I Need Proof That the Lack of Evidence Proves a Point (Vanity Question)

7/7/09 | Kirah

[Old Professer]

If you rule out lying.

[Eva]

The mafia analogy doesn’t hold up because that is cultural among certain Italian families. These parents were horrified at the situation of having three gay kids and it would be unusual for one person to molest both boys and girls.

[Old Professer]

That was before Hadley Wood and Thomas Edison, I believe.

[Rad_J]

Ask your friend if he/she believes in evolution.

Then say that all of the gay animal populations became extinct and that is why there are no populations of gay animals. After all, it is survival of the fittest and obviously the gay animals were not fit to survive.

Why would humans be the only mammal with this so called gay gene?

[Rad_J]

I was born an axe murderer. Therefore when I murder you or somebody else with an axe, it is obviously moral and legal since I was born that way.

[Vinnie]

Personally, I think for some it is a choice, for others it is genetic, or perhaps a hormone imbalance.

That's my thought also.

[Texas_shutterbug]

I don’t think it’s genetic, but I do think it has something to do with hormones from as early as in utero, possible.My cousin - one of seven kids - is lesbian and she’s exhibited a difference from her sisters from a very, very early age. (Like preschool age.)

[YHAOS]

"Ok, I am a simple person, could you please say that again in layman's terms?"

Those were 'layman's terms.' Which word didn't you understand?

[contemplator]

I pointed that out simply to show that that particular line of reasoning could cut both ways.

[texan75010]

If people are born gay, it does not excuse behavior. With my metabolism, I gain weight easily. I was born with the need to eat every day. I also have a desire to eat the wrong foods in mass quantities and blow up like a blimp. I make a choice every day as to what I put in my stomach. I can give in to my desires or I can exercise self control and do what is best for my body. I have that choice. So does anyone born/choosing to be gay. The argument is not if they were born gay or not. The argument is why is it acceptable to deny one’s selfish desires in some areas of their life but taboo to tell a gay person they should practice self denial?

We tell fat people to lose weight, bald people to wear wigs, pedophiles and rapists to keep it in their pants, kids to abstain from sex, women to wear makeup....and gay people to not act on their desires.

You may never “cure” a gay person just like you wont cure my desire to over eat....it’s a battle against self that you wage every day. You can live life making excuses for bad behavior or you can choose a healthy and normal path.

[Rad_J]

Why do many vegetarians make their food look like meat? Seems to me that they would try to make their food look like vegetables. Why market a veggie burger, tofu burger, or soy burger to a vegetarian who hates real burgers? That’s just as stupid as trying to sell somebody a pile of dog crap that is really made of tofu or soy. Why would I want to eat that? Why not make soy that looks like a head of lettuce?

Why do lesbian and gay couples try to act like heterosexual couples with one being masculine and the other feminine? Seems to me that all gay men would would be alpha males that dislike all things feminine and that lesbians would only like feminine things and reject all things masculine. But no, instead they try to act like the thing they dislike. If I love to play basketball and always want to play basketball and dislike ballet, I am not going to wear a ballet outfit while playing basketball.

I guess the logic gene along with the gay gene and liberal gene must be dominant/recessive traits and you can’t have all 3.

[Melas]

Before you read further, understand that I do not believe that homosexuality is genetic. Rather, I believe it to be a developmental issue. Whether it’s purely psychological or physiological, I cannot say. However, bad science bothers me, so this needs to be said.

To say that homosexuality cannot be genetic because it would die out with no direct transmission is faulty logic, that belies any understanding of recessive vs dominant genes.

Example: Using your logic of reproduction, there would be no muscular dystrophy of the Duchenne variety, as the afflicted rarely live to an age to directly pass on the disease. It would just die out with the afflicted. However the disease is genetic, it persists and it’s unlikely to go away. The reason is simple, unaffected females regularly pass the gene on from generation to generation.

[comet13]

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000010419.cfm

[Rockingham]

In courts of law and other arenas of formal argument, there are two kinds of burdens of proof: the ultimate burden of persuasion, and the burden of producing evidence.

In the usual civil trial, the case is decided by the preponderance of the evidence, meaning that neither side has an advantage, but whichever side puts forward the most and best evidence wins. The same principle applies in formal debates.

With that in mind, in your argument, neither side should have an inherent advantage. The issue should be decided in favor of whomever has presented the best evidence.

There is also the burden of producing evidence. This refers to the obligation of each side to produce evidence to establish their claims and refute the claims of the other side.

In the usual civil trial, the plaintiff or petitioner initially has the burden of producing enough evidence to make at least a prima facie case. This is a bare minimum of evidence that, if unanswered, would be enough to win the case or argument.

Once the plaintiff or petitioner has presented a prima facie case, the burden of producing evidence shifts to the defense. If the defense brings forward enough evidence, the burden shifts back to the other side to offer evidence in rebuttal. If the defense fails though to present any credible evidence, they should lose because they have not meet their burden to produce evidence.

My analysis of your argument is that the burden of persuasion should be a preponderance of the evidence, which makes both sides even. Since you have brought forward evidence for your point of view, you have put the burden on your opponent to bring forward evidence to counter your case.

If your opponent fails to bring forward evidence sufficient to counter what you have offered, you should be seen as the winner. If his evidence outweighs what you have presented, you need to bring forward enough additional evidence to counter his claims.

In the end, assuming both of you produce evidence to satisfy your respective burdens to produce evidence, the argument should be decided based on whomever has produced the best evidence for their side.

[Korah]

it would be unusual for one person to molest both boys and girls.

Are you suggesting that men who molest little boys would not molest little girls? And if you are then how can you back up your assertion. I guess you will say that the children would have spoken up, right?

Well I have news for you, over 80% of people who have been molested as children never publicly admit it? What does that statistic do to your understanding of the situation?

Just curious, because I am not convinced by the reports I have read about these individuals that they were never molested.

[Korah]

I pointed that out simply to show that that particular line of reasoning could cut both ways.

Understood and thanks for the opinion and reply.

[Rad_J]

No, I am not arguing that there is or isn’t a gay gene. That is irrelevant to me. If a gay gene does exist, that does not make homosexuality normal or a desirable trait or acceptable behavior in human moral terms or in evolution only terms.

[aruanan]

the so-called cap-and-trade bill, which would levy harsh fines on energy consumption that harms the environment.

People live in two environments, the so-called "natural" environment and a man-made environment. Disruption of the man-made environment has the more immediate effects on human health and welfare. This can be seen by the fact that people can live in a wide variety of "natural" environments, some more inclement than others. To do so effectively, though, they have to create a specialized environment designed to mitigate fluctuations in "natural" temperature, precipitation, sunshine, and growing cycles. Almost no one in any civilization lives in the "natural" environment unbuffered by a manmade environment. It's extremely difficult and very dangerous to do.

The cap and trade bill does very, very little to change any effect that man has on the "natural" environment, but it seems almost deliberately designed to disrupt the principal environment in which people live and prosper. It seems bent on the destruction of the human ecosystem.

[Melas]

I remain skeptical about changing orientation. Too many scandals have rocked various ex-gay ministries, too many converted heterosexual converts have gone back over the fence etc etc. I’m not at all convinced that you can take attraction away from a person. Could you for example treat a straight man and make him not like women? I’m skeptical.

[HamiltonJay]

Again, families also share environment. If you have that cousin or uncle that molests all the kids in the family that he can get alone, you wind up with a statitically higher number of that family winding up gay.