Rave this if you think Gay People Should Have Equal Rights!

Look who is calling who a dumbass?~laughs!~ You don't even read this stuff do ya?

First off, 2 of your sources render absolutely nothing in the way of ingrediants and studies, those are the ones from Amazon and a waste of time,,but you already knew that didn't you? ~chuckles~

The First link was the only one you provided that could offer any leads to actual study, and I had to hunt them down, infact I could not find anything but some references to a study done in Switzerland, and nothing to substantiate that study, it has a lotta holes in it, the most glareing one for me is aspect of learned behavioral responce, which is something I have sayig all along, secondly, for some reason everyone keeps overlooking this set of sentences written right in the article

~Hamer cautions that the gay men's different brain activity could be either a cause of their sexual orientation or an effect of it.~

and that right there is the legal disclaimer in small print saying, or rather confessing without 'Confession' that this may and probably has Absolutely Nothing to do with being Gay ~laughs!~

Here is a nice nonbiased study updated in 2008, I included some of what stuck out in this study
http://www.cf.ac.uk/biosi/sta...
Savic et al. (2001) demonstrated that androstadienone activated the hypothalamus in a gender-specific manner (it activated the hypothalamus in women but not men)

Preti, Spielman and Wysocki, 1997). Studies have shown that women prefer those male odours that have HLA types different from their own

No that study was completely relevant,,, first off I already provided the comments from the authors of the only study cited in this so called Gay Responce Pherimone Study that was by the way Witch Hunting for Proof, they cannot substantiate

~Hamer cautions that the gay men's different brain activity could be either a cause of their sexual orientation or an effect of it.~

and that right there is the legal disclaimer in small print saying, or rather confessing without 'Confession' that this may and probably has Absolutely Nothing to do with being Gay ~laughs!~

add to it a true Blind study results as I provided, and you can only conclude its a bogus study and just a part of the Slick Marketing Punk'ing you are so proud to be a Victim of and not Proof,
Well you conclude that if your not 'Biased' You on the otherhand are definately Demenstrating very Biased Motives to thwart off the truth at all cost, very Saul Alynski of you ~chuckles~

When I was in the fragrance business I was just a Salesman and Market researcher, and I admit that at the time 20 years ago I didn't have a breakdown of Pherimone ingredients, I just wasn't interested in the details of it is all, but we conducted our own blind field tests on the various Pherimones the different companies were offering to determine which ones worked and how well, it was a real simple and extremely blind test,

We just took spray bottles of the Male and Female pherimones and would go to events, such as Concerts, Movies, and public places like Parks, Laundrymats, Theme Parks like DisneyLand, Knots Berry Farm ect. and we would spray the Pherimones on Seats and ParkBenches, and then watch and record, based on Gender, who sat in them

The Results were always the same, we would spray 22 seats, or there equavilant in Park Bench space((how we arrived at 22 I don't know)) and sit back and watch, in all cases all Males Gay or Straight avoided sitting in the Male Pherimone treated seats , but they were constantly being used by Females, and Visa versa, something else i observed was folks looking like they would walk right on by a treated bench or seat would change their minds and sit down, the results were consistant and always the same on working pherimones, ((I recall a couple of duds))
this was done all over so.california, LA area and trust me, there were loads of Openly Gay folks observed in these tests, they responded the same as Straights

Now thats how a Blind Test or Study works, No Motive just test the products

Slipped is right, that certianly is not consistant with any of my Posts, I believe I mean't to say 'Your Socalled Facts' and most certianly Truth is Based on Facts,

I like how you respond to a Typo yet ignore all other challenges. I'd say that a fair evaluation of your true self ~chuckles~

1) I have already de-bunked your so-called Peer Review studies, by showing how words can be munipulated to lead you to conclusions and appear supportive while doing neither, and you have FAILED to address that FACT

2) I have made the claim over and over Science has not Proven you are Born Gay or proven anything and provided the APA link to support that, yet again you fail to respond, typical Denial

3) I have debunked your Homosexuality in the Animal Kingdom by both explaining again the manipulation of words ie; simply report on only the Same Sex behavior abserved, change the words from Bi-Sexuality to Homosexuality, and then neglect all abservations of what happens when the so-called Gay Pair is split and only opposite sex is available for pairing off, I also provided a link to the Gay Penguins to support that, You FAILED to address that FACT

4) I have De-bunked all those so-called Brain Studies, the Truth is the brain changes size and shape based on what part you use to focus with ie;
a) a buncha career musicians will all have simular brain shapes
b) a buncha career Engineers will all have simular brain shapes
c) a buncha Microsoft designers will have simular brain shapes
ect. all due to how the brain is excersized, and these changes can be very pronounced and rapid, but the activity creates the change in the Brain, NOT the other way around, and you knew that, yet, and as predicted you FAILED to address that FACT

, You tried to lure me into some self serving set of Personal Questions ((out of line btw)) only to then have a Fake Evaluation and then Fake Diagnosis, how pathetic, and yet still constantly post a link to a Christian slam site, trying to divert, deny, and propagandize much?

I think you have figured out that I have been Rope-A-Doping you into saying a whole lotta BS you won't be able to squirm out of, haven't you, thats why you tuck tail and run

I had no reason to think it was a typo - honestly. It seems to reflect how an outsider would see your presentation of arguments, which you then repeat by asserting I never answer your arguments.

I will go through this again - in the same order as yours --

1. You have not debunked any such thing lad - you have attempted to assert that a religious site is the equivalent of peer review - it isn't. I've repeatedly defined peer review -- either show actual peer review or yield the point -- that's what actual grown ups do in discussion if they are educated.

2. No, it is not proven that you are born gay beyond any argument, there are very few scientific laws, none are in biology - let me repeat that NONE. However, the preponderance of evidence and the overwhelming majority of experts in the field who spend their lives studying this believe that one is. So do most gay people - who, it would seem, should understand their own experience much better than, o YOU. I certainly think I understand my experience better than you do - and yet you have asserted that I don't know what I myself feel or why -- by asserting that everyone is bisexual who becomes gay due to marketing. Let me be clear I WAS NEVER BISEXUAL. There, can you accept that, or do you have to come up with some convoluted method of again telling me that you know me better than I do, or accuse me of lying to you?

The same statement, if you are quoting the APA statement on homosexuality, makes it very clear that they also do not believe that there is a choice for most (or nearly all) gay people. The official statement from the APA says:

"How do people know if they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual?
According to current scientific and professional understanding, the core attractions that form the basis for adult sexual orientation typically emerge between middle childhood and early adolescence. These patterns of emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction may arise without any prior sexual experience. People can be celibate and still know their sexual orientation-–be it lesbian, gay, bisexual, or heterosexual.
Different lesbian, gay, and bisexual people have very different experiences regarding their sexual orientation. Some people know that they are lesbian, gay, or bisexual for a long time before they actually pursue relationships with other people. Some people engage in sexual activity (with same-sex and/or other-sex partners) before assigning a clear label to their sexual orientation. Prejudice and discrimination make it difficult for many people to come to terms with their sexual orientation identities, so claiming a lesbian, gay, or bisexual identity may be a slow process.
What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

(American Psychological Association; Sexual orientation and homosexuality; 2008 - retrieved online - emphasis added)

I can imagine nothing more basic than having homosexual attraction emerge in young people in exactly the same way that heterosexual attraction emerges and having most (read almost all) people having little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation (I know no one who felt they had any choice - on either side or the middle of orientation) as proof that it is inborn. The APA statement acknowledges the ongoing discussion in a much more inclusive manner than any other national association does - but that doesn't change the fact that I can't find a single psychologist (and I know a considerable number, clinicals, adolescent and regular) that believes there is a choice for any person as regards what their sexuality actually is -- what they do with it yes, but not what it is.

If that isn't the meaning of inborn, then I can't imagine what is. It emerges organically and naturally and you have no choice... What is that if not inborn then?

3. And I have clearly pointed to absolutely exclusively homosexual populations among Rams. Until you actually acknowledge clearly accepted scientific fact -- I don't even see what the sense is of continuing this - although unlike most of those you face, I won't fade away -- I'll keep responding when I have spare time - forever if I have to. You cannot debunk a fact with semantics. Rams -- even if you deny all other homosexual animals, have homosexual, EXCLUSIVELY HOMOSEXUAL members. They've been extensively studied. So either deal with them or yield the point.

http://www.time.com/time/maga...

4. YOU have debunked all of the brain studies??? YOU.???You do realize that arrogance is beyond belief. You are not a neurologist. You are not in fact in any field CAPABLE of debunking the brain studies. Further, your arguments are not even cogent. Several neurologically linked characteristics (startle response for example) which differ between homosexual and heterosexual persons are set in the womb. So unless the fetus was very sexual in the womb, I don't see how they can be affected by use.

Yes, MAYBE the hippocampus can be affected by use. MAYBE neuron density can be affected by use -- but many things involving the brain and known or in a couple of cases believed to be set prior to birth characteristics (startle, left-handedness, phenomenal response - a truly fascinating one since gay men react to other gay men's pheromones to a greater level of preference than to other men's pheromones, and I suspect the increased strength and connective density of the anterior commisure among exclusively gay males.) and many others involving the body (increased thumbprint ridge density on the left-hand, left-handed hair whorls, differing comparative finger lengths, etc.) indicate very strongly that indeed sexuality is set prior to birth.

I have read what you have written, and in the few cases where you have given actual references, I've read them. I strongly suggest that if this is a real enterprise, and not either a lark or a compulsion for you -- you do the same in reverse.

Facts don't change -- and as one of my most conservative colleagues said, after the Fruit Fly study -- "I yield, its inborn." The evidence keeps mounting, at least do yourself and others the favor of considering it.

Regards,

Reyn
http://www.rebuff.org

Redux --

Again, its nice that you can assert that you know what I think and mean and that I don't - but its also a lie. You don't.

When I presumed that you meant what you said, I presumed it because it is an acceptable line of reasoning among a significant number of people. Facts don't matter, the truth does. Not only is that nearly a litany among some parts of the religious Right (what do you think "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" means? A more popular slogan when I was a baby than now, I still see it periodically on bumper stickers. It means, facts don't matter, "Truth" -- (or religious belief as truth) does), but on the secular Right and some parts of the Left. When I said I presumed you meant it - I did - because I know people, many people, who do believe it, mostly, but by no stretch all, on the Right.

it seems to me that the reason that you can't get anyone to have a calm reasoned debate with you is because you won't allow it. Things like assuming that people are being nasty when they aren't - and then pushing the issue and disbelieving them when they say they aren't almost assures that reasoned discussion is impossible. When I say X it is X, or at least what I believe X to be. Honestly, in a more reasoned debate I would expect an apology for the type of slur that you made and then repeated regarding this. I understand that there will not be one, at least not a real one in all likelihood - but it does offend me that you continually assert that you know my mind and I don't -- on the other hand, I recognize that as a not very healthy behavior, and therefore in a different way it makes me feel somewhat sorry for you - if I am honest.

Regardless:

1. Actually, the same behavior has been observed in wild rams (e Faye Flam, Tracking a Genetic Link to Sexuality, PHILA. INQUIRER, Dec. 29, 2005; Ahuja, supra note 45.) -- and Anne Perkins of Carroll College in Helena, Mont., together with James A. Fitzgerald of Oregon State University in Corvallis have announced that they are working on a blood test and a genetics assay that may allow farmers to determine which Rams will be homosexual in advance of their demonstration of sexual behaviors - thus allowing said farmers to avoid resource allocations that are counter productive (such as keeping future gay rams alive and on their farms). Whether they succeed or not remains to be seen -- however, it is clear that the sexually dimorphic nucleus is smaller in homosexual Rams than in Heterosexual Rams -- something that is also observed in Homosexual male humans as compared to Heterosexual male humans. In Rams that is believed to be a predictive characteristic, although determining its presence directly in the womb is presently impossible without killing the fetus, it is proven to exist in the womb as a differentiation - so it clearly does not develop afterwards - though some researchers believe it gets reinforced later.

2. You are unaware of the Fruit fly study? A major study actually - showed a single gene in the case of fruit flies (which have a simpler genetic structure than humans) that switches male fruit flies by generation from heterosexual to homosexual 100%. My colleague, a Ph.D./MD, had long asserted that homosexuality could not be genetic (a simple reading of Darwin supports that contention, although more evidence is emerging to counter that - Antagonistic genetics being one of the apparent players in the field.- Campieri- Ciani retrieved from http://www.bioedonline.org/ne... ). The study of fruit flies (which are often used for genetic testing because of their simple structure and short generations, btw) didn't touch the question of what effect on evolutionary theory a genetic explanation for homosexuality would have, it simply attempted to determine if there could be a genetic explanation -- the answer was resoundingly yes. (e Ebru Demir and Barry J. Dickson, Fruitless Splicing Specifies Male
Courtship Behavior in Drosophila, CELL Vol. 121, at 785-94 (June 2005); Petra Stockinger, et al., Neural Circuitry that Governs Drosiphila Male Courtship Behavior, CELL Vol. 121, at 795-07 (June 2005)) {Drosiphila is the scientific name for a fruit fly}

And actually, yes, a lot of people DO think of things like that. Making fun of something doesn't change the reality of what it shows. You like to make fun - because it makes you uncomfortable I think to think you might be wrong.

Genetics is an intensely complex field -- and we barely understand huge parts of it. ( epi-genetics and possible ramifications of Antagonistic genetics for example.) The fact of the matter is that some of the physical differences (for example the already mentioned sexually dimorphic nucleus, by being smaller in gay males,) more closely resembles the female nucleus than that of straight males

3. No, I write out these long and TO YOU boring posts because in real life, people having real discussions in real depth are expected to actually look at facts, not minimize them - and are not paranoid about one another's motives.

Now you go off on the same tangent you've gone off on before -- you know what I must be hiding, you know what I'm thinking, you know... Don't you consider it a bit odd that you know more about other people than they know about themselves? Don't you ever wonder if maybe you don't know more about them than they do? If you are honest enough to wonder that, don't you wonder WHY you believe that you know more about them? I would think that far beyond this discussion that might matter to you. I know it would matter to me if I were you.

I have a suggestion. Show these various threads to someone who is a real friend to you -- s/he doesn't have to like me, s/he can hate me and all that I stand for -- ask him or her to honestly assess the discussion. Ask him or her to tell you if they think your assertions about ME (not about the discussion, that is a matter of opinion between us, about ME) are justified, or if, perhaps, I might know more about what I think, feel, and mean than you do?

If they say that I might -- perhaps you could think about that.

I'm not telling a lie sir, you may not like it - or even believe it - but I know I was always gay. I can't absolutely prove I was born gay, it might have been something that changed before I consciously remember -- but I have never had a straight thought and have been quite comfortable with my sexuality since I was old enough to be sexual (except for about 2 weeks when friends tried to convince me, meaning well, that I would go to hell if I was gay -- way back when I was 15 and already out almost 2 years - those two weeks were miserable, and then talks with both friends and theologians brought me around -- and during those two weeks - yes, I was still gay) -- and contrary to this latest play by you, I'm not lying. I wouldn't bother.

Regards,

Reyn
http://www.rebuff.org

ever heard of K.I.S.S. =Keep It Short Stupid???

there is absolutely nothing you have brought up I was not already aware of,, read through and either found a flaw in or found the twisted PR to make it sound like something it is not,,,,,,

The fact you would even bringup the Fruitfly example show how blinded you are by your own selfish motives, when you try to say Genetic Manipulation to produce a behavior somehow settles it, your born Gay, you have stepped right off any solid ground you have left,((most of your own argument style discredited you long ago)) The Munipulation of Genes of the Fruitfly example has got to be the most desperate of all arguments, if anything it proves yet another example that Homosexuality is nothing more then Man Munipulation

lets have a little look at your little Ram propaganda piece shall we? And this whole article is frought with manipulative and leading statements, designed to generate a false rumor that would if true support your born Gay, it appearantly fooled your friend, but just like all your posts, this article actually says nothing at all, its just a propaganda piece, useing all the tricks I used when I was designing 5 minute Impact marketing stradigies

1)First thing I see is this sentence that tries to >'Mislead the Reader'<
~Actually, the same behavior has been observed in wild rams~
Now is that sentence actually in the article? Or did you just throw that in? Becuase nothing else in that article supports that single sentence,if its all alone, its there to >"Misdirect the Reader'<. And I have already pointed out, in order of manipulating the thinking, these Pro-Gay Marketers have successfully gotten any and all same sex observation labeled as >'Homosexual'<, discarding and and all other possible identifying words, such as whats really being observed->'Bi-Sexual'<

2) This sentence is also an attempt to '>Lead the Reader'< to a '>Pre-Determined Conclusion'<
~working on a blood test and a genetics assay that may allow farmers to determine which Rams will be homosexual in advance~
>these types of sentences are always tossed in to >'Lead the Reader'< to conclude there actually is a test, but yet somehow no one seems able to ever come up with one, and they NEVER Will ~laughs~ becuase you are not Born Gay,

3) And here is the small print and legal disclaimer that gets them off the hook for certian lawsuits about the '>Mythical Test'< that doesn't exist ~chuckles~
~Whether they succeed or not remains to be seen -- ~

4)Now comes the >'Old bait and Switcharoo'<
~ it is clear that the sexually dimorphic nucleus is smaller in homosexual Rams than in Heterosexual Rams -- something that is also observed in Homosexual male humans as compared to Heterosexual male humans.~
They are now citing a study that has holes it in itself and leaving out the small print,>'Legal-Disclaimer'< that study has within it
~ Hamer cautions that the gay men's different brain activity could be either a cause of their sexual orientation or an effect of it.~
Which in legaleze means this study means NOTHING!~laughs!~

5)~LMAO!~ and just look at this catch22!
~ In Rams that is believed to be a predictive characteristic, although determining its presence directly in the womb is presently impossible without killing the fetus,~
OoooOOOOoooooh NooooOOOOOOooo It is Impossible to prove its in the womb, becuase that terminates the fetus! and the only way we can know for sure its actually provible is if that same Fetus were allowed to live and then prove its InBorn by going on to become a Gay Ram!
~laughs!~

6) Now to really put a subconciouse scare into the Pro-Gay sheeple they have added 2 >'Leading Sentences'<
to keep them from ever really wanting to find a test, and to just blindly accept evidence((Non existant))

~- thus allowing said farmers to avoid resource allocations that are counter productive (such as keeping future gay rams alive and on their farms).~

WoOOOooooooo scarey, sounds a bit Eugenic like to me, what if that were done to Homosexual People
too???? Best we just blindly accept the evidence now before this goes too far!~

and this sentence
~although determining its presence directly in the womb is presently impossible without killing the fetus,~
Now you have to 'Kill The Fetus' and thats going way way too far!

Are you sure your really in the science field?? and just what do you do there?? Department of PR and Propaganda perhaps? ~laughs!~

Becuse everysingle socalled Pro-Gay Study I have ever seen has been nothing more then Propaganda load of crap on a study that proves yet again, You are Not Born Gay spun to suggest it still might be

And as a final note to this, this is just a onceover on this article, as I went over it a second time I saw loads more misdirection and misleading sentences, this article is 100% crap!

Kiss? Keep it Simple Stupid? Yes. It works well in American politics? It does not work well in European politics or any form of science, not if you are serious about the topic.

Being aware of something or thinking that you have found a flaw in it does not invalidate it - and if you believe that it does I would beg you to talk to a few practicing scientists. The PREPONDERANCE of evidence. Not, oh look I can come up with a way this might not be true maybe.

My own selfish motives? How does using any study considered to be a watershed in the relevant scientific field make me selfish? That's what discussion is. If you wish to bring up a study that shows that homosexuality in fruit flies is NOT genetic, then do so. I am stunned that you cannot or will not follow basic logic. Can homosexuality be caused genetically in lower animals? Answer: Yes. Might therefore homosexuality in humans be genetic? Answer: yes. Does that prove that homosexuality in humans is genetic? Answer: no. Hello. It's pretty clear and direct. If homosexuality could not be genetic, guess what, they would not be able to cause it genetically. However, the fact that it can be caused genetically, in the larger debate, only proves that it COULD be genetic, it does not prove that it is.

This goes back to the -- stone cold facts are in front of you -- you either ignore them, try to twist them (as you did the Rams), or you come up with strange unrelated arguments -- like the idea that I'm selfish for using a clear logical argument. I don't know your motives, but I certainly have learned your methods as demonstrated.

Be well,

Reyn
http://www.rebuff.org

Be

I'm afraid that I'm not the one "desperate" for anything -- if I were "desperate" for anything - you already know that it would be that I was desperate that you were right, as I said before. My wanting you to be right however won't make you right.

What is the ~laughs~ thing, if one might ask??? -- its disconcertingly like the social media conventions used by people who are doing considerably different things from serious discussion -- just to put that out there.

And now we are back to you asserting that you know more about what I think and what I'm doing than I do. You say in one of your return posts from the last volley that you aren't saying that I think I'm lying, but now you are right back to accusing me of lying. What DO you mean to say, which of those contradictory statements?

I'm afraid I am being honest lad. It goes back to that discussion before. Hundreds of thousands of people whose livelihood and lives' work comes from medicine, psychology, psychiatry, sociology, anthropology and other related sciences, nearly all with doctorates, say that the preponderance of evidence is moving in the direction that I say it is -- clear statements from the ACA, APA, AMA, etc. back that assertion on my part - and have been shared previously. you respond by calling it all "boolsheet" and coming up with strange almost unrelated and clearly bogus claims (like that the AMA doesn't matter because it protects its members) -- which begs again the question of exactly what authority you are calling on? The few hundred (and that is certainly generous) professionals, mostly highly religious, that disagree with the consensus? Your own ability to look for flaws, real or imagined? The way the experts write their studies, like all other experts in all fields except maybe theology write theirs? Mostly the last two apparently, because the only people you have cited as experts in any depth aren't, they are theologians.

But, it is again this constant "you're lying" "If you were honest" -- you aren't attempting to debate, you are asserting that you have truth and others don't and you are constantly suggesting that you even understand the revealed truth about what others are doing and saying and they do not.

That is and has been the "boolsheet" in this discussion -- not that you have opinions different from mine -- this is America -- not that you are having a discussion -- not even that you don't really have a good grasp of what the various scientific terms mean or that you reject what scientific consensus is suggesting -- but that you insist, over and over and over and over that everyone else is lying to you and that we are ourselves deceived and have no idea what we feel or have experienced and only think we do -- but YOU, who have not lived our lives or experienced a single thing that we have, KNOW our innermost thoughts and understand our condition. If that isn't enough, you throw in insults "sheeple" -- "sheeple" for someone you do not know at all - and whose politics you CERTAINLY don't know -- nor what he has been involved with, yeah right - that was reasoned out as something calculated to do something other than upset, I'm sure.

Regardless

1. I certainly do not agree that those studies are boolsheet -- nor the consensus and conclusions of nearly the entire professional world. I think they are credible - in fact, I think that they are 100% true. So we have clear disagreement there - and I think it is very clear that I stand with the various major first world professional associations (already partially listed, but also including the British Royal Society, the Canadian Psychological Association and so on and on) and that you do not - by your own declaration. Despite your insistence you cannot somehow magically create a secret belief in me that you are right -- no less than 3 statements in your latest seem to be aimed in that direction -- but they are all false. I honestly DON'T think any of the studies and consensus you denigrate are wrong, I think they are absolutely right.

2. I have NO idea what sentence you are talking about. List the sentence and I'll tell you -- however, if its a sentence I included in quotation marks from any piece of research - then no, I didn't add it. If it wasn't in quotations, then y es, it was mine.

3. No tantrum pitching here -- you haven't even ruffled me yet, made me feel sorry for you - and mildly offended me by constantly slandering me (as you have again in this post) but upset me enough to come close to a tantrum? Hardly.

4. Lad, I don't care about feeling whatever the f*cked up sh*t was that you said I was trying to feel, I'm not going back up to quote it exactly. I've told you the EXACT AND SOLE reason that I engage in these things. I understand that it isn't the same reasoning as you have and that you can't accept it or probably understand it, but its why I engage you - and the only reason.

5. It's your turn to be honest. You have shown a different opinion, you have utterly failed to "dismantle" anything. If you doubt me ask 50 people who are genuine experts (at least Masters degrees) in any fields related. Pick conservatives, I don't care. No group of experts is going to salve your ego by telling you that you have dismantled me, or proven anything at all.

And again, asserting won't change reality. You assert that you know what we are thinking -- you don't. You assert that I am lying -- I'm not. You assert that you have dismantled my arguments. You haven't. Further, despite how unreasonable you are - I just keep going, and I remain honest - and that has to get you something fierce I would rather imagine. That's not my intent, but your projection that I must be having tantrums proves how you yourself react better than anything how badly this has affected you.

See you in a week or so when I have some more free time.

Cheers,

Reyn
http://www.rebuff.org.

There would be no liability regardless. As I said, the careful parsed wording that you are calling "weasel words" and "weasel clauses" are standard scientific lingo for the reasons that I have listed.

Take a look at health studies, you'll find the same type of careful wording, even when the results of those studies are changes in treatments that often benefit thousands.

Anatomical proof? This is the first time you've claimed this with me -- you may well have claimed it with others. We are "designed" for heterosexual activity physically, sure. That's the nature of evolution. That does not in any way indicate that other forms of sexual intercourse aren't also natural and normal variations. Let me refer you back to the prior reference to antagonistic genetics. Further, no matter how evolution "designed" us -- the very existence of something establishes its existence. Despite your continuous wiggling, exclusive homosexuality exists in humans, and in quite a few animals. You love claiming that it doesn't, but you do that on air. I refer you again to the work of Dr. Bruce Bagemihl in his seminal work, Biological Exuberance from St. Martin's Press. You've already tried to ignore homosexual rams by claiming that it was the fault of human interference -- although the evidence is clear among wild rams as well -- I'm sure you can come up with some wiggle, or perhaps the phrase I should use is "weasel clause" to claim that Bagemihl's life work is also flawed, as are the work of all the biologists that have found homosexual animals. I will just stick to the findings.

As for your attempting to assert yet again that you know and I don't what happened in my own past, and that all the people who felt their homosexuality develop in the same way in parallel to your heterosexuality and therefore feel it is inborn as is your own preference; assertion will never cut it alone --- do it over and over -- it will still be an obvious overreach.

Regards,

Reyn
http://www.rebuff.org

What do you THINK HOMOSEXUALITY IS???? -- statements like "in the imagination" and "overwhelming Reality" mean literally nothing. "Punked" - I presumed that it meant brainwashed, you seemed to indicate that yourself, and certainly did not deny it -- but now I'm not certain that it meant anything at all. "In the imagination" is a meaningless statement -- afterall ALL sexuality is COMPLETELY in the mind. Further, there is a legitimate argument that nothing exists outside the mind, period. Everything you experience is filtered from outer senses to the mind - and is perceived in the mind.

Regardless of your arguments on born - which are formulated by denying the basic idea of scientific consensus -- denying that it is not a choice does run directly into something considered a fact by all relevant professional societies. It isn't just a consensus -- no serious psychologist denies the natural development of homosexuality, or the lack of choice for homosexuals (as opposed to bisexuals). On the other hand, I'm not certain that you are denying it. You have left the world of reasonable discourse to use bizarre word combinations that don't mean anything in the terms of this discussion. You have refused to answer dozens of direct questions through the course of our exchange, either completely or primarily, and have repeatedly simply asserted that you are right, knowledgeable etc. and claimed that I was the one being unreasonable. When pushed to give answers, you either ignore the repeated questions, or you give partial answers that lead to dead-ends.

You may or may not realize it, but I have been 100% honest throughout this discussion. I will continue to be. But to hold a real discussion, you must be equally honest - otherwise you are just trying to hold some type of controlled dialogue - possibly to feed ego, possibly for other reasons -- but you are not holding a discussion.

Let me recap very briefly three of the very basic questions. Please answer them fully -- not with trite phrases or assertions of unseen and unknowable knowledge, not with bizarre word combinations that may mean a lot to you but don't to anyone else and not with partial answers that lead to dead-ends -- with the truth. If you can't do that, and feel no choice but to repeat your assertions yet again, or refuse to answer - then ask yourself if you really want to have a discussion with anyone, or if you talk to hear your self talk and to see if you can't drive people to abandon talking to you so you can pretend you've won debates that others might see differently.

Questions:

1. What do you define homosexual as? If you have a different meaning for gay than you do for homosexual, what do you define gay as? A real definition, not some repetition of your various made-up attack phrases

2. What do you believe causes people to become homosexual? - for the depth of that question go to my response to your last post in the long complex discussion of selective abortion of gay babies. You had offered to explain, but then when I was clear that I wanted to know, but had no interest in the ex-gay idea, just wanted to know how you thought I was brainwashed, you tellingly did not respond. What do you believe brainwashed me? How? Why? Where? I've given my background, the questions should be easy to answer. Or is it, indeed, a recombination of the psycho-therapeutic babble of past days? Again, no gobble-de-gook. Plain speaking, clear language defining the process by which you think we are brainwashed. No made up phrases like "punked" - just the facts as you see them.

3. Are you or are you not a member or an active participant in ANY fundamentalist or evangelical group - either protestant or catholic - or of any different faith group? If you are, does your religion dictate similar views on homosexuality to your own? Again, no bandy words please -- just the truth. You have gone out of your way to claim that you were just interested in facts, and that your beliefs were not mandated by a religion - but you have never said whether or not you were in one that might agree with your apparent views.

Let's see if you are actually holding a discussion - or if this is an elaborate dialog that is not actually a discussion at all.

Regards,

Reyn
http://www.rebuff.org

No actually, I am not filibustering (do you really know what THAT word means either? I doubt it, it has a very specific meaning), and you are quietly and steadily losing any semblance of being able to claim to anyone, even on your own side that you had or wanted a discussion.

I congratulate you -- you actually had me fooled.

You answered yet again none of the questions I asked. That's because you can't. You also have not answered questions in the past for the same reason. If the question is outside of your scripted "reality" - you either don't answer or you try an answer that is premade and attempt to force the question to fit it. That is why some of what we have discussed has seemed so bizarre - I just didn't realize it. I thought I hadn't been clear enough, so I would try to be clearer. The reality is, I was clear enough. You couldn't depart from preset beliefs enough to even consider other possibilities. You have to pound every square peg into a round hole you drill while claiming that they are just too stupid to know they belong there to start with. You tell people to just show you facts -- but you don't mean it. You wouldn't change your view no matter what fact was presented. Would the brain scan of 10,000 people, performed directly in front of you -- showing incontrovertible difference between gay and straight brains from birth to death change your mind? You'll say that it will never happen, but the reality is that the answer is simpler, its no.

i don't like to speak for others, but the time is now for me to acknowledge, this is is some elaborate dialog that has nothing to do with discussion, or a difference of opinion or anything else that viewers (and I) thought was going on. I can't tell from here if it is megalomania or extreme religion, or strong scripting, or some other issue -- but it isn't discussion - and you don't intend it to be. You "know" you are right. You "know" that what you think is the "only way" it could be. That of course is irrational when it flies in the face of the reality that others experience and the research (like it or not) of nearly all scientists in the field.. Does this feed ego-need? what is the actual payoff you get from having people who know themselves tell you that you are wrong and thinking you are defeating them by asserting that you have special knowledge? It has to be some sort of mental payoff.

Is it religious? I still don't know because you didn't answer the question and you know I won't be fobbed off by a misleading answer again. I suspect it is - but that might be incidental or even non-existent. If it isn't religious its rooted in a mental subset of beliefs as powerful as religion.

And don't kid yourself, you have a motive. It most likely is the feeding of ego-need -- but even if its something else, it exists. I am actually the one without a motive. I've won the battle here as far as the audience is concerned, weeks ago. I remain out of interest, it only takes me a few minutes to hammer out a reply, and I thought that an interesting conversation might be possible. It isn't. I have no desire to be straight, I wasn't kidding nor was I being melodramatic that I'd blow my own head off before I'd become straight. I'm happy the way I am, and content. I think all people should be -- but I'm one of the lucky ones that already is. You can scream and say I'm not -- and assert some more special knowledge -- but that knowledge is a lie. I have no motive at all - and you know it in your heart..

So, you want a discussion, or not? There are three questions outstanding, you can answer them, or you can frantically declare bull again and claim whatever the f*ck you want to.

Anybody out there still think he has anything to offer in fact?

Regards,

Reyn
http://www.rebuff.org

And so, as I said at the close of the last post " or you can frantically declare bull again and claim whatever the f*ck you want to." -- and now, that is what you have done. You have no interest in conversation or discussion -- and now, in the end game you tacitly admit that by your actions and your posts.

Don't bother attempting to diagnose me lad, you don't know psychology any more than you know any of what you try to claim you know. It took me months to figure that out -- it took the last volleys and the inability to answer direct questions - but you are convincing no one that you are rational anymore - not in this conversation.

And you know, I'm not going to apologize for being educated, your problem with people being actually educated was evident once before -- and I tried to soothe it -- not again. I worked very hard and paid with time and treasure for many years for my education. It took a significant part of my life, and it was a sacrifice in many ways. I'm not ashamed of it. I'm not ashamed to understand the scientific method. I'm not ashamed to know how to do research that isn't targeted. I'm not ashamed to know what peer review actually is. I'm not ashamed to have an earned terminal degree. I'm not ashamed that hard work and persistence paid off for me. I actually think that's the way its supposed to work in America and I'm not going to be ashamed because it makes you look bad. If you want to interpret education as being whatever psychological disorder you wish it to be - then go for it. No one cares.

No one buys any of your air-based rhetoric. You can't answer three simple questions. You just can't. Anymore than you ever have answered anything that makes you uncomfortable in our exchange. You can't even define what you actually mean when you use the word homosexual to describe someone -- you can't even figure out whether or not you are religious -- and yet you think that you are out-thinking anyone?

Today I printed out large scale posters, and we went, all of us, to the local edition of the Million Hoodie March for Justice for Trayvon Martin. The march was 2 hours long. Put together in the last 24 hours, it was certainly more than a thousand and less than two thousands. Some of the older folk had to call it quits along the way. The march was lovely. All races were represented, and all sexualities. There were many teenagers and many children and many grandparents. It was a beautiful response to a terrible murder in which the known killer isn't even being charged. I carried our three year old on my shoulders most of the march, but we switched off from time to time, so sometimes she rode Papa and sometimes she rode Daddie. She wore her little grey hoodie, and she carried "Monkey" - her favorite stuffed animal -- in his tinier hoodie.

We can't bring that poor harmless little teenage boy, murdered in the rain, alone, terrified, screaming for help, back -- but trying to bring his killer to justice, that means something. It matters, beyond the self.

What you are doing, hammering out pat answers and waiting for people to give up? That doesn't.

But, I won't disappear. I'll be busy with work for the coming days -- but in a week give or take, I'll be back for your comments.

Regards,

Reyn




http://www.facebook.com/Justi...


Justice for Trayvon Martin! Remember him!

http://images.sodahead.com/pr...