Born Gay?

by inrainbows 206 Replies latest members adult

  • wifekeepsmeinit
    wifekeepsmeinit

    And I suppose implying I am someone else is just part of you not being aggressive, LOL.

    Do you speak french? Do you know how it is used? When it is used? and in what manner it can be used ? LOL....had I said...Inrainbows you can le chez mon cul....you would have had a reason whine.

    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?

    My next trick.....I JUST PROVED YOU ARE WRONG IN YOUR +-10%, PLUS I GAVE EVIDENCE FOR WHICH YOU ASKED, .

    Also the table shows you can have 95% CONFIDENCE not a 100% level that you are correct. With a PLUS or MINUS 10% VARIATION. The sample size of 100 on the far right of the table is a MINIMUM, and should not be taken LITERALLY (as my professor always told me) you need to have a larger sample in order to have accurate results.

    Take a look at another Table has almost the identical numbers, it has a Margin of Error of 5%, read down at the bottom. http://www.praccreditation.org/secure/documents/coachHO16.PDF

    Please also read here in the 2nd paragraph http://www.praccreditation.org/secure/documents/coachHO17.PDF

    And I bet you got all excited when your dollar store calculator spit out 10.33%........LOL

    Please show how it wasn't very scientific

    I just did.

    fanatical determination

    Hilarious......mabey you should read some of my other posts.

    And you sign off hypocritically, having implied I am here under a false identity.

    Sign off Hypocritically? You have called me a fanatic, off-balance, passive aggressive, a liar, a hypocrit and also insinuating I am not intelligent!. What false Identity is that?

    all the other people who bridle at the idea that homosexuality

    Again...thats not the question....you seem to be a glutten for punishment.

    All you’ve proven is stuff about yourself wifey.

    WOW...what a profound statement, I have proven STUFF.

    Read my other posts.

  • dogisgod
    dogisgod

    I heard Dolly Parton is gay.

  • Jringe01
    Jringe01

    The title of this thread is "Born Gay?. The only person who can answer that question is you, the individual. No one else can say for certain. Many people will not believe it (as is their right) and not everyone who is gay was born that way.

    In the end it really doesn't matter. Those of us who are gay are gay and we are being told by those who are opposed that our way of life and our desire to enter into a legal union with the people we love is wrong, abnormal and a threat. Ironically arguements like this surfaced against blacks, women and jews...and as another poster said x number of years down the road there'll be another group or cause with that same distinction.

    BTS: You said:

    I think maybe the hormonal environment in the womb can cause this. I think that certain psychological traumas during childhood and sexual abuse can cause a person's sexual growth to go a certain way. I accept these explanations by modern science. It is not limited to homosexuality. For example, straight married men feel may sexual desire for other women. It is "natural" for them to feel this. It is not moral for them to act on it.
    Interesting. Perhaps someone can answer me this: Why is it when this subject is being discussed it's frequently claimed that people are made gay because of hormones, abuse or trauma, especially when the bible suggests differently.

    Just for arguements sake lets assume that when the bible tells us Adam sinned and death spread to all men becaused all had sinned is true. Certainly no one can deny this is the bible's claim, that Adam sinned and died but before he did he passed on sin and death to all future humans. In that case why claim that homosexuality is caused by hormones, abuse or trauma when the bible itself tells you that it's actually imperfection that causes it.

    This could also be taken to imply that the act of sinning, of missing that mark, when perfect has real physical consequences that cannot be hidden or ignored. That would also makes God's statement to Adam (Eat from this tree and you'll die) less of a threat and more of a statement of fact...because that's how he designed Adam, to die if the decision to miss the mark was ever taken. But I digress.....we should have another thread on this subject.

    Junction Guy:
    ... all the gays on here tried to change my viewpoint to fit theirs.

    Tell me...when did I ever try to do that to you? I can't say I recall that so when you find the post lwhere I am supposed to have done this then let me know or apologize to those of us to whom your claim does not apply.

    I have the right to marry a woman, just the same as they do. Other than that, they are perfectly free to do whatever they want. They seem to want to force their opinions down my throat too.What 2 gays do in the privacy of their own home does not affect me whatsoever, but the marriage thing does affect society as it is obvious from all of the controversy it stirs up.
    So? Straight opinions get forced down gay throats all the time just as the ideas of men were forced on women for centuries, the ideas of whites were forced on blacks AND Native Americans who were slaughtered by the thousands for daring to fight for their rights and freedoms. So far as I'm concerned you're getting what's coming to you. Gays, like blacks, women and natives have been oppressed for far too long and like those 3 groups we are not going to take any more of it. We standing up for ourselves and fighting for the same rights and privileges you have and take for granted, and in some cases abuse.

    The "marraige thing" only affects "society" because people CHOOSE to be affected by it. It's not like they are affetced because they have no choice in the matter. They do have a choice and like Adam they are making the wrong one.

    because marriage is between a man and a woman, that is the way it has been since the founding of this nation:
    However "this nation" as you put it was formed by peopkle from other nations where gays were not always viewed so unfavourably. (see below). of course it shouldn't have to be said that "this nation" has been guilty of terrible crimes against humanity and keep in mind that when "this nation" was founded women and blacks were not considered people...but now they are (learned that from The West Wing) so if those concepts can change (albeit with considerable violence and bloodshed) why can't attitudes about gays be changed as well?

    BTS again:
    Historically, the Christian Church has always had this teaching regarding sexuality. I challenge you to refute that. You are free to disagree with the teaching, but you are not free to say it isn't so against the evidence.
    It may have always had this teaching but it's not always been enforced. I posted on a thread started by Jstalin called "the right's obsession with gays" that there is now evidence that gay civil unions were allowed and accepted in France some 600 years ago. I urge you to read my post in full and take note of the studies quoted therein. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/14/160880/1.ashx

    and finally, last but certainly not least; wifekeepsmeinit says:
    le chez mon cul.
    Well I don't understand much French however I do understand that one...I do that all the time, DAMN good at it to in case you're ever curious... LOL

  • inrainbows
    inrainbows

    wife

    Fanatical as in say it is your last post and yet can't resist coming back for more? Unbalanced as you plunged into an erroneous interpretation of the article due to pre-existing bias. Passive aggressive as in insinuating untruths about me. Hypocrite as you complain of me name calling when you're insinuating untruths.

    What false Identity is that?

    The one you imply I am;

    Whats your name again...you sound like someone I know
    Tabernac. I knew it. Mom is that you.
    tabernac Inrainbows

    I suppose you will claim calling me your mum is NOT an unsult?

    Oh deary deary dear. I said;

    I do not believe for one minute you honestly need me to explain what is meant by ...
    If I am over-estimating your intelligence please accept my apologies.

    That is me saying I think you know perfectly well what I am talking about, if you tried. You're the one who said;

    i admit you are over-estimating my intelligence.

    Do try to keep up.

    Is it sarcastic? Yes. Saying you are a liar? No. I don't think you're disposed to even try and see the other side of this discussion and skim over contrary opinion. Part of the 'unbalanced'. Not calling you a liar, but you seeing it as that means you're unbalanced. QED.

    And describing your behaviour is not name calling, it is describing your behaviour. Behave differently if you don’t like it.

    And you're doing yourself no favours beating the dead horse. What I said was right, you can distort all you like;

    http://www.comres.co.uk/star-calculator.html#
    http://www.berrie.dds.nl/calcssm.htm

    Lalala, you're getting boring (describing your behaviour). And you're not even honest enough to insult me in English. In what kind of mind is insulting someone in a foreign language less bad than in English?

    Flikker op klotzak! (Gay off scrotum! Dutch insults are wonderful. At least I provide a translation )

  • wifekeepsmeinit
    wifekeepsmeinit

    This article tells what I have been saying over and over and over again. Beating this dead horse, Even the researchers in this Gay study say

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080616/lf_nm_life/brain_gay_dc

    FROM YAHOO: "The observations cannot be easily attributed to perception or behavior," the researchers from Sweden's Karolinska Institute wrote. "Whether they may relate to processes laid down during the fetal or postnatal development is an open question"

    The researchers added that the study cannot say whether the differences in brain shape are inherited or due to exposure to hormones such as testosterone in the womb and if they are responsible for sexual orientation.

    But this is something they plan to look at in a further study of newborn babies to see if it can help predict future sexual orientation.

    "These observations motivate more extensive investigations of larger study groups and prompt for a better understanding of the neurobiology of homosexuality," they wrote.

    As I have been saying over and over again is that this study points them in a certain direction only, as the researchers even admit to. Because the researchers know that 90 people is just not enough of a sample size. I really liked those links to the calculators, if you punch in 100,000 as the population and 90 as the sample 10.33% will come out, thats because this is the maximum it will go. But we are talking about a lot more then 100,000 people, arnt we, or are you suggesting that there are only 100,000 Gay people on the planet.

    I dont understand why we can not discuss the question at hand instead of getting personal. You feel it necessary to describe behavior instead of describing the real issue. You have not said anything of value regarding my acsertion that the sample size is too small. This is the real issue we were debating, not personality, true I said Holy Sh!*` the first time and then`Jesus` in French the second time. In no way did I insult you, because its not in my personality. I called you "Mom" because I knew you would like it, but because of the type of person you are you took it negatively, would you like it better if I called you my Daddy instead? I know you dont like to get personal with people, but I feel you have gotten personal with me cause you dont have a leg to stand on, regarding your views.

    I questioned the validity of the study (90 people for the basis of the study) considering there is probably 600 million of your kind around the world. I then backed my statement up with facts and figures, that proved my point of view. Why can you not accept that 90 people wasnt enough, when all the evidence including your own and the researchers says so. The study now points the scientists in a direction only, but it is not definitive.

    And you're not even honest enough to insult me in English.

    le chez mon cul, is not an insult, most take it as a compliment as Jringe01 pointed out. He even said he liked it.

    Ohhhh and Jringe01...........if I wasnt married......you would be in trouble, were both in the same province you know!.

  • inrainbows
    inrainbows

    Again wife, you are streaching what has and has not been said. You miss what has been written or imagine what has not.

    You made a mistake at the start. Big red flag that being wrong doesn't make any difference to or even moderate your opinions, but there we go. On this board with the backgrounds people have people not revising their opinions when they are wrong is par for the course. Actually, that's just people in general but more so here.

    I made no claims about reliability of the study beyond what is supportable; punch in 7 billion into those calculators. You do realise the increase in levels of accuracy caused by increasing sample size falls dramatically at increasing population sizes because of a function of the statistics, not because the servers running the software get confused with lots of digits?

    Even then I mentioned the study might be flawed in other ways. All I really say about the reliability of the study is that the allowed MOE is;

    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.

    UNLESS the study is flawed in other ways it is unlikely they just happened to pick a group of 90 people where this was observed. The results they got were reviewed and shown to be statistically significant. That's why it passed peer review.

    You miss this entirely as you seem not to understand a small sample size can be used to make predictions with a certain degree of confidence.

    That is all I have basically said, that is all the study says, and it contradicts you claiming the results are unscientific.

    You also ignore this;

    "that these differences could not be mainly explained by "learned" effects, but needed another mechanism to set them, either before or after birth".

    Just as babies develop in other ways after birth due to nature, they say the differences can not be mainly explained by nurture but by nature, be it prenatal or postnatal. Remember the title of the thread, 'Born Gay'? Doesn't matter if the natural processes making someone gay (if they exist and to whatever extent they overcome or influence choice and nurture) are prenatal or postnatal, if you have them you'd still be born that way.

    But once again it's analysing what you say and how you say it that is illuminating;

    I called you "Mom" because I knew you would like it, but because of the type of person you are you took it negatively, would you like it better if I called you my Daddy instead?

    You knew I would like it but because of 'the type of person' I am I took it negatively? Oh my god. You are a piece of work aren't you? And the tabernac bit? A little bit of backpedaling going on here mayhaps?

    there is probably 600 million of your kind around the world

    That is chilling. First because it would be really nasty if you said it about a black person or Jew. Second because it doesn't even occur to you a straight person might be talking to you about this subject.

    Not that I give a fig if you think I'm gay, LOL.

  • Jringe01
    Jringe01

    lechez mon cul, is not an insult, most take it as a compliment as Jringe01 pointed out. He even said he liked it.

    Ohhhh and Jringe01...........if I wasnt married......you would be in trouble, were both in the same province you know!.

    Hahahaha...well if she ever dumps your sorry cul look me up and I'll show you what it's all about. LOL

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit