I suppose one could argue that demanding gay marriage is a just another way to secularize and demoralize our nation - as if America isn't already a sexually immoral one. Marriage between man and woman is, and always has been, the fundamental building block of society. Grandi then demonstrates his lack of current knowledge regarding the subject "As far as I know most scientific studies are either inconclusive or show a physical factors that correlate with homosexuality. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...l_explanations"- Interestingly, all of these researchers, except Bailey, are self-identified gay men. In either case, such experiments are extremely outdated. In a study released in March of 2000, Dr. Bailey and a group of his colleagues used an Australian population of twins to conduct a similar twin study with even lower concordance numbers. They found that in contrast to most prior twin studies of sexual orientation, this did not provide statistically significant support for the importance of genetic factors for that trait. Bearman & Bruckner (2002), based their conclusions on a study drawn from a wide population. These researchers found that otherwise identical twins were both homosexual only 6.7% of the time. This number was found to be not significant. Moreover, environmental factors can can impact sexual development. Therefore it would be impossible for anyone to determine whether it was genetics or environment that caused the twins' homosexuality unless the twins were separated. Furthermore, if it was, in fact, genes and not environment which caused the twins homosexuality, one would expect 100% of identical twins to both be homosexual... instead of 52%. Grandi opines "Also, homosexuality cannot be compared to sex with juveniles and eating young because it is a mutual consensual act that does not harm anyone. Your comparisons are biased, and insulting."- It adheres perfectly with the discussion by demonstrating the inadequacy of referencing wildlife activity as a means of justification. As far as your usage of words like "biased, insulting", I'm afraid I can only sympathize. In any case, if you sincerely take offense, I excuse you from commenting any further. One who reveals his intimacy beyond closed doors be soully responsible for all negative feedback that follows. Grandi then asserts "You make two mistakes. First of all you assume that ALL homosexuals are the same."- No, I merely pointed out the peculiarity of having such indecent exploitations as the centerpiece of their own lifestyle. "Gay parades do not reflect every homosexual, and probably not the majority."- Though it is quite awkward that these events were designed specifically in portrail of that. If they valued their precious image as some insist, perhaps they'd petition a stop to such obscenity, or some extensive revisioning. By the way, many politicians openly oppose to such events for similar reasons. Grandi continues "Second, you assume that gay people are ashamed of their orientation- Nothing of what I said implies anything to that effect whatsoever, and such comments merely reflect your misinterpretation. Firstly, the notion of "sex being someone's lifestyle" is logically self-defeating. The bottom line is, we're deliberating soully on what one does in the privacy of their bedroom. Those who extend this into their social lives have effectively sexualized all aspects of their existence. Heterosexuals only question one's sexual orientation if they leave themselves in question; that is, if they openly display taunting, stereotypical personality features that suggest it (Prostitutes are belittled for much the same reason). Second, your willigness to defend the validity of homosexuals more or less implies your indulgence in such activity, than one who sincerely displays opposition. Sorry, your childish defense mechanisms only preveal for the simple minded. Suffice it to say, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I can't help but be a bit taken back on people who talk unauthoritatively about matters of racial oppression, as some kind of contrast for the alleged "bigotry" gays experience. As is evident to anyone reading, along with anyone who's acknowledged science's consensus, homosexuality is not a natural attribute, nor is it a subconscious entity. Whereas one has no control over their ethnicity, homosexuality is consciously perpetuated, and thus entails responsibility on behalf of those who adopt it. Irregardless, I still fail to detect a significant correlation; where merely being your ethnicity clearly infringes upon no one in any case, public sex-activity and disorderly conduct are significant disturbances. As I said, anyone who reveals his private life overtly hold only himself responsible for all negative consequences. |
|
|
|
|
#737 | |||||||||||||
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
Otherwise, your comparison is simply invalid. Godsend....eesh, where to begin. I'll go with your response to me first, then your response to Grandiagod. Quote:
There is nothing contemptuous in that statement, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't attack other users in that way. Quote:
What about the poor child who had to grow up without a mother? I know many children whose mother died in childbirth, or while they were very young, and their father did not remarry. The -majority- turned out perfectly fine. Please provide some kind of evidence that enough of them suffered horribly that you could claim the majority did? Quote:
Quote:
These people don't want to be accepted "In spite of" doing "bad" things. These people want to be accepted for who and what they are, as they are. Mind you, I maintain that every Gay Pride Parade has set back the Gay Rights movement by 5 years, because there is a fine line between "This is what I am, accept it" and "This is what I am, choke on it" but as Grandiagod said in response to this already, there is a strong movement -in- the Gay RIghts movement to -stop- that kind of over-the-top show for precisely the reason you are concluding -all- gays must espouse. Quote:
*************** Alright, on to Grandiagod. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you're suggesting that simply "being visibly homosexual" in public (Holding hands etc) is somehow offensive and should be done in private lest they "be soully[sic] responsible for the negative feedback that follows" It follows from that statement that someone being visibly jewish, or visibly Hindu is responsible for any negative feedback that follows from it. Quote:
Look at hesterosexual men in bars. Are you suggesting that by flirting with the women in the bar, they have "sexualized" their entire life? By pointing out to friends that a 'hot chick' has walked by, they've made their entire existance about heterosexual sex? I think that's ridiculous. People self-identify by nationality, by religion, by gender, by class, why should also including sexuality somehow make this process "bad"? Quote:
This forum is not for users to make ignorant assumptions about other users, it is not a forum for users to accuse other users of lying, and it is not a forum for users to try and come off superior to other users for "seeing through them" Quote:
You are calling everyone who defends homosexuality ignorant, by claiming that science has somehow "proven" something that it utterly has not proven, and in fact is generating more and more counter-evidence to every year. You are throwing a stone right now. Your house is also made of glass. You should watch that. Last edited by devonin; 05-28-2008 at 07:02 PM.. |
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
#738 |
|
FFR Player
|
Devonin did a much more articulate job of answering than I ever could.
Except did I just get called gay because I am supportive of homosexuality?
__________________
He who angers you conquers you. ~Elizabeth Kenny |
|
|
|
|
#739 | |
|
What is this I don't even
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,110
|
I support same sex marriage.
One trillion percent and beyond. I do not believe in hindering a couples right to become married simply because they are of the same gender. So what if heterosexual marriage has been pushed upon everyone since the beginning of time? My goodness people, we need change. Humans love whom they love, and that is all. If that means two men or two women do so, then who are you to tell them they shouldn't be together? I'm sorry if you think it against Gods supposed will, and perhaps it disgusts you. Turn your head. Everyone of legal age should be allowed to marry regardless of what their relationship is. I am unable to stand bible thumping, close minded, ignorant people because they are physically and mentally unable to think outside of their religion. Since when did the 10 Commandments say anything about same sex marriage? In regards to children and adoption: Same sex couples DO NOT and WILL NOT create homosexual children simply because they are of a homosexual orientation. They are capable of raising a heterosexual child as a heterosexual couple is. Heterosexual couples can produce children who may be homosexual. I can say this as a fact because I am a bisexual female born by a heterosexual couple. If that is all people are worried about then maybe you should do some research before you go condemning someone. Same sex couples are people too, they should be allowed to adopt. --- In case you are wondering, I have been supporting same sex couples even before I realized I was bisexual. If you want to say something about me being confused or whatever, message me. I'd like to hear from you.
__________________
Quote:
as of December 11th 2009.
Proud One Hander! 113 AAAs & 295 Full Combos |
|
|
|
|
|
#740 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4
|
Devonin asserts "Give me a counterexample. Any counterexample with any evidence whatsoever."- I've given you several counterexamples right here in this thread, and apparently not a glimmering of comprehension has been displayed in return. Regarding your request that I "not attack others in that way", I agree with your suggestion, though I believe it's important to note that communication is always a two-way street. Devonin goes on to say that "there's nothing contemptuous in that statement". Actually, there is, I've established beyond all doubt this comment's unmistakable propensity to demean all that disagrees with its premises.
Dev then insists "The concept that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman is religious. The concept that marriage is only for procreation is religious. The concept that homosexuality is morally deviant is religious. I'd like to hear what objections you have to homosexuality that can't be traced to the Judeo-Christian concepts of morality and virtue."- First, one could easily correlate the sanctitude of marriage with the biological necessity of reproduction (which obviously entails a mutual compatibility), and basic traditional family principles adopted by humanity and in all forms of nature. Second, homosexuality can be regarded as morally deviant on the grounds of one's deliberate alternation of the natural merely to fulfill their sexual satisfaction. Much the same reason in how transvestites are belittled for their overt promiscuinity. Third, it doesn't matter; one simply can't spite all of religion merely for voicing its opinion in such a light, nor are they justified in assuming such beliefs directly trace back to a religious origin. Such comments attempt to degrade one's argument by asserting its illegitimate basis, perpetuate animosity, and merely beg the essential questions. I've said it before and I'll say it again: pure biased conjecture. Dev defends the arrogance displayed in Grandi's comments "No it doesn't. It suggests that even in a condition wherein you want to claim that all beliefs are subjectively valid, some beliefs should be considered more seriously than others..."- Aside from the fact that this belabors the obvious, you fail to correctly interpret its connotation- resting on the assumption that all contrary opinions be immediately rendered substandard and disregarded- the clarity of this arrogance is demonstrated right in his moon-cheese analogy. To me, this is so utterly transparent that I consider any further discussion of this matter to be futile. Dev tries to downgrade the validity of my argument by claiming he's unable to find the group who's discoveries serve as unfavorable to his position. To which one can only respond, perhaps you should've search a bit harder- Family Research Institute. Dev continues "You didn't actually answer to the claim you quoted in order to answer to it. He said that the comparison was invalid because homosexual sex is consentual and the examples of baby-eating and abusive pedophilia are non-consentual."- This pratically amounts to saying "if such acts were indeed consensual, they'd be legitimately legalized"... dev then elaborates on his misunderstanding of why my response adheres to the discussion at hand "Your response completely failed to address his point, so I'm wondering why you even quoted it."- Au contraire, I merely provided an adequate demonstration of the issues entailed with using wildlife phenomena as evidence for the validity of homosexuals. Obviously, for one to make the contrast, one is also entitled to use instances of immoral nature as a legitimate counterexample to such assertions. Dev asks "Also, "reveals his intimacy beyond closed doors" meaning what exactly? Are you claiming that homosexuals, unique from heterosexuals engage in all of their intimate activities in full view of the rest of the world?"- I simply said (on more than one occasion), anyone bold enough to unveil their privacy hold only themselves responsible for generalized critiques that follow. But as a matter of fact, recent polls documented only 15% of gays and lesbians reported intimate relationships in their own residence. Dev claims "I've seen more heterosexual intimacy out in the world than homosexual intimacy by a huge margin."- Highly dubious. In either case, had it ever occured to you that heterosexuals make up the majority of the population? Dev counterargues "So someone who is a christian, and lives like a christian in public as well as in private has "christianized" all aspects of their existence..."- Preaching of one's religions views or political affiliation is neither illegal, nor what could be considered public social annoyance. On the other hand, public sexual-activity or obnoxious behavior to that effect is typically regarded as deviance, by all definitive criteria. One who exhibits unjustifiable behavior on the basis of his sexuality has effectively made sex the centerpiece of his whole existence. While I suppose I can't force anyone to agree on this point, I can say with confidence that anyone who bases his life ultimately on that is plainly in need of reformulation. Dev asserts "This is your one and only warning or I will ban you, and ban you hard. This kind of judgement of other users of this forum is completely and utterly unacceptable."- My comment regarding Grandi's orientation was merely an addon to the same hasty presuppositions initiated by Grandi himself. Grandi opines " many gay people remain "in the closet" for years before revealing their orientation, and many don't come out at all, unless caught. (I'm thinking of a specific pastor here )." Grandi is so attached to his erroneous ideals that he identifies himself with his ideals, and then declares ad hominem by distantly implying that all those who disagree on his position be rendered mere self-hating closet homosexuals (arrogance?). Since no one had mentioned or scolded Grandi for his sheer display of immaturity, please pardon my reclutance to invite more of the same, which appeared perfectly permissible. As we all know, constructive and insightful criticism can help one to refine, clarify or correct one's ideas, and I've never held myself forth as an a priori exception. But sadly, this is not the kind of criticism I've seen from Grandi.Omitting the discussion between Grandi and myself, devonin conjectures "I don't know which 70-80's era scientist you are channelling here, but you are incorrect."- As I've previously made clear, no current scientific inquiry has revealed any natural causation in account for homosexuaslity. One need only do minor research (and for that matter, view my most recent posts) to discover no consensus support. Despite this, it seems as though you intend to do everything in your power to dismiss these truths. "Science is showing more and more the very correlation you seem to be claiming is being actively disproven."- Again, that's not true. I already mentioned that current consensus postulates the origin of homosexuality to be a combination of environmental and cognitive factors only. I did not claim that science has entirely "disproven" or disregarded such ideas, but one can only speculate in such a light without supporting empirical data (though it does violate Occam's Razor). Last edited by A_Godsend; 05-29-2008 at 12:41 AM.. |
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|