Termin8or
WU Pigskin Pick'em Champion
WU Guru
Karma: 524
Offline
Clan: WtF
Posts: 10506
|
See, you still can't see it. You are the one who claimed to be the expert on everything. Not me.
I merely pointed out the contradiction. You started the insults to defend your position and offered up no valid counter-argument. You can tell me all day that your argument shows that there is no contradiction, but it doesn't. Your ego has gotten in the way of your logic.
|
  Jinx you owe me a soda
Jinx you owe me a soda
I was slower than 91 % of the US so there  K's looks huge
|
|
|
|
|
|
dudedudedude for Moderator
|
Cancer is entirely different. Cancer is caused by a mutation in a gene, and this mutation causes a change in the cell patterns and growth. The mutation is passed from parent to offspring. Are you saying a mutation in a gene is what causes heterosexuality and that's what is passed from parent to child? If so, a mutation in a gene can also cause homosexuality which means it is no longer a choice, and that it is also in the genes. Theres a contradiction for you. I already said, I don't believe in sexual orientation in that way. I believe humans are heterosexual by nature and homosexuality is a deviation of that norm. So I disagree with you that heterosexuality is a form of sexual orientation. I believe it is the ONLY natural sexual orientation. To use the term "orientation" implies a person's "natural leanings". And I disagree with that assertion. Actually, sexual orientation is one's tendencies of sexual attraction, not what someone learns through nature. You can't argue this, it's fact. It's not and never will be up for debate. Good try. But I like how you revealed your true colors in stating that because I disagree with you I have lost credibility. That is always a good position to take when it comes to credibility. I don't care if you disagree with me, but disagree with science and proven fact, and you lose credibility. You are trying to impart your beliefs on the subject onto me in analyzing my argument and my credibility. Did you ever stop to think your beliefs could be wrong? Fun fact: I have 4th year biology major who currently works for a cancer research center. I'm sure he knows more about genes than you do sir. Why don't you try analyzing my arguments in light of my own beliefs in order to claim that I contradicted myself? Because your beliefs are wrong. You want to argue what sexual orientation is, how can I believe what you say? Because that is the only way to find an actual contradiction. I could apply my beliefs to your statements all day long and find all kids of contradictions. You need to stop bringing up beliefs because in what fuc king place is belief counted as importance? What you believe and what is right can be polar opposites. But that doesn't make them real unless I consider them in light of your own beliefs. I run on fact.
|
|
|
|
|
OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
Karma: 9003
Offline
Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207
Romans 5:8
|
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DDD, that was hilarious. Your entire post was based on the assumption that homosexuality is scientifically proven to be something we are born with.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is one of the biggest discussions out there, and you are attacking my position as though your position is proven by science. Good luck with that. Science debates this issue ad nauseum and all of a sudden you think you know it all and that the issue isn't up for debate.
You are freaking hilarious man. You truly have lost all credibility. Despite what you have alleged here, homosexuality is not something a person is born with. And you have no scientific proof to contend otherwise at all.
This is precisely why I have been arguing with you two morons. My whole point is that my beliefs are one thing and yours are another. However on this issue, science has never provided an answer. Yet you idiots feel the need to say I contradicted myself for my beliefs and then argue logic until you're blue in the face. When in reality this is a debate with no scientific answer, only beliefs and opinions, but you two act like your position is established. This is why I find you both to be hyprocrites. I am not claiming to be an expert in anything here yet you keep saying I am. All I am saying is what I believe on the hotly debated subject. I stated a scientific fact about the human genome along with the source. And you guys are the ones claiming your position is the only one that can be argued and that anyone who disagrees with you is and idiot.
Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.
But you might want to take a step back and realize just how much of what you are claiming is fact is actually hotly debated with no science on either side.
|
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
|
|
|
|
|
OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
Karma: 9003
Offline
Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207
Romans 5:8
|
Actually, sexual orientation is one's tendencies of sexual attraction, not what someone learns through nature. You can't argue this, it's fact. It's not and never will be up for debate. Good try. ^ Here. Although your english is pretty poor here ("learns through nature" what the heck is that?), but you are basically saying sexual orientation is the tendencies one has that are not learned, i.e. born with. You either are born with something or learn it. Those are your only two choices.
|
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
|
|
|
Laughing Turd
Global Moderator
WU Guru
    
Karma: 246
Offline
Clan: Dragon Boys
Posts: 23396
Maldita mi duda fue fatal.
|
Fantastic. These things make me want to argue with the police yelling **** the police!
|
|
|
|
|
dudedudedude for Moderator
|
That's not saying you are born with it. That's saying that sexual orientation isn't just heterosexuality.
|
|
|
|
|
OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
Karma: 9003
Offline
Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207
Romans 5:8
|
That's not saying you are born with it. That's saying that sexual orientation isn't just heterosexuality.
what? how is it saying that? look it up. the term sexual orientation refers to one's "natural" tendencies. Therefore implying you are born with them. It goes back to the nature vs. nurture arguments. It is either nature, i.e. born with it, or nurture, i.e. learned. I am saying homosexuality is NOT nature, nor natural.
|
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
|
|
|
|
dudedudedude for Moderator
|
Actually no. "is the affectional or loving attraction to another person. It can be considered as ranging along a continuum from same-sex attraction only at one end of the continuum to opposite-sex attraction only at the other end." www.bouldercounty.org/health/commhlth/safezone/LGBTIQ/definitions.htm"How one thinks of oneself in terms of to whom one is sexually and/or romantically attracted. Orientation is dependent NOT upon physical experience, but rather on a person's feelings and attractions." members.tripod.com/lavendar_women-ivil/id13.html As you can see, no definitions make reference to natural belief.
|
|
|
|
|
OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
Karma: 9003
Offline
Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207
Romans 5:8
|
so where do you claim sexual orientation comes from?
I am in the camp that it is not inborn. And because of this, I reject the concept of sexual orientation altogether. I believe in "sexuality" rather than orientation because I believe in only one true human orientation. Since I believe in one orientation, it is redundant to use a term like sexual orientation. I believe homosexuality is a chosen devaition from the only true form of human sexuality. That is why I dislike the term sexual orientation and believe it implies more than one orientation. And since those who dispute the claim that heterosexuality is natural, also argue that homosexuality is not against nature and is inborn, you can see why I place the term of sexual orientation in the same boat with the inborn argument.
The definitions you posted are products of our society where it is becoming more commonly accepted that sexuality is inborn or that homosexuality is normal.
|
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
|
|
|
|
dudedudedude for Moderator
|
I don't have a camp. I am merely here to point out flaws in your logic. So back on topic....
Cancer is entirely different. Cancer is caused by a mutation in a gene, and this mutation causes a change in the cell patterns and growth. The mutation is passed from parent to offspring. Are you saying a mutation in a gene is what causes heterosexuality and that's what is passed from parent to child? If so, a mutation in a gene can also cause homosexuality which means it is no longer a choice, and that it is also in the genes. Theres a contradiction for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
the KR3AT3R
Guest
|
No-one ever answered my question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OhioLawyer
Administrator
WU Master
Karma: 9003
Offline
Clan: The Fatal Five
Posts: 8207
Romans 5:8
|
I don't have a camp. I am merely here to point out flaws in your logic. So back on topic....
Cancer is entirely different. Cancer is caused by a mutation in a gene, and this mutation causes a change in the cell patterns and growth. The mutation is passed from parent to offspring. Are you saying a mutation in a gene is what causes heterosexuality and that's what is passed from parent to child? If so, a mutation in a gene can also cause homosexuality which means it is no longer a choice, and that it is also in the genes. Theres a contradiction for you.
The point is that my logic has no flaws. Based on my beliefs, my logic is flawless. The only possible way to claim otherwise is to apply someone else's beliefs. That is my point. Can you at least understand that based on the belief in my last post that there is no contradiction? I believe heterosexuality is inborn (i.e. in our genes) and I also believe there is no gene for sexual orientation. Based on those beliefs, there is no contradiction. And as for your point about cancer, the fact that the gene mutates is irrelevant. The point is that there is no gene for cancer. So clearly there is more going on in genetics than simply what genes do and do not exist. Whether it be mutation, or errors in cell division/duplication, or any other factor, the fact is that which genes we have is not the end of genetics. And that is why I can say there is no sexual orientation gene and at the same time speak of something else that is genetic based on something outside of that limited understanding of genetics. So by bringing up mutation, you have actually proved my point that genetics is much more than just which genes are present.
|
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
|
|
|
|
dudedudedude for Moderator
|
The point is that my logic has no flaws. Based on my beliefs, my logic is flawless. Honestly, I've never laughed so hard at a statement. Obviously, according to your beliefs, you think it's correct but that doesn't mean you are right. Can you at least understand that based on the belief in my last post that there is no contradiction? I believe heterosexuality is inborn (i.e. in our genes) and I also believe there is no gene for sexual orientation. Based on those beliefs, there is no contradiction. Yes I understand your belief but I'm proving to you that it is not possible. If heterosexuality is inborn, it must come from somewhere. Whether its a mutation or its a gene, it must come from somewhere in the DNA. This means that homosexuality must also come from the DNA. It's fine that you believe heterosexuality is inborn, but saying homosexuality is not makes it a contradiction. And as for your point about cancer, the fact that the gene mutates is irrelevant. The point is that there is no gene for cancer. So clearly there is more going on in genetics than simply what genes do and do not exist. Whether it be mutation, or errors in cell division/duplication, or any other factor, the fact is that which genes we have is not the end of genetics. That's totally fine but you have to be consistent with your logic. The inconsistency arises when you say that heterosexuality is inborn but homosexuality is not. It's either they both are, or they both are not. That's already known. The scientific debate is whether sexual orientation is inborn or not, not whether homosexuality is inborn and heterosexuality is not and vice-versa. I can't personally tell you what the correct answer is, because I don't know but I am able to tell you that your logic is inconsistent. So by bringing up mutation, you have actually proved my point that genetics is much more than just which genes are present. I'm not arguing that, they are much more than the genes presented but your logic is flawed in the way that you present it now. Genetic mutation backs up the fact that heterosexuality and homosexuality are either both "in the genes" as you put it or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|