Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: tonymctones on March 30, 2013, 07:39:50 AM
-
Apparently not LMFAO ;D :D ;D :o
-
What do you mean by "default" and why does it matter?
-
What do you mean by "default" and why does it matter?
default means default....
and why cant you guys just answer the facking question?
-
default means default....
and why cant you guys just answer the facking question?
Your question makes no sense whatsoever from a moral viewpoint.
From a constitutional law viewpoint, it is irrelevant.
-
Your question makes no sense whatsoever from a moral viewpoint.
From a constitutional law viewpoint, it is irrelevant.
from a biological view point whats the default sexual orientation for a species that requires two opposite sex partners to procreate?
this isnt a moral or constitutional question this is a biological question..........
quit trying to act smart
-
from a biological view point whats the default sexual orientation for a species that requires two opposite sex partners to procreate?
this isnt a moral or constitutional question this is a biological question..........
quit trying to act smart
why are you asking a biological question on the politics board?
But why are you assuming that biological "default" should be the standard for society? Some have argued (Aristotle, famously) that slavery is biologically 'default', but that obviously shouldn't guide public policy; so you need an argument for why this particular aspect of biological nature should be a guide for public policy.
If, however, you are merely trying to say "most humans are not homosexuals" or "near all humans are not homosexual" as a biological statement, then it seems trivially true. So what's your point?
-
why are you asking a biological question on the politics board?
But why are you assuming that biological "default" should be the standard for society? Some have argued (Aristotle, famously) that slavery is biologically 'default', but that obviously shouldn't guide public policy; so you need an argument for why this particular aspect of biological nature should be a guide for public policy.
If, however, you are merely trying to say "most humans are not homosexuals" or "near all humans are not homosexual" as a biological statement, then it seems trivially true. So what's your point?
I am not saying it should be the standard, it is the standard...
It also establishes homsexuality as an abnormal trait and behavior, something liberals seem to not be able to do.
now please stop trying to bring up your education in philosphy as a way of justifying the money you spent on it. Save that for whatever job/careeer you have and stay on topic.
-
I am not saying it should be the standard, it is the standard...
It also establishes homsexuality as an abnormal trait and behavior, something liberals seem to not be able to do.
now please stop trying to bring up your education in philosphy as a way of justifying the money you spent on it. Save that for whatever job/careeer you have and stay on topic.
I have to jump in :)
So what if its not normal?
Are you saying that making it legal makes it normal?
Are you saying we shouldn't make anything out of the norm legal?
-
Its okay for you to be gay Tony.
There are more straight people than gays yes, but who gives a fuck?
-
Its okay for you to be gay Tony.
There are more straight people than gays yes, but who gives a fuck?
hahhahaha i was thinking the same thing,he's testing the waters :D :D :D :D
-
Are you saying we shouldn't make anything out of the norm legal?
I think that's what he meant (or that we should make anything out of the norm illegal).
He's made this point before but I'm still not sure what it is. I think he's only trying to say that few people are homosexuals. Last time I replied "Not many people are violinists, so what?"
It seems to be a trivially true statement with no implications whatsoever.
-
I have to jump in :)
So what if its not normal?
Are you saying that making it legal makes it normal?
Are you saying we shouldn't make anything out of the norm legal?
feel free brosef...I never said that gays shouldnt have the same rights, what I am saying is dont expect myself or others to look at it as a normal part of human behavior
BC ITS NOT!!!!
make civil unions legal, get rid of marriage as a public institution. DO NOT TRY AND ACT LIKE HOMOSEXUALITY IS NORMAL....
-
I think that's what he meant (or that we should make anything out of the norm illegal).
He's made this point before but I'm still not sure what it is. I think he's only trying to say that few people are homosexuals. Last time I replied "Not many people are violinists, so what?"
It seems to be a trivially true statement with no implications whatsoever.
let me explain for you since obviously the philosophy isnt doing you any favors.
To gay rights advocates the fact that homosexuality is a biological attribute(disorder) means we cannot "discriminate". The fact though that homosexuality biologically is indeed an abnormal behavior should then lend credence to the idea that homosexuality is an abnormal.
If we cant "discriminate" b/c its biological, why can we not recognize its abnormal in the same vein?
gay propaganda has gone so far that ppl like yourself have a hard time admitting that homosexuality is a perverted manifestation of the default sexuality for humans.
sorry its abnormal, get over it....
-
feel free brosef...I never said that gays shouldnt have the same rights, what I am saying is dont expect myself or others to look at it as a normal part of human behavior
BC ITS NOT!!!!
make civil unions legal, get rid of marriage as a public institution. DO NOT TRY AND ACT LIKE HOMOSEXUALITY IS NORMAL....
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_Homosexuals_are_there_in_the_World#page2
11% not normal enough for you?
-
Apparently not LMFAO ;D :D ;D :o
And how would you know this was the default? Have you personally tested it to find out?
-
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_Homosexuals_are_there_in_the_World#page2
11% not normal enough for you?
LMFAO b/c wiki said yea?
And how would you know this was the default? Have you personally tested it to find out?
so youre saying that in a species what requires 2 opposite sex individuals to procreate that heterosexual is not the default biological sexual orientation?
you see, this is the part of brain washed ignorance that the gay propaganda I was talking about.
Im sure lots of moderates would openly admit that they believe that humans are meant to be heterosexual biologically. Yet you have fundie liberals who just cant seem to bring themselves to do so.
-
"Default"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
What is the default haircolor? Eye color? Gender? If one aspect of an individual has a "default" then every aspect does as well. What are those defaults Tony? What is the "factory settings" for a human being?
HAHAHAHAA
And this from a psych major? ::)
-
I'd say that the way nature intended it, from a reproducing the species standpoint, that straight would be the "default" orientation. That said, I could care less what someone does behind closed doors, and think the real travesty here is that gays that can't be married don't reap the tax benefit of filing together. Other than that, who cares?
-
Apparently not LMFAO ;D :D ;D :o
absolutely (biology proves this to be true).... but if a guy wants to suck dicks then i figure it's his prerogative...
no homo
-
LMFAO b/c wiki said yea?
so youre saying that in a species what requires 2 opposite sex individuals to procreate that heterosexual is not the default biological sexual orientation?
you see, this is the part of brain washed ignorance that the gay propaganda I was talking about.
Im sure lots of moderates would openly admit that they believe that humans are meant to be heterosexual biologically. Yet you have fundie liberals who just cant seem to bring themselves to do so.
You have a better source?
-
feel free brosef...I never said that gays shouldnt have the same rights, what I am saying is dont expect myself or others to look at it as a normal part of human behavior
BC ITS NOT!!!!
make civil unions legal, get rid of marriage as a public institution. DO NOT TRY AND ACT LIKE HOMOSEXUALITY IS NORMAL....
Seems pretty subjective don't you think? It depends on ones definition of "normal". Like for instance, Homosexuality has been around since recorded history, hence it's normal behavior. Or you could say, homosexuality is not normal because most people aren't homosexual.
Kind of a weird argument you are making it appears.
-
LMFAO b/c wiki said yea?
so youre saying that in a species what requires 2 opposite sex individuals to procreate that heterosexual is not the default biological sexual orientation?
you see, this is the part of brain washed ignorance that the gay propaganda I was talking about.
Im sure lots of moderates would openly admit that they believe that humans are meant to be heterosexual biologically. Yet you have fundie liberals who just cant seem to bring themselves to do so.
Do you consider yourself normal Tony?
-
Seems pretty subjective don't you think? It depends on ones definition of "normal". Like for instance, Homosexuality has been around since recorded history, hence it's normal behavior. Or you could say, homosexuality is not normal because most people aren't homosexual.
Kind of a weird argument you are making it appears.
simply b.c an abnormal activity takes place in very small amounts in regularity doenst make it normal.
It makes the abnoramal apperance of that behavior normal but the behavior itself remains abnormal....
thin line, big difference
-
Do you consider yourself normal Tony?
In many ways yes, in many ways no...I do not see to normalize and force others to view what I percieve as abnormal behavior as normal though....
-
simply b.c an abnormal activity takes place in very small amounts in regularity doenst make it normal.
It makes the abnoramal apperance of that behavior normal but the behavior itself remains abnormal....
thin line, big difference
and how do you feel this is relevant to the debate?
-
and how do you feel this is relevant to the debate?
what debate?
simply trying to force ppl to come to terms with the fact that homosexuality is an abnormal behavior, many many ppl seem to feel its normal thanks to the gay propaganda.
If you dont believe me look at the repsonses here and on some of the other threads. Whats the harm in acknowledging that homosexuality is an abnormal behavior in humans?
That the default sexual orientation for humans is heterosexual?
Now ask yourself why those who push the gay agenda have such a hard time admitting it.
-
what debate?
simply trying to force ppl to come to terms with the fact that homosexuality is an abnormal behavior, many many ppl seem to feel its normal thanks to the gay propaganda.
If you dont believe me look at the repsonses here and on some of the other threads. Whats the harm in acknowledging that homosexuality is an abnormal behavior in humans?
That the default sexual orientation for humans is heterosexual?
Now ask yourself why those who push the gay agenda have such a hard time admitting it.
I think it has to do more with the context in which a person sees what you are trying to say regarding "normal"
I don't think its anymore than that.
-
I think it has to do more with the context in which a person sees what you are trying to say regarding "normal"
I don't think its anymore than that.
"normal" shouldnt be in quotations LOL
again normality in terms of statistics and biology isnt subjective, if your stance is that homosexuality isnt a choice its biological then there is no room for the subjective view of normal.
If you look at it as a choice, then you can say its normal but biologically it is abnormal.
-
"normal" shouldnt be in quotations LOL
again normality in terms of statistics and biology isnt subjective, if your stance is that homosexuality isnt a choice its biological then there is no room for the subjective view of normal.
If you look at it as a choice, then you can say its normal but biologically it is abnormal.
So homosexuality, religion, monogamy, basketball skills, musical talents, etc. are biologically abnormal (according to your definition in this thread).
What's your point? No matter how much they show each on TV, radio, internet, that will do nothing to affect its biological abnormal-ness? To me, this thread is a waste of time spewing out trivially true statements as if they were nuggets of wisdom with implications for public debate.
-
So homosexuality, religion, monogamy, basketball skills, musical talents, etc. are biologically abnormal (according to your definition in this thread).
What's your point? No matter how much they show each on TV, radio, internet, that will do nothing to affect its biological abnormal-ness? To me, this thread is a waste of time spewing out trivially true statements as if they were nuggets of wisdom with implications for public debate.
If normality isnt important to the public debate then why have the gay rights advocates tried so hard to normalize the behavior?
religion doesnt have a biological content to my knowledge, one could argue that monogamy does and certainly basketball skills and musical talents.
Yes lebron james has abnormal basketball skills, mozart had abnormal musical talent....AND YES HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABNORMAL HUMAN TRAIT...
again you think that its widely accepted the homosexuality is abnormal but ITS not with those that push its agenda.
And yes if your stance is that b/c its biological it should be legal the you should also look at it that same biological light and admit its abnormal behavior.
-
I have to jump in :)
So what if its not normal?
Are you saying that making it legal makes it normal?
Are you saying we shouldn't make anything out of the norm legal?
Why should gay couples be allowed to marry and have legal rights similar to a hetero couple?
-
so youre saying that in a species what requires 2 opposite sex individuals to procreate that heterosexual is not the default biological sexual orientation?
I wasn't saying anything, ...I was asking a question.
That question was "And how would you know this was the default? Have you personally tested it to find out?"
Im sure lots of moderates would openly admit that they believe that humans are meant to be heterosexual biologically. Yet you have fundie liberals who just cant seem to bring themselves to do so.
Your line of logic if fully played out would then support the suggestion that all humans were meant to be Black, and that existing in any other ethnicity is not normal, and should therefore not be legalized or allowed the same rights & privileges as Blacks, ...would it not? In which case we could have new crimes on the books... Driving while white, or subjecting white teens to stop & frisk, because... they're just not "normal." Or does selectively normal only work when it fits into your particular agenda?
-
Why should gay couples be allowed to marry and have legal rights similar to a hetero couple?
because queers should be allowed to be just as miserable as the rest of us
-
because queers should be allowed to be just as miserable as the rest of us
Lololololol.
-
Someone throw him a life preserver.
-
Someone throw him a life preserver.
you see what I mean magoo?
If it were generally accepted we wouldn't have ppl like this or others on the board....
-
You mean people who talk in circles while saying nothing?
Since you are addressing Magoo, perhaps you should read his post again since it applies directly to you.
To me, this thread is a waste of time spewing out trivially true statements as if they were nuggets of wisdom with implications for public debate.
Even 333 never got swallowed by his own thread as bad as you have here. Life preserver.... try to reach for it.
-
What's the percentage of people who are left handed?
Do we consider lefties "abnormal"?
-
What's the percentage of people who are left handed?
Do we consider lefties "abnormal"?
Sorry, being left handed is a choice. Only abnormal people choose that lifestyle.
-
because queers should be allowed to be just as miserable as the rest of us
;D
-
Tony is correct. Takes a degree of intellectual dishonesty to argue that heterosexual behavior isn't the normal behavior for humans. Of course it is.
That's a separate issue from the whole gay et al. debate.
And Tony is also correct that one of the motivating factors behind the entire marriage debate is trying to legitimize a lifestyle choice.
But like I've been saying for years, homosexual marriage is inevitable. It's going to happen.
-
I assume you have evidence that this is a "choice" that you are basing your rant on? Let's see the evidence.
-
I assume you have evidence that this is a "choice" that you are basing your rant on? Let's see the evidence.
What rant?
You want evidence homosexuality is a choice? The first two things I'd say are (1) there is no evidence it's genetic. (2) Look at the people who were heterosexual, then chose to be gay, then gave up the lifestyle. Anne Hesch is the one I always think about. She was straight, then lesbian, and now straight again with two kids. Clearly a choice on her part. There are others like her.
Where is the evidence being homosexual is not a choice? I haven't seen it.
-
Sounds like she is bisexual.
How about the people that are gay that never had any heterosexual experiences? Still a choice? Knowing they were attracted to their own gender their whole lives?
There is no genetic evidence that being heterosexual is a choice either. What age did you choose to be straight?
Again, for you to claim that being queer is a choice there has to be conclusive evidence of this.
-
Sounds like she is bisexual.
How about the people that are gay that never had any heterosexual experiences? Still a choice? Knowing they were attracted to their own gender their whole lives?
There is no genetic evidence that being heterosexual is a choice either. What age did you choose to be straight?
Again, for you to claim that being queer is a choice there has to be conclusive evidence of this.
She's living with a man and has his baby. Sounds like a former lesbian.
Yes, still a choice. I don't think being attracted to the same gender is a normal reaction, but I'm sure it happens. That doesn't make homosexuality genetic. People are attracted to all sorts of things, and not everyone is attracted to the same things. What's unfortunate is we cannot even have this discussion anymore, because people will accuse you of being a bigot if you question whether homosexuality is abnormal behavior.
I chose to be straight when I was born with an X and a Y, just like every other dude who was born that way with a normal genetic makeup.
I don't need conclusive proof that being gay is a choice. Because we know heterosexuality is, as Tony said, the "default sexual orientation for humans," I'd need to see conclusive evidence that homosexuality is genetic.
Think about it: if homosexuality was genetic, we'd have proof of this by now. I'm sure people have been all over the issue, searching, researching, etc. But there's nothing that I've ever seen proving that homosexuality is genetic.
-
I'd say that the way nature intended it, from a reproducing the species standpoint, that straight would be the "default" orientation. That said, I could care less what someone does behind closed doors, and think the real travesty here is that gays that can't be married don't reap the tax benefit of filing together. Other than that, who cares?
Quoting my own post meltdown. ;D
-
Tony is correct. Takes a degree of intellectual dishonesty to argue that heterosexual behavior isn't the normal behavior for humans. Of course it is.
I agree. Being a Mod on Getbig is more abnormal than homosexuality. This thread has no bearings on public policy, discrimination laws, constitutional law, morality, social norms, etc. It is merely stating a (trivial) fact: (Very) few people are homosexuals.
-
I agree. Being a Mod on Getbig is more abnormal than homosexuality. This thread has no bearings on public policy, discrimination laws, constitutional law, morality, social norms, etc. It is merely stating a (trivial) fact: (Very) few people are homosexuals.
He asked a simple a question. What he got in response was a Bill Clinton "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is." I think people who already have a certain mindset on the broader issue of GLBT etc. rights don't want to confront that very simple question, because they probably believe it will undermine their attempt to legitimize behavior.
The fact there are very few homosexuals in the human population isn't what makes the behavior abnormal. It's the act itself, whether it's done by 1 or 10 percent of the population.
Does this have a bearing on public policy? In reality, no, because the debate is over. We have already given GLBT etc. the same treatment as other "suspect classes" (race, religion, national origin, etc.), so it doesn't really matter anymore whether anyone thinks the behavior is normal or not. Society has turned the corner on this stuff. For example, you're going to see Republicans falling like dominoes on homosexual marriage.
But should it have a bearing? Probably, because other than religion, we have not given lifestyle choices the same protection as race, color, etc. Not saying lifestyle choices are not entitled to protection. Just that the analysis is different. Or at least it should be.
But like I said, moot point. Except for discussion boards. :)
-
The fact there are very few homosexuals in the human population isn't what makes the behavior abnormal. It's the act itself, whether it's done by 1 or 10 percent of the population.
But should it have a bearing? Probably, because other than religion, we have not given lifestyle choices the same protection as race, color, etc. Not saying lifestyle choices are not entitled to protection. Just that the analysis is different. Or at least it should be.
But like I said, moot point. Except for discussion boards. :)
So modding getbig.com is an abnormal behavior then. So is playing in the New York philharmonic. These are abnormal behaviors (using the criteria set out by Tony in this thread, with which I agreed (but said was trivial)). The "choice" thing does not matter in this thread and is not related to this thread topic. This thread is purely sociological (descriptive). Many actions are abnormal behaviors under this rule. Reading this specific post is a more abnormal behavior than homosexuality (probably less than 20 humans will ever do it). Once again: So what?
-
If normality isnt important to the public debate then why have the gay rights advocates tried so hard to normalize the behavior?
religion doesnt have a biological content to my knowledge, one could argue that monogamy does and certainly basketball skills and musical talents.
Yes lebron james has abnormal basketball skills, mozart had abnormal musical talent....AND YES HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABNORMAL HUMAN TRAIT...
again you think that its widely accepted the homosexuality is abnormal but ITS not with those that push its agenda.
And yes if your stance is that b/c its biological it should be legal the you should also look at it that same biological light and admit its abnormal behavior.
what you or anyone else thinks is "normal" or "abnormal" is totally irrelevant
I'm sure there are many people to this day who think it's abnormal for a white person to marry a black person
-
So modding getbig.com is an abnormal behavior then. So is playing in the New York philharmonic. These are abnormal behaviors (using the criteria set out by Tony in this thread, with which I agreed (but said was trivial)). The "choice" thing does not matter in this thread and is not related to this thread topic. This thread is purely sociological (descriptive). Many actions are abnormal behaviors under this rule. Reading this specific post is a more abnormal behavior than homosexuality (probably less than 20 humans will ever do it). Once again: So what?
No, playing a musical instrument at a high level is not abnormal behavior. You're confusing extraordinary or exceptional behavior with abnormal behavior. Not the same.
The choice thing matters in this thread, because Tony made it the subject of the thread. Nothing wrong with talking about it.
-
Tony is correct. Takes a degree of intellectual dishonesty to argue that heterosexual behavior isn't the normal behavior for humans. Of course it is.
That's a separate issue from the whole gay et al. debate.
And Tony is also correct that one of the motivating factors behind the entire marriage debate is trying to legitimize a lifestyle choice.
But like I've been saying for years, homosexual marriage is inevitable. It's going to happen.
it may be normal for 90% of the population just like being gay is normal for 10% of the population
whether the 90% think the 10% are abnormal or vice versa is totally irrelevant
100% deserve equal protection under the constitution
-
No, playing a musical instrument at a high level is not abnormal behavior. You're confusing extraordinary or exceptional behavior with abnormal behavior. Not the same.
The choice thing matters in this thread, because Tony made it the subject of the thread. Nothing wrong with talking about it.
what Tony said had nothing to do with choice directly. He talked about behaviors (actions) that are biologically abnormal (not the 'default' human behavior). Choice has no role to play here (some abnormal behaviors are 'chosen' and some are not, and some are in between). It is not the default human behavior to play a musical instrument at a high level. (feel free to add in stuff about how it's not necessary for the reproduction of the human species, etc.). Therefore, being able to play a musical instrument (and all the other stuff I've mentioned as examples) at a high level is abnormal human behavior.
You're on the verge of going Aquinas here and start talking about the "purpose" of humans. That is not what Tony was talking about. Like he said, he was giving only a biological argument. Everything else, like choice, freedom, social norms, morality, constitutional law, anti-discrimination law, state law, etc. does not belong anywhere in this thread.
-
choice doesn't matter either
it's irrelevant whether someone is born gay or chooses to be gay
has no bearing at all on the legal right to marriage or to live free from discrimination in work, housing, etc..
-
what you or anyone else thinks is "normal" or "abnormal" is totally irrelevant
I'm sure there are many people to this day who think it's abnormal for a white person to marry a black person
the issue youre arugment has is your example is based in culture, MINE IS BASED IN BIOLOGY!!!!!!
homosexuality isnt thought to be abnormal, IT IS ABNORMAL
-
I agree. Being a Mod on Getbig is more abnormal than homosexuality. This thread has no bearings on public policy, discrimination laws, constitutional law, morality, social norms, etc. It is merely stating a (trivial) fact: (Very) few people are homosexuals.
again you use the word trivial, if it is so trivial why do you think those who push the gay agenda are having such a hard time admitting it?
look at this thread magoo and understand that those who push the GLBT agenda do not agree with the fact that homosexuality is abnormal.
-
what Tony said had nothing to do with choice directly. He talked about behaviors (actions) that are biologically abnormal (not the 'default' human behavior). Choice has no role to play here (some abnormal behaviors are 'chosen' and some are not, and some are in between). It is not the default human behavior to play a musical instrument at a high level. (feel free to add in stuff about how it's not necessary for the reproduction of the human species, etc.). Therefore, being able to play a musical instrument (and all the other stuff I've mentioned as examples) at a high level is abnormal human behavior.
You're on the verge of going Aquinas here and start talking about the "purpose" of humans. That is not what Tony was talking about. Like he said, he was giving only a biological argument. Everything else, like choice, freedom, social norms, morality, constitutional law, anti-discrimination law, state law, etc. does not belong anywhere in this thread.
Choice does matter in the context of his question, because if heterosexuality is normal behavior for humans, then homosexual behavior (which is not genetic) is something people choose to engage in. It's nothing like playing a musical instrument. It is normal for every human to have the capacity to excel at the things we humans do, whether it's a sport, singing, science, medicine, etc. The fact some excel at some things that few people can do (like playing basketball in the NBA) doesn't make that behavior abnormal. We all have different skills and talents.
I'm not on the verge of going Aquinas. I talk like a normal person. Don't have a need to try and sound smart. :)
I disagree about whether choice is relevant to a "biological" question for the reasons I've already stated (if conduct is not genetic or biological then it's a choice).
-
again you use the word trivial, if it is so trivial why do you think those who push the gay agenda are having such a hard time admitting it?
look at this thread magoo and understand that those who push the GLBT agenda do not agree with the fact that homosexuality is abnormal.
Maybe they have a hard time in their minds separating biological (descriptive) from normative systems (law, morality)? I don't know. As I've said many times in this thread, I'll gladly accept your point. But I will obviously accept nothing beyond that (because no implications follow from it). Homosexuality is biologically abnormal. Homosexual marriages are protected by a proper interpretation of constitutional law. The morality of homosexuality is not necessarily related to the biological or the constitutional aspect. Choice is irrelevant (my positions hold either way). Nothing inconsistent here.
-
She's living with a man and has his baby. Sounds like a former lesbian.
Yes, still a choice. I don't think being attracted to the same gender is a normal reaction, but I'm sure it happens. That doesn't make homosexuality heterosexuality genetic. People are attracted to all sorts of things, and not everyone is attracted to the same things. What's unfortunate is we cannot even have this discussion anymore, because people will accuse you of being a bigot if you question whether homosexuality heterosexuality is abnormal behavior.
I chose to be straight when I was born with an X and a Y, just like every other dude who was born that way with a normal genetic makeup.
I don't need conclusive proof that being gay straight is a choice. Because we know heterosexuality homosexuality is, as Tony said, the "default sexual orientation for humans," I'd need to see conclusive evidence that homosexuality heterosexuality is genetic.
Think about it: if homosexuality heterosexuality was genetic, we'd have proof of this by now. I'm sure people have been all over the issue, searching, researching, etc. But there's nothing that I've ever seen proving that homosexuality heterosexuality is genetic.
Cuts both ways. Now how old were you when you made the choice to be straight? Certainly not at birth as babies do not quite yet possess the capabilities to make choices. So when did you choose to be straight? Did you register for it like selective service? Did you check a box on your driver's license.
Need evidence of this "choice".
-
Choice does matter in the context of his question, because if heterosexuality is normal behavior for humans, then homosexual behavior (which is not genetic) is something people choose to engage in. It's nothing like playing a musical instrument. It is normal for every human to have the capacity to excel at the things we humans do, whether it's a sport, singing, science, medicine, etc. The fact some excel at some things that few people can do (like playing basketball in the NBA) doesn't make that behavior abnormal. We all have different skills and talents.
I'm not on the verge of going Aquinas. I talk like a normal person. Don't have a need to try and sound smart. :)
I disagree about whether choice is relevant to a "biological" question for the reasons I've already stated (if conduct is not genetic or biological then it's a choice).
It's awesome that you've found proof of this
please provide it
fyi - it makes ZERO difference to any discussion about equal rights for gay people
-
the issue youre arugment has is your example is based in culture, MINE IS BASED IN BIOLOGY!!!!!!
homosexuality isnt thought to be abnormal, IT IS ABNORMAL
your argument is not based on biology
it's based solely on your own personal beliefs
there is no "default" for human biology for sexual orientation just like there is no default hair color, eye color, blood type, height, etc..
your premise in the first post of this thread is false
-
Maybe they have a hard time in their minds separating biological (descriptive) from normative systems (law, morality)? I don't know. As I've said many times in this thread, I'll gladly accept your point. But I will obviously accept nothing beyond that (because no implications follow from it). Homosexuality is biologically abnormal. Homosexual marriages are protected by a proper interpretation of constitutional law. The morality of homosexuality is not necessarily related to the biological or the constitutional aspect. Choice is irrelevant (my positions hold either way). Nothing inconsistent here.
what proper interpretation of constitutional law are you referring to magoo?
you do realize that the whole premise to the gay marriage argument is based in biology right?
the argument is that b/c its biological and they cant help it, its wrong to discriminate...
why is biology ok to bolster your claim?
-
your argument is not based on biology
it's based solely on your own personal beliefs
there is no "default" for human biology for sexual orientation just like there is no default hair color, eye color, blood type, height, etc..
your premise in the first post of this thread is false
lol so in a species that requires two opposite sex individuals to procreate heterosexual is not the predetermined sexual orientation outside of abnormal mutations?
you see what I mean Magoo?
-
what proper interpretation of constitutional law are you referring to magoo?
you do realize that the whole premise to the gay marriage argument is based in biology right?
the argument is that b/c its biological and they cant help it, its wrong to discriminate...
why is biology ok to bolster your claim?
the entire premise is the equal protection clause of the constitution
biology (whatever you're implying by that) is not part of the argument at all
-
the entire premise is the equal protection clause of the constitution
biology (whatever you're implying by that) is not part of the argument at all
LOL your like the little kid who gets asked why he hit another kid and answers "i was mad"...why was the kid mad?
by that logic your logic you should be in favor of polygamy as well.
look at the reasons behind your answer straw, the reasoning behind the push for equality is b/c they feel is against their control. Its biological, thats why there was a big uproar from the libtards when "psychologists" came out and stated it wasnt a choice it was their biological disposition.
-
LOL your like the little kid who gets asked why he hit another kid and answers "i was mad"...why was the kid mad?
by that logic your logic you should be in favor of polygamy as well.
look at the reasons behind your answer straw, the reasoning behind the push for equality is b/c they feel is against their control. Its biological, thats why there was a big uproar from the libtards when "psychologists" came out and stated it wasnt a choice it was their biological disposition.
Tony - you've got to stop pretending you're some kind of logic master because you just wind of looking like a moron every time you try.
The entire premise of this thread is nothing more than your personal bias about homosexuality
You START with a word that is a pejorative (no doubt based on your own belief that being gay is somehow wrong, or a sin or whatever it is that you have a problem with about it) and then you try to pretend you're just talking about biology
Here is the definition of abnormal
ab·nor·mal
/abˈnôrməl/
Adjective
Deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable.
Synonyms
anomalous - unnatural - irregular - aberrant - unusual
You insist you're just talking about biology so let's take another biological example
The blood type AB Rh negative is only shared by about .6% of the US population
Do we call that Abnormal or do we call that RARE ?
edit - I have said many times I have no issue with polygamy. Why would I care? There are polygamists in this country right now and it has no effect on my life
-
Tony - you've got to stop pretending you're some kind of logic master because you just wind of looking like a moron every time you try.
The entire premise of this thread is nothing more than your personal bias about homosexuality
You START with a word that is a pejorative (no doubt based on your own belief that being gay is somehow wrong, or a sin or whatever it is that you have a problem with about it) and then you try to pretend you're just talking about biology
Here is the definition of abnormal
ab·nor·mal
/abˈnôrməl/
Adjective
Deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable.
Synonyms
anomalous - unnatural - irregular - aberrant - unusual
You insist you're just talking about biology so let's take another biological example
The blood type AB Rh negative is only shared by about .6% of the US population
Do we call that Abnormal or do we call that RARE ?
You notice that too huh?
Good luck with that. He overcompensates by trying to string buzz words together in an attempt to sound witty and knowledgeable which in reality leaves any argument or stance of his with a bigger gap in it than there was before.
Particularly amusing is his habit of trying to reverse your statement back in the form of a rhetorical question in the hopes that you will make his argument for him. Since he isn't exactly sure of what he is trying to say or how to convey it.
-
It's awesome that you've found proof of this
please provide it
fyi - it makes ZERO difference to any discussion about equal rights for gay people
We did some research in college about how homosexuality was most likely caused by being exposed to abnormally high levels of testosterone in the womb. The marker was a difference in digit ratio between index and pointer finger. Now, I'm not saying I believe that nature didn't intend for people to be straight, because I believe that is the actual "plan", but I think sometimes there are other factors during development that can cause this "plan" to be deviated from. I believe that it is something you are born as, and as such, should be given equal treatment, especially from a financial/tax standpoint. I have no problem what someone wants to do, as long as they don't interfere with my happiness. That is what this life is all about, right? And this from a dude who votes republican across the board 99% of the time.
For the record, Straw, I wasn't disagreeing, just quoting your post as it had the biological reference.
-
We did some research in college about how homosexuality was most likely caused by being exposed to abnormally high levels of testosterone in the womb. The marker was a difference in digit ratio between index and pointer finger. Now, I'm not saying I believe that nature didn't intend for people to be straight, because I believe that is the actual "plan", but I think sometimes there are other factors during development that can cause this "plan" to be deviated from. I believe that it is something you are born as, and as such, should be given equal treatment, especially from a financial/tax standpoint. I have no problem what someone wants to do, as long as they don't interfere with my happiness. That is what this life is all about, right? And this from a dude who votes republican across the board 99% of the time.
For the record, Straw, I wasn't disagreeing, just quoting your post as it had the biological reference.
Agreed. I find our viewpoints are quite similar most of the time.
-
We did some research in college about how homosexuality was most likely caused by being exposed to abnormally high levels of testosterone in the womb. The marker was a difference in digit ratio between index and pointer finger. Now, I'm not saying I believe that nature didn't intend for people to be straight, because I believe that is the actual "plan", but I think sometimes there are other factors during development that can cause this "plan" to be deviated from. I believe that it is something you are born as, and as such, should be given equal treatment, especially from a financial/tax standpoint. I have no problem what someone wants to do, as long as they don't interfere with my happiness. That is what this life is all about, right? And this from a dude who votes republican across the board 99% of the time.
For the record, Straw, I wasn't disagreeing, just quoting your post as it had the biological reference.
I'll go you one further
I don't think it matters whether you are born that way (which I believe it the case just given what virtually every gay person will tell you) or whether you choose to be gay
It makes no difference in whether a person deserves equal treatment under the law
-
I'll go you one further
I don't think it matters whether you are born that way (which I believe it the case just given what virtually every gay person will tell you) or whether you choose to be gay
It makes no difference in whether a person deserves equal treatment under the law
Also agree. I don't understand people who think it's their place to tell other people how they have to live their lives.
-
We did some research in college about how homosexuality was most likely caused by being exposed to abnormally high levels of testosterone in the womb. The marker was a difference in digit ratio between index and pointer finger. Now, I'm not saying I believe that nature didn't intend for people to be straight, because I believe that is the actual "plan", but I think sometimes there are other factors during development that can cause this "plan" to be deviated from. I believe that it is something you are born as, and as such, should be given equal treatment, especially from a financial/tax standpoint. I have no problem what someone wants to do, as long as they don't interfere with my happiness. That is what this life is all about, right? And this from a dude who votes republican across the board 99% of the time.
For the record, Straw, I wasn't disagreeing, just quoting your post as it had the biological reference.
Great post.
-
Agreed. I find our viewpoints are quite similar most of the time.
Didn't you just have a baby? Can't remember without the Bruce Campbell avatar.
-
Tony - you've got to stop pretending you're some kind of logic master because you just wind of looking like a moron every time you try.
The entire premise of this thread is nothing more than your personal bias about homosexuality
You START with a word that is a pejorative (no doubt based on your own belief that being gay is somehow wrong, or a sin or whatever it is that you have a problem with about it) and then you try to pretend you're just talking about biology
Here is the definition of abnormal
ab·nor·mal
/abˈnôrməl/
Adjective
Deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable.
Synonyms
anomalous - unnatural - irregular - aberrant - unusual
You insist you're just talking about biology so let's take another biological example
The blood type AB Rh negative is only shared by about .6% of the US population
Do we call that Abnormal or do we call that RARE ?
edit - I have said many times I have no issue with polygamy. Why would I care? There are polygamists in this country right now and it has no effect on my life
LOL that definition fits my explanation of abnormal homosexual behavior quite well...behavior deviating from normal behavior...homosexuality is more than 2 standard DEVIATIONS away from the mean in a normal bell curve
I.E......ABNORMAL
sorry hoss, this isnt up for debate. If you want to put it in a cultural context you can argue bias but numbers dont lie sir....
-
We did some research in college about how homosexuality was most likely caused by being exposed to abnormally high levels of testosterone in the womb. The marker was a difference in digit ratio between index and pointer finger. Now, I'm not saying I believe that nature didn't intend for people to be straight, because I believe that is the actual "plan", but I think sometimes there are other factors during development that can cause this "plan" to be deviated from. I believe that it is something you are born as, and as such, should be given equal treatment, especially from a financial/tax standpoint. I have no problem what someone wants to do, as long as they don't interfere with my happiness. That is what this life is all about, right? And this from a dude who votes republican across the board 99% of the time.
For the record, Straw, I wasn't disagreeing, just quoting your post as it had the biological reference.
did you two libtards read this part and just skip over it?
you both seem to agree with his post but quickly skip over the part where he is saying the exact same thing I am saying
-
LOL that definition fits my explanation of abnormal homosexual behavior quite well...behavior deviating from normal behavior...homosexuality is more than 2 standard DEVIATIONS away from the mean in a normal bell curve
I.E......ABNORMAL
sorry hoss, this isnt up for debate. If you want to put it in a cultural context you can argue bias but numbers dont lie sir....
what does that even mean in the context of this non-debate
abnormal is your choice of a word with a pejorative implication (by definition)
there is nothing abnormal about it other than your own personal disgust
from reading this thread I assume this is beyond your ability to understand
-
what does that even mean in the context of this non-debate
abnormal is your choice of a word with a pejorative implication (by definition)
there is nothing abnormal about it other than your own personal disgust
from reading this thread I assume this is beyond your ability to understand
LOL so you dont see homosexualality as deviating from the norm of sexual orientation?
you do understand statistics right?
you do know what it means to be 2 standard deviations away from the mean on a bell curve right?
-
I still have to ask about people being left handed.
-
I still have to ask about people being left handed.
sorry tu I saw it a couple days ago but forgot to come back to it. what % of ppl are left handed?
-
LOL so you dont see homosexualality as deviating from the norm of sexual orientation?
you do understand statistics right?
you do know what it means to be 2 standard deviations away from the mean on a bell curve right?
I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion it was 2 standard deviations away and do we call everything that is two standard deviations away abnormal.
Go read the definition of the word abnormal and compare that to the definition of the word rare which is basically "uncommon" and tell me if you understand the difference. If you don't understand the difference that that will explain why you're so completely dumbfounded on this thread
I don't thinking being gay is abnormal but that's not even the point as that is just my opinion just like it is your opinion that is is abnormal (with all the negative connotations that go with that word)
You can have that opinion but you can't claim to be stating a biological fact (well you can claim it but you'd be wrong)
-
sorry tu I saw it a couple days ago but forgot to come back to it. what % of ppl are left handed?
About 10% at last survey I saw.
-
About 10% at last survey I saw.
abnormal freaks
they should be ashamed of their unnatural,irregular, and aberrant behavior
-
abnormal freaks
they should be ashamed of their unnatural,irregular, and aberrant behavior
next they are going to want to give ambidextrous people the same rights.
Then someone's daughter is going to come home from elementary school and want to eat with both of her hands.
Where will it end?
-
About 10% at last survey I saw.
not even one standard deviation away from the mean in a normal bell curve...statiscally no they arent abnormal.
-
I can't believe this thread is even still alive. :o
And people wonder why politicians keep dragging out these wedge issues whenever they want to distract and divert people's attentions away from really important things. They do it, ...because it works. END OF STORY.
And it is for this reason why Gays will NEVER achieve equality under the law. To do so would remove the great distraction & circus environment so many politicians want when it is useful to them
-
Isn't two standard deviations 97th-99 percentile? Id say that meant it abnormal. Trying to remember from statistics class. Anyway, queers should get the same treatment as everybody else. Seriously, why shouldn't they reap our tax benefits because of some ceremony? Either way, like I said, it isn't the "norm" but now I don't even know what the original thought of this thread was without looking at the title. How the fuck do these things always fall apart so quickly?
-
Isn't two standard deviations 97th-99 percentile? Id say that meant it abnormal. Trying to remember from statistics class. Anyway, queers should get the same treatment as everybody else. Seriously, why shouldn't they reap our tax benefits because of some ceremony? Either way, like I said, it isn't the "norm" but now I don't even know what the original thought of this thread was without looking at the title. How the fuck do these things always fall apart so quickly?
thats b/c when you point out facts to liberals they have to change the subject to deflect ;)
-
not even one standard deviation away from the mean in a normal bell curve...statiscally no they arent abnormal.
Wait... so Homosexuals are 10 percent of the population and they are abnormal, but lefties aren't even though the percentage is the same?
Interesting.
-
As the purpose of all life is to propagate itself and in mammals male/female relationships produce offspring, I think it's fair to consider heterosexuality the norm, and homosexuality a deviation from the norm.
-
As the purpose of all life is to propagate itself and in mammals male/female relationships produce offspring, I think it's fair to consider heterosexuality the norm, and homosexuality a deviation from the norm.
End of thread
Why is this so hard for the perverts to grasp?
-
As the purpose of all life is to propagate itself and in mammals male/female relationships produce offspring, I think it's fair to consider heterosexuality the norm, and homosexuality a deviation from the norm.
It means fuck all with respect to how homosexuals should be regarded as human beings. This is just rationalizing bigotry. Period.
-
Wait... so Homosexuals are 10 percent of the population and they are abnormal, but lefties aren't even though the percentage is the same?
Interesting.
only about 3% of the population identify themselves as gay
-
It means fuck all with respect to how homosexuals should be regarded as human beings. This is just rationalizing bigotry. Period.
It wasn't a judgement call or condemnation. I was simply replying to the topic. I support civil unions for homosexuals.
-
only about 3% of the population identify themselves as gay
That is not what I read.
-
As the purpose of all life is to propagate itself and in mammals male/female relationships produce offspring, I think it's fair to consider heterosexuality the norm, and homosexuality a deviation from the norm.
QUIT MAKING FUCKING SENSE!!!!!!!!
-
It wasn't a judgement call or condemnation. I was simply replying to the topic. I support civil unions for homosexuals.
doesnt matter youre a bigot and a homophobe
-
That is not what I read.
where are you getting your stats from?
everything I read says about 3-3.5% in the US
-
where are you getting your stats from?
everything I read says about 3-3.5% in the US
10% is the worldwide statistic.
-
It wasn't a judgement call or condemnation. I was simply replying to the topic. I support civil unions for homosexuals.
It wasn't directed at you, it's rather at those who are trying to make a point out of it. There is no point.
Besides, homosexuality is found in nature as pointed out earlier in the thread, so the argument is shit to begin with.
-
again you use the word trivial, if it is so trivial why do you think those who push the gay agenda are having such a hard time admitting it?
look at this thread magoo and understand that those who push the GLBT agenda do not agree with the fact that homosexuality is abnormal.
Why do people cite no evidence in favor of biological gayness? An area called the sexual dimorphic nucleus has been imaged and found to be similar between hetero females and gay males. Hormone levels also have been altered, however this is perhaps epigenetics at play. Also, recently a paper indicated that epigentic factors that have been mapped in the womb appear to be the cause.
Also, do animals choose to be gay? they engage in same sex acts.
I know gayness is not a choice because I had no choice in my preference of sexual orientation, I like woman, always have I can't choose not to, nor choose to find men attractive.
-
LOL so you dont see homosexualality as deviating from the norm of sexual orientation?
you do understand statistics right?
you do know what it means to be 2 standard deviations away from the mean on a bell curve right?
so fucking what? left handedness is occurs roughly at the same rate. Have we "normalized" it by have left handed hockey sticks?
your argument has been rebutted over and over in this thread yet you persist, go back to school.
-
As the purpose of all life is to propagate itself and in mammals male/female relationships produce offspring, I think it's fair to consider heterosexuality the norm, and homosexuality a deviation from the norm.
how did you discover this purpose?
-
As the purpose of all life is to propagate itself and in mammals male/female relationships produce offspring, I think it's fair to consider heterosexuality the norm, and homosexuality a deviation from the norm.
So people born sterile are deviations as well since they can't reproduce?
-
So people born sterile are deviations as well since they can't reproduce?
some people are even asexual, feeling no attaction to others nor having sexual urges.
-
So people born sterile are deviations as well since they can't reproduce?
Yes but dont mistake the the word deviation to mean the same as deviant. In biological terms, the purpose of life and the drive in all organisms is the proliferation of its genes by means of producing offspring, in human specifically through a sexual relationship between a man and a woman. This not a judgement,it's simply a fact. Deep tissue massage is not an effective procreation strategy.
It's true that homosexuality appears in nature but so do a variety of other genetic abnormalities because variation and mutation occur in all species.
-
so fucking what? left handedness is occurs roughly at the same rate. Have we "normalized" it by have left handed hockey sticks?
your argument has been rebutted over and over in this thread yet you persist, go back to school.
Sounds like you love the cack
-
Yes but dont mistake the the word deviation to mean the same as deviant. In biological terms, the purpose of life and the drive in all organisms is the proliferation of its genes by means of producing offspring, in human specifically through a sexual relationship between a man and a woman. This not a judgement,it's simply a fact. Deep tissue massage is not an effective procreation strategy.
It's true that homosexuality appears in nature but so do a variety of other genetic abnormalities because variation and mutation occur in all species.
;D
A little homage to tbombz?
-
You guys is missing the point of this thread. Tony just want some recognition.
He wakes up every day wanting to fuck dudes but because of his good conservative upbringing he CHOOSES not to.
Why cant all gay guys be like him?
-
;D
A little homage to tbombz?
The one and only.
-
Sounds like you love the cack
only cocks that are 2 standard deviations above the norm in girth. I like meaty triumphant penises with a glazed tip. I want to be able to see myself in the corona.
-
only cocks that are 2 standard deviations above the norm in girth. I like meaty triumphant penises with a glazed tip. I want to be able to see myself in the corona.
Outed. I always figured you were a twink.
-
Outed. I always figured you were a twink.
::)
post some more your fucking loser.
-
::)
post some more your fucking loser.
Ok fag. ::).
-
Apparently not LMFAO ;D :D ;D :o
We can discuss your question after you admit that the default "religious orientation" is "atheist" :)
-
Yes but dont mistake the the word deviation to mean the same as deviant. In biological terms, the purpose of life and the drive in all organisms is the proliferation of its genes by means of producing offspring, in human specifically through a sexual relationship between a man and a woman. This not a judgement,it's simply a fact. Deep tissue massage is not an effective procreation strategy.
It's true that homosexuality appears in nature but so do a variety of other genetic abnormalities because variation and mutation occur in all species.
youre going to be labeled a right wing homophobic bigot if you keep making sense like this
-
We can discuss your question after you admit that the default "religious orientation" is "atheist" :)
LOL absolutely not my friend the default religious orientation is undecided. I know atheist like to fancy themselves intellectuals but to be truly intellectually honest you have to admit that you dont know if there is a God or not.
-
only cocks that are 2 standard deviations above the norm in girth. I like meaty triumphant penises with a glazed tip. I want to be able to see myself in the corona.
Well sounds like you really fancy the cack ;D
-
We can discuss your question after you admit that the default "religious orientation" is "atheist" :)
good one
-
good one
Wrong one ;)
LOL absolutely not my friend the default religious orientation is undecided. I know atheist like to fancy themselves intellectuals but to be truly intellectually honest you have to admit that you dont know if there is a God or not.
-
When will alleged conservatives step up and explain why the sexuality of someone else is any of their damned business?
I'm very, very.... very conservative and feel the Govt's role in a citizen's daily life should be minimal. Following the same thought process; I have no desire, need, or compulsion to impact the lives of others... especially based upon their sexuality.
Is there a "gay agenda"? Yes. That being said, someone with a very pronounced anti-gay stance also has an agenda.
-
When will alleged conservatives step up and explain why the sexuality of someone else is any of their damned business?
I'm very, very.... very conservative and feel the Govt's role in a citizen's daily life should be minimal. Following the same thought process; I have no desire, need, or compulsion to impact the lives of others... especially based upon their sexuality.
Is there a "gay agenda"? Yes. That being said, someone with a very pronounced anti-gay stance also has an agenda.
simpy b/c someone is against gay marriage doesnt make them anti gay...
I dont care if you want to be gay, be gay all day...go roll in some hay...I dont give a fuck
But dont sit there and get pissy b/c i call it what it is, an abnormal behavior and that I dont feel we should normalize abnormal behavior trying to sway public opinion.
Take govt out of the marriage business, make it all civil unions and be done with it. Maybe we can finally quit hearing these fairies ranting and raving.
-
Take govt out of the marriage business, make it all civil unions and be done with it.
Finally, something we can agree on. I see no reason why the government should be involved in the personal business of consenting adults.
-
simpy b/c someone is against gay marriage doesnt make them anti gay...
I dont care if you want to be gay, be gay all day...go roll in some hay...I dont give a fuck
But dont sit there and get pissy b/c i call it what it is, an abnormal behavior and that I dont feel we should normalize abnormal behavior trying to sway public opinion.
Take govt out of the marriage business, make it all civil unions and be done with it. Maybe we can finally quit hearing these fairies ranting and raving.
I skipped ahead and probably missed where someone got pissy.
Normal, abnormal, typical, etc... are just labels. I can't disagree that people want to normalize something that only affects around 10% of the population.
There was a time I'd agree with you on the civil union idea. We're just not mature enough (as a society) to respect marriage by any other name. Pretty ironic considering more than 50% of all marriages end in divorce and the stats are even worse for repeat offenders, LOL! Considering the stats; we'd probably be better off figuring out why marriage isn't entered into as a lifelong commitment than worrying about gays.
-
I skipped ahead and probably missed where someone got pissy.
Normal, abnormal, typical, etc... are just labels. I can't disagree that people want to normalize something that only affects around 10% of the population.
There was a time I'd agree with you on the civil union idea. We're just not mature enough (as a society) to respect marriage by any other name. Pretty ironic considering more than 50% of all marriages end in divorce and the stats are even worse for repeat offenders, LOL! Considering the stats; we'd probably be better off figuring out why marriage isn't entered into as a lifelong commitment than worrying about gays.
actually the 50% number is way off, that stat is probably one of the most incorrectly used stats of modern politics
-
actually the 50% number is way off, that stat is probably one of the most incorrectly used stats of modern politics
The numbers speak for themselves. How the numbers are used is up to people. :)
One nitwit friend just jumped the broom, for the 5th time...... to a chick on her 4th. What do you think their chances are?
-
The numbers speak for themselves. How the numbers are used is up to people. :)
One nitwit friend just jumped the broom, for the 5th time...... to a chick on her 4th. What do you think their chances are?
you didnt read my post correctly...The number is way off...
do you know how the calculate that number?
they take the number of divorces in a year and divided by the number of marriages performed.
it doesnt take into account marriages from previous years that dont end in divorce in the current years calculation only the divorces. You can imagine how overtime this stat can become completely useless and incorrect.
-
you didnt read my post correctly...The number is way off...
do you know how the calculate that number?
they take the number of divorces in a year and divided by the number of marriages performed.
it doesnt take into account marriages from previous years that dont end in divorce in the current years calculation only the divorces. You can imagine how overtime this stat can become completely useless and incorrect.
I did read your post and do know how it's calculated. I also freely admit it can't possibly reflect situations when people divorce for financial reasons.
That's why they call it a divorce rate.
Last reasonable stats I looked at (when bored silly) had the rate at about 54%.
-
I did read your post and do know how it's calculated. I also freely admit it can't possibly reflect situations when people divorce for financial reasons.
That's why they call it a divorce rate.
Last reasonable stats I looked at (when bored silly) had the rate at about 54%.
still way high last time i checked the real divorce rate was high 30's
-
still way high last time i checked the real divorce rate was high 30's
I understand why some take exception to how the rate is calculated. Honestly, it was you who showed us the link several years ago. :)
I still believe using the population is valid for determining the rate but agree that it doesn't actually reflect chances individual couples have for marital success.
-
So....is it possible for us all to agree that the government shouldn't be in the bedroom and shouldn't regulate marriage?
-
So....is it possible for us all to agree that the government shouldn't be in the bedroom and shouldn't regulate marriage?
Correct - and should stsy out of the toilet, the kitchen cubard, the bedroom, the gas tank, the light bulb socket, the gun safe, etc
-
Correct - and should stsy out of the toilet, the kitchen cubard, the bedroom, the gas tank, the light bulb socket, the gun safe, etc
I'd agree with the gun safe...don't think most libs will.
Couldn't help but notice that Al Doggity is in disappearance mode now that Obama is out actively campaigning for gun control.
-
So....is it possible for us all to agree that the government shouldn't be in the bedroom and shouldn't regulate marriage?
Do you also believe the Government shouldn't be in the uterus? And in the pharmacy?
-
Do you also believe the Government shouldn't be in the uterus? And in the pharmacy?
do you believe that the govt should stay out of child support for men who dont have a choice like women do?
-
Do you also believe the Government shouldn't be in the uterus? And in the pharmacy?
100% stay out of the uterus.
Used to be 100% legalize all drugs. Never been able to think of a practical way to do it. I'm very concerned about drug company marketing and quality. I get the libertarian 'market will correct itself'...but that's often too late for some people. So, I guess I have reservations about it.
-
do you believe that the govt should stay out of child support for men who dont have a choice like women do?
I get your fairness argument, but don't you think your remedy really hurts the kid?
-
I get your fairness argument, but don't you think your remedy really hurts the kid?
absolutely it does, does abortion not hurt them?
if we are worried about hurting them lets be consistent shall we
-
do you believe that the govt should stay out of child support for men who dont have a choice like women do?
I don't follow? But generally speaking, I don't believe that the government should coerce people to do anything against their will.
-
In addition to homo related obsessiveness, Tony's second pet argument relates to men having to pay child support for children they don't want as relative to a woman having an abortion. Though he tries to mask it in a thinly veiled ploy of acting like he is concerned for the men losing a child when a female has an abortion without their consent.
-
Couldn't help but notice that Al Doggity is in disappearance mode now that Obama is out actively campaigning for gun control.
Did I hear my name?Well, I don't post here that often, so "disappearance mode" for me is normal... so to speak.
Regardless, Obama is doing exactly what I said he'd do, only campaigning for gun legislation
if he was certain that there was nothing to actually fight for.
And not surprisingly, I make my return when McTones has posted another thread of epic stupidity.
I won't even start on how stupid the concept of the thread is, because he actually posted this:
LOL so you dont see homosexualality as deviating from the norm of sexual orientation?
you do understand statistics right?
you do know what it means to be 2 standard deviations away from the mean on a bell curve right?
Obviously, he saw a reference to "standard deviations" and "bell curves" somewhere on the internet, and decided to just repeat those phrases without any consideration of what they actually mean.
-
Did I hear my name?Well, I don't post here that often, so "disappearance mode" for me is normal... so to speak.
Regardless, Obama is doing exactly what I said he'd do, only campaigning for gun legislation
if he was certain that there was nothing to actually fight for.
And not surprisingly, I make my return when McTones has posted another thread of epic stupidity.
I won't even start on how stupid the concept of the thread is, because he actually posted this:
Obviously, he saw a reference to "standard deviations" and "bell curves" somewhere on the internet, and decided to just repeat those phrases without any consideration of what they actually mean.
Then I stand corrected. I thought your position was that Barry wouldn't campaign for this or give it serious consideration.
-
Did I hear my name?Well, I don't post here that often, so "disappearance mode" for me is normal... so to speak.
Regardless, Obama is doing exactly what I said he'd do, only campaigning for gun legislation
if he was certain that there was nothing to actually fight for.
And not surprisingly, I make my return when McTones has posted another thread of epic stupidity.
I won't even start on how stupid the concept of the thread is, because he actually posted this:
Obviously, he saw a reference to "standard deviations" and "bell curves" somewhere on the internet, and decided to just repeat those phrases without any consideration of what they actually mean.
LOL
-
I don't follow? But generally speaking, I don't believe that the government should coerce people to do anything against their will.
you feel the govt should stay out of womens reproduction rights, do you also feel the govt should stay out of mens reproduction rights?
like refusing to pay child support if they dont want the child? women can walk away, why not men?
-
Did I hear my name?Well, I don't post here that often, so "disappearance mode" for me is normal... so to speak.
Regardless, Obama is doing exactly what I said he'd do, only campaigning for gun legislation
if he was certain that there was nothing to actually fight for.
And not surprisingly, I make my return when McTones has posted another thread of epic stupidity.
I won't even start on how stupid the concept of the thread is, because he actually posted this:
Obviously, he saw a reference to "standard deviations" and "bell curves" somewhere on the internet, and decided to just repeat those phrases without any consideration of what they actually mean.
LOL ask him to post links to the source of these "standard deviations" and "bell curves" evidence (if they exist).
-
LOL ask him to post links to the source of these "standard deviations" and "bell curves" evidence (if they exist).
I'd be happy enough if he could explain how you can form a bell curve when you only have two test statistics (percentage of gay, percentage of straight)? Or how you can have more than two standard deviations when your test only has 1 deviation? I think he might have thought "standard deviation" sounded so much like "sexual deviant" that he figured his point was already made.
-
I'd be happy enough if he could explain how you can form a bell curve when you only have two test statistics (percentage of gay, percentage of straight)? Or how you can have more than two standard deviations when your test only has 1 deviation? I think he might have thought "standard deviation" sounded so much like "sexual deviant" that he figured his point was already made.
LOL again
-
I'd be happy enough if he could explain how you can form a bell curve when you only have two test statistics (percentage of gay, percentage of straight)? Or how you can have more than two standard deviations when your test only has 1 deviation? I think he might have thought "standard deviation" sounded so much like "sexual deviant" that he figured his point was already made.
yes he soon will be discussion distribution about the mean, quote the word mode and then say linear regression.
it's funny because if plotted on a bell curve like tony suggests he is actually supporting kinsey and is gradient of gayness/hetero.
-
worth repeating again
Quote from: LurkerNoMore on March 28, 2013, 09:35:08 AM
Good luck with that. He overcompensates by trying to string buzz words together in an attempt to sound witty and knowledgeable which in reality leaves any argument or stance of his with a bigger gap in it than there was before.
Particularly amusing is his habit of trying to reverse your statement back in the form of a rhetorical question in the hopes that you will make his argument for him. Since he isn't exactly sure of what he is trying to say or how to convey it.
-
I'd be happy enough if he could explain how you can form a bell curve when you only have two test statistics (percentage of gay, percentage of straight)? Or how you can have more than two standard deviations when your test only has 1 deviation? I think he might have thought "standard deviation" sounded so much like "sexual deviant" that he figured his point was already made.
Nice :)
-
"Goodness Gracious". You would think a (so called) psych major would not have tripped himself up so badly here. :D
Once he removes all those arrows from his knees he can come back and try to explain it to us.
-
"Goodness Gracious". You would think a (so called) psych major would not have tripped himself up so badly here. :D
Once he removes all those arrows from his knees he can come back and try to explain it to us.
I'm sure the logic professor will soon return to clear this up once and for all
-
I'm sure the logic professor will soon return to clear this up once and for all
"Only your logic would lead you to such logic as that illogical conclusion"
:D
-
I'd be happy enough if he could explain how you can form a bell curve when you only have two test statistics (percentage of gay, percentage of straight)? Or how you can have more than two standard deviations when your test only has 1 deviation? I think he might have thought "standard deviation" sounded so much like "sexual deviant" that he figured his point was already made.
you only need one statistical return to graph a bell curve hoss.
Statistics give you the probability of an event happening, one need only graph the return information an event, occurance, test scores etc.
you never heard of a bell curve based on test scores? THATS ONE STATISTIC....
LMFAO....
-
you only need one statistical return to graph a bell curve hoss.
Statistics give you the probability of an event happening, one need only graph the return information an event, occurance, test scores etc.
you never heard of a bell curve based on test scores? THATS ONE STATISTIC....
LMFAO....
You are so stupid I can't believe it. I'm not even joking.
Your example is utterly retarded. A bell curve can be formed out of test scores because you have a VARIETY of scores. It's one statistic based on SEVERAL DIFFERENT VARIABLES. ::) You need at least three variables to form a curve. If you have less than three , it's not a curve. It's a line. That what that whole "bell curve" thing means. You also need at least three variables to establish a standard deviation. If you don't have at least three variables,the difference between variables is not a standard deviation. It's just a DIFFERENCE. There's NO STANDARDIZATION. If you have only two variables in your data set (gay , straight), none of the characteristics of bell curves apply. It is actually pretty shocking that an adult can have this much trouble figuring out the basics of bell curves. Please stop lying about about taking college courses. Even an online correspondence course doesn't have such low standards and no one was ever buying it, anyway.
-
You are so stupid I can't believe it. I'm not even joking.
Your example is utterly retarded. A bell curve can be formed out of test scores because you have a VARIETY of scores. It's one statistic based on SEVERAL DIFFERENT VARIABLES. ::) You need at least three variables to form a curve. If you have less than three , it's not a curve. It's a line. That what that whole "bell curve" thing means. You also need at least three variables to establish a standard deviation. If you don't have at least three variables,the difference between variables is not a standard deviation. It's just a DIFFERENCE. There's NO STANDARDIZATION. If you have only two variables in your data set (gay , straight), none of the characteristics of bell curves apply. It is actually pretty shocking that an adult can have this much trouble figuring out the basics of bell curves. Please stop lying about about taking college courses. Even an online correspondence course doesn't have such low standards and no one was ever buying it, anyway.
HAHA. He embarrassed himself off the board for a couple of days and THIS is what he rides back into town with?
Worth repeating again.
Quote from: LurkerNoMore on March 28, 2013, 09:35:08 AM
Good luck with that. He overcompensates by trying to string buzz words together in an attempt to sound witty and knowledgeable which in reality leaves any argument or stance of his with a bigger gap in it than there was before.
Particularly amusing is his habit of trying to reverse your statement back in the form of a rhetorical question in the hopes that you will make his argument for him. Since he isn't exactly sure of what he is trying to say or how to convey it.
-
You are so stupid I can't believe it. I'm not even joking.
Your example is utterly retarded. A bell curve can be formed out of test scores because you have a VARIETY of scores. It's one statistic based on SEVERAL DIFFERENT VARIABLES. ::) You need at least three variables to form a curve. If you have less than three , it's not a curve. It's a line. That what that whole "bell curve" thing means. You also need at least three variables to establish a standard deviation. If you don't have at least three variables,the difference between variables is not a standard deviation. It's just a DIFFERENCE. There's NO STANDARDIZATION. If you have only two variables in your data set (gay , straight), none of the characteristics of bell curves apply. It is actually pretty shocking that an adult can have this much trouble figuring out the basics of bell curves. Please stop lying about about taking college courses. Even an online correspondence course doesn't have such low standards and no one was ever buying it, anyway.
Thats gonna leave a mark...
-
You are so stupid I can't believe it. I'm not even joking.
Your example is utterly retarded. A bell curve can be formed out of test scores because you have a VARIETY of scores. It's one statistic based on SEVERAL DIFFERENT VARIABLES. ::) You need at least three variables to form a curve. If you have less than three , it's not a curve. It's a line. That what that whole "bell curve" thing means. You also need at least three variables to establish a standard deviation. If you don't have at least three variables,the difference between variables is not a standard deviation. It's just a DIFFERENCE. There's NO STANDARDIZATION. If you have only two variables in your data set (gay , straight), none of the characteristics of bell curves apply. It is actually pretty shocking that an adult can have this much trouble figuring out the basics of bell curves. Please stop lying about about taking college courses. Even an online correspondence course doesn't have such low standards and no one was ever buying it, anyway.
and you have a variety of sexual orientations as well my friend, it isnt simply gay/straight....
do yourself and fellow libtards a favor and google the topic before spouting off at the mouth like you have...
-
Thats gonna leave a mark...
(http://buffetoblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/soccer-cleates-to-the-face.jpg?w=800)
-
and you have a variety of sexual orientations as well my friend, it isnt simply gay/straight....
do yourself and fellow libtards a favor and google the topic before spouting off at the mouth like you have...
Best thing to do is pull the arrows out of your knees and move along. You embarrassed yourself on this thread beyond belief "brainchild".
-
Best thing to do is pull the arrows out of your knees and move along. You embarrassed yourself on this thread beyond belief "brainchild".
LMFAO do some research
-
worth repeating again
Quote from: LurkerNoMore on March 28, 2013, 09:35:08 AM
Good luck with that. He overcompensates by trying to string buzz words together in an attempt to sound witty and knowledgeable which in reality leaves any argument or stance of his with a bigger gap in it than there was before.
Particularly amusing is his habit of trying to reverse your statement back in the form of a rhetorical question in the hopes that you will make his argument for him. Since he isn't exactly sure of what he is trying to say or how to convey it.
-
this thread is 7 pages too long.
-
and you have a variety of sexual orientations as well my friend, it isnt simply gay/straight....
do yourself and fellow libtards a favor and google the topic before spouting off at the mouth like you have...
Oh, okay :o. So, what are the two sexual orientations between gay and straight on the bell curve? Learning a new word from a buzzfeed article doesn't make you an expert on something.
-
LMFAO do some research
I can't find the research on the "two standard deviation" of gayness
can you post that link ?
thanks
-
LMFAO do some research
Want someone else to do the research for you? Is that it again?
Worth repeating.
Quote from: LurkerNoMore on March 28, 2013, 09:35:08 AM
Good luck with that. He overcompensates by trying to string buzz words together in an attempt to sound witty and knowledgeable which in reality leaves any argument or stance of his with a bigger gap in it than there was before.
Particularly amusing is his habit of trying to reverse your statement back in the form of a rhetorical question in the hopes that you will make his argument for him. Since he isn't exactly sure of what he is trying to say or how to convey it.
"LMFAO"
-
LMFAO do some research
you are not very bright.
-
(http://buffetoblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/soccer-cleates-to-the-face.jpg?w=800)
Wow, that Amway Salesman fights back. ;D