Woo hoo. This is a long post. Sexuality is as diverse as personality. Some are at the extremes of the measure others somewhere in between. Who really cares? I don't understand why people get their panties/boxers/thongs/briefs etc in a wad when it isn't about them? If it isn't about you then it's none of your beeswax.
Born Gay?
by inrainbows 206 Replies latest members adult
-
-
inrainbows
wife
I do not believe for one minute you honestly need me to explain what is meant by "the role of biology in sexual oriontation", any more than you would need someone to explain what is meant by "the role of the airforce in modern warfare". In both cases it is pretty obvious there is no claim that biology is all of oriontation or airforce the whole of modern warfare. If I am over-estimating your intelligence please accept my apologies.
Now if you can take the chip of your shoulder prehaps you'll be a little more balanced? Would you either be honest enoguh to be actively aggressive or quit the passive agressive bs?
And is there meaning to be drawn from you avoiding answering a simple question like "Why is it so important to you that it ISN'T biological?"?
Less sound & less fury equals less signifying nothing, okay?
-
wifekeepsmeinit
Tabernac. I knew it. Mom is that you.
-
Finally-Free
Tabernac.
This makes me guess that you live at least 5 hours east of Toronto.
W
-
HB
I would not normally have much of interest to say on this topic but have just received an internet "forward" which was relevant, so thought I would contribute:
Iris Robinson is a Northern Ireland MP and MLP (Member of the Legislative Assembly) for the Democratic Unionist Party and is a born again Christian. Her husband is the First Minister. Earlier this month on radio, she sparked an outrage by expressing the view that homosexuality was an abomination, and suggested gay people needed psychiatric help and could be "turned around" to become heterosexual.
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7439661.stm to listen to her comments.
This is apparently a copy of a letter sent to Iris Robinson, I say apparently as it is circulating on the internet via email but the writer's name is not credited. It is humourous but also makes a serious point.
Dear Iris…
THANK you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual
lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them.
My important Biblically-based questions are listed below the fold. I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to the Irish, but not English people. Can you
clarify? Why can't I own some Englishmen?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is: my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wriggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse
and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with
people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. -
wifekeepsmeinit
Uh Ohhh.....i think my cover has been blown......
FinallyFree, thanks for not saying any specific city........I should refrain from talking that way, in the first place.
-
wifekeepsmeinit
inrainbows:
If I am over-estimating your intelligence please accept my apologies.
Yes, i admit you are over-estimating my intelligence.
In both cases it is pretty obvious there is no claim that biology is all of oriontation
In every single case, oriontation is actually spelt orientation.
Would you either be honest enoguh to be actively aggressive or quit the passive agressive bs?
Need I say more.
Now if you can take the chip of your shoulder prehaps you'll be a little more balanced? Would you either be honest enoguh to be actively aggressive or quit the passive agressive bs?
Chip on my shoulder? More Balanced? Honest enough? - Seriously...relax. Never once in all of my posts have I ever got personal with anyone. I respect others opinions and I also expect to have communication not argumentation. So far Inrainbows you have called me off-balance, passive aggressive, a liar and also insinuating I am not intelligent. Whats the matter with you, can we not have Intelligent communication without the name calling.
And is there meaning to be drawn from you avoiding answering a simple question like "Why is it so important to you that it ISN'T biological?"?
That isnt the question Inrainbow. You missed it completely. Ì questioned the validity of the study, using 90 people as the basis for the claims suggested isnt very scientific, all it does it lead them, or point them in the right direction. Thats all I said. Can we have Intelligent communication now?
Less sound & less fury equals less signifying nothing, okay?
Hmmm, okay. I dont know how to respond to that, sorry.
Also, I appreciated the corelation with the question I asked of you, you know about the role of the airforce and warfare. Please could you explain to me what you meant by the entire sentence `
further proof of the role of biology in sexual oriontation is one in the eye to the concepts of a fair god
You said it, you are over-estimating my intelligence. Seriously, I have no idea what you are talking about when you start talking about `is one in the eye to the concepts of a fair god` and how thats related to the proof of biology in sexual orientation.
-
inrainbows
I always get a warm glow when ALL someone has to say that is worthwhile is reduced to correcting spelling.
wife, well, I am obviously very silly for not seeing you as you see yourself.
As such is the case let's just not go into a further analysis of what you've written previously as, well, what's ther point? If you did admit to anything you'd hide behind the 'I said I wasn't smart' trump card.
Now, can you tell me the statistical variance of the results found in 90 representative people in other studies? About 10%. Massive and significant margin-of-error in an survey of voting preferences. In gay men and straight women having the same brain symetries as lesbians and straight men, not nearly as significant. Of course, the study may be flawed in other ways but that's what peer reviewing helps eliminate, which you seem bright enough to comprehend even given your claims about your intelligence.
Of course the other quoted EXPERTS know this which is why they give the results such credence.
You have assumed first off that it wasn't a scientific study when it was, then assumed that other experts were less knowledgable about the results than you, then made an unfounded claim as regards the validity of a sample like this without even bothering to try and check the assumpiton of . That's an awful lot of assuming, which is why I question why it is so important to you that it isn't a biological trigger. If you were looking at it with an open mind (even one with the level of intelligence you claim), you'd not leap to such assumptions.
And I've not called you a liar.
Hmmm, okay. I dont know how to respond to that, sorry.
I'm just asking you to provide a little substance to your claims the study is BS.
As for;
further proof of the role of biology in sexual oriontation is one in the eye to the concepts of a fair god
... I am saying that as biology (which people can't help) seems to play such a pivotal role in sexual oriontation, the idea that a god would condemn people because of their sexual oriontation when it is a function of their god-given biology is absurd and rubbish the idea of a fair god.
This either is further proof that the entity described in the Bible is not god but bronze-age goatherd's ideas of god, as the idera of an unfair god is offensive. Or proof that if that is an accurate description of god, then god is not very fair.
I think the first is far more likely.
-
wifekeepsmeinit
tabernac Inrainbows,
I'm just asking you to provide a little substance to your claims the study is BS.
Now, can you tell me the statistical variance of the results found in 90 representative people in other studies? About 10%Table 1.
Table 1. Sample size for ±3%, ±5%, ±7% and ±10% Precision Levels Where Confidence Level is 95% and P=.5. Size of Sample Size (n) for Precision (e) of: Population ±3% ±5% ±7% ±10% 500 a 222 145 83 600 a 240 152 86 700 a 255 158 88 800 a 267 163 89 900 a 277 166 90 1,000 a 286 169 91 2,000 714 333 185 95 3,000 811 353 191 97 4,000 870 364 194 98 5,000 909 370 196 98 6,000 938 375 197 98 7,000 959 378 198 99 8,000 976 381 199 99 9,000 989 383 200 99 10,000 1,000 385 200 99 15,000 1,034 390 201 99 20,000 1,053 392 204 100 25,000 1,064 394 204 100 50,000 1,087 397 204 100 100,000 1,099 398 204 100 >100,000 1,111 400 204 100 a = Assumption of normal population is poor (Yamane, 1967). The entire population should be sampled. 10% eh....that might be true if there were 900 gay people on earth.
You have assumed first off that it wasn't a scientific study when it was, then assumed that other experts were less knowledgable about the results than you, then made an unfounded claim as regards the validity of a sample like this without even bothering to try and check the assumpiton of . That's an awful lot of assuming, which is why I question why it is so important to you that it isn't a biological trigger. If you were looking at it with an open mind (even one with the level of intelligence you claim), you'd not leap to such assumptions.
No I said that it wasnt a very scientific study, no assumption there.
Less knowledgable; No I said Dr. Qaiz Rahman gave an opinion as proof based on a flawed sample size, No Assumption there.
Validity of sample; No assumption there.
Biological Trigger? Again Inrainbows THIS ISNT THE QUESTION.
Open Mind? Assumptions? I wont ever go there as QUITE FRANKLY, I DONT CARE. Repeatedly, you are trying to lead this conversation down a path that it has never been, nor does it need to.
Seriously Inrainbows, Ive had enough of this banter. This will be my last post on this thread, unless you decide to lower yourself to namecalling as you continuosly do.
-
inrainbows
tabernac Inrainbows
And I suppose implying I am someone else is just part of you not being aggressive, LOL.
And you do a very impressive job of pasting in a table and not reading it; did you note that for populations over 100,000 a sample size of 100 gives a confidence interval of 10%. Thus me saying "About 10%" is correct. The figure is 10.33% actually. So you have actually proved I am right. Thank you. Your next trick?
No I said that it wasnt a very scientific study, no assumption there.
Please show how it wasn't very scientific, you haven't done this so far. I've already shown the assumptions you've jumped to and you've further proven how determined you are to assume it isn’t a scientific study by not even reading to the bottom of a table you provide to 'prove me wrong'.
Less knowledgable; No I said Dr. Qaiz Rahman gave an opinion as proof based on a flawed sample size, No Assumption there.
Sample size was not flawed as both you and I have proven.
And your fanatical determination to falsely undermine the statistical validity of the study is?
And you sign off hypocritically, having implied I am here under a false identity.
All you’ve proven is stuff about yourself wifey. As have all the other people who bridle at the idea that homosexuality might just be part of the natural variation of human behaviour (not that it matters whether it is or not).