Posted on 05/12/2003 9:23:01 AM PDT by Remedy
What are you, like 12?
"There is NO biological or hereditary compulsion to anal sex. Such a disgusting act doesn't just happen. The act itself is a choice--and often a deadly one."
Sorry, the 50% correlation referenced in post #66 proves you wrong.
Talking back to the voices in a lunatic's head is a choice as well. It's probably on a similar compulsion level. I'd strongly advise my daughter from getting involved with a "reformed" one and would never forgive myself is she wound up a single HIV positive mother otherwise.
Of course nothing biological directly says to gays to do it in the anus, it just plays a role in the desire to just to do it with a man. And if vaginal sex with one's wife became impossible for some reason, I think most men would jump on the alternative.
You’re citing an opinion article by “social conservative” hehe Mark Copeland, NOT a study. And what study does “social conservative” hehe Mark Copeland cite??? The famous “one study” from who...Dr. Michael Bailey of the Bailey/Pillard fame which ironically used another 110 twin pairs and ironically had exactly the same result. Unfortunately “social conservative” hehe Mark Copeland doesn’t cite which “one study” is Bailey’s “separated twin” study…perhaps you can. The only “separated” twin studies I know of are Farber 1981, James Shields 1962 and the U. Minnesota studies but no where can I find the Bailey separated twin “one study”, it seems to be circumspectly absent. What the good “social conservative” hehe Mr. Mark Copeland has written is a mistake and he probably confused the info from the “conservative” Religious Tolerance wed site.
So again your “science” is unsupportable for your perversion. Try again.
Hehehe...
Despite the repressed and explosive homosexual desires that you project upon me, you have a couple of valid points. Copeland's quoting from some confused sources, Bailey didn't do separated at birth studies as far as I know. And there is more than that one "Religious Tolerance" link that you posted referencing that claim. Also, Copeland is of course not a social conservative. I failed to read his full report, influence by his initial claim that his work was from a "Christian Perspective".
I see reports of two 'separated at birth' twin studies by Eckert 1986 and Farber in 1981 here in what's called Critical Analysis Of Twin Studies, but it's pretty involved and I don't have the time to review it for a day or so. Try an control your desires in the interim, I'll tell you if your problem has been proven to have a biological component or not.
I thought you declared your “orientation” some time ago as one who practices perversion…are you saying I got that wrong? If so my apologies for the pejorative.
Thanks for your OPINION…chalk full of all them facts and statistics. Unfortunately science, “real” science, is not in your favor.
The folks on this thread have not had a close family memeber that is gay... one can tell.
Shere stupidity backed up by “the world revolves around me” anecdotalism. Grow up.
Yeah if you believe the WHO and their non-use of HIV testing. The WHO simply uses one or two of the 29 AIDS related diseases for an AIDS diagnosis…what a coincidence since Tuberculosis, Cholera, Dysentery already ran rampant all over Africa well before the UN got there. Funny too how the big pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in perpetuating the big lie as well as how the WHO simultaneously gets western monies pored into Africa for their socialized utopia and killing two birds with one stone an excuse for justifying the UN homosexual movement through the myth of rampant heterosexual AIDS.
Go figure?
You’re saying the Missionary Medical organizations can afford the use multiple batteries of HIV tests in order to determine AIDS when even the WHO can’t? Can you please confirm this? No, your “independent” ORG gets their info from the WHO…garbage in garbage out.
you never heard of the "truck" drivers in central Africa that have a "wife" up and down in every town up and down the central highways throuhout Uganda
Anecdotalism is not sound basis for science.
1 in 5 in South Africa is said to be infected by HIV.
"Said" is the key word here but unfortunately unprovable without what??? A battery of HIV tests.
No, in Africa the lustful practises amongst the populace makes it more a hetero-sexual phenomena...not just because the WHO(which I view as suspect any-way) said it was for some political bias favoring GAYS in that organization!
Lemming Alert! Lemming Alert! The WHO has many agendas as well as the pharmaceutical companies but as long as everyone perceives something “good” is going on in Africa no needs to worry about the facts.
"For the male twins, Eckert et al. conclude that, "despite problems of ascertainment and diagnosis, it is hard to deny genetic factors an aetiological role." As for the females, the "pattern of findings suggests that female homosexuality is a trait acquired after conception, most likely after birth, but before menarche . . . Our evidence, though based on a small sample, implicates environmental factors as the major determinant of female homosexuality.""I'm not able to determine a political bias in Taylor's work. From a layman's perspective, it appears very tedious in dissecting and each study and acknowledging farfetched counter theories or criticisms. In academia, I'm sure this would be called "conservative" or "thorough". My point being that I'm unlikely to come up with any better analysis of his data than just using his own words at the end of his summary.
From the data reviewed in this report, it seems reasonable to conclude that male homosexuality, or, at least, some 'types' of male homosexuality, are under some degree of genetic control, although various problems with this data prevent more precise conclusions from being drawn. Little can be said of the origins of female homosexuality.That of course isn't the kind of "beyond reasonable doubt proof" that would have forced an OJ Jury into submission, more like the kind of "preponderance of the evidence" that convicted him civilly. So if you're ideologically determined to believe that that being gay is 100 percent environmental, I suspect that you can rationalize away all the data that contradicts what you want. You can continue to believe that the biological theory is a gay activist conspiracy, but you should note that the radical gay community is not in any way unified behind that theory. For instance, you saw how they attacked Dr. Laura for calling it a "biological error". Also, here's an exempt from a "Gay Today" article attempting to dispel the genetic/bio theory
I don't believe in the gene theory—and, as my previous writings show—I see it as an impediment to the wider vision of a thoroughgoing planetary revolution in intimate/personal affairs .LOL! Another reason to acknowledge the biological factors.Rejecting the primacy of genes as an explanation for that tabooed but natural inclination we call homosexuality, we can then allow an unaffected curiosity its free reign in human affairs, placing homosexual experience on an equal footing with heterosexual desire."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.