D521646

Numark = Nice try, but you openly mocked a man for his traditional beliefs on sex. What you were doing was mocking his religious approach to sex. You know it and I know it, and that’s why your participation in this thread has only been marginalized by you with your own words. You claim to be oh so super-duper tolerant but you’re not really.. Tim- Ryan – I hope so, I have work to do. J Tim-

Juronimo – Well let’s see, ok you’re of the belief that homosexuality is a normal, biological outcome, yet you dismiss that a natural aversion to homosexuality could be equally natural, or biological. That’s an interesting perspective, however inconsistent as it appears, I’ll leave you to your senses. I do have an agenda, I think that’s blatantly obvious. My agenda is to educate people who have a natural aversion to homosexuality, among other things, but argue from a religious standpoint (God doesn’t like it) and to teach them that any religious argument will not be convincing enough. I also do not want homosexuality to become mainstream in our society not because I care if adults practice it, but because I don’t want it lofted upon unsuspecting children who do not possess the critical thinking ability to avoid it. Now I know you and I will never see eye to eye on that, and I KNOW you find that distasteful as you see one, that homosexuality isn’t something you can “catch” or be influenced by, and secondly that you find it perfectly natural. (Natural in the common understanding) By the way, I never said the words homosexuality was wrong. That’s putting words in my mouth. What I am saying is that homosexuality is a phenomenon that appears to have no evolutionary positive advantages. Notwithstanding modern medicine, evolution doesn’t know about modern medicine, so gay uncles and the like are all nice theories, but don’t stand up to logic as humans have never been so overpopulated as to require any need for non-reproducing humans. This bring up another genetic anomaly of sorts, in that, homosexuals seem to still retain the intrinsic desire to procreate, almost as if evolution didn’t finish the job, which sort of blows holes in the whole gay uncle thingy, but I digress. You state that I turn to science to confirm my bias, yet, aren’t you and the gay movement and those that support it doing the exact same thing? Unlike you however, I concede that there is some science out there that does point to biological causation, and although promising research, hardly convincing at this stage. I’d actually say that unlike me, it is you that is blind and unwilling to accept alternate arguments to the contrary. You’re tolerant for tolerance sake, and if there’s any pre-conformation bias it is you that is exposing yourself, not I. Be damn the possible ramifications of a wholly accepting society. Social ramifications take time, and are not well understood, and we should all look to ANY possible outcome that may be negative in the long run, and science should give us those answers. Not feel-good science which turns a blind eye to negative consequences. That’s rational, and it applies to any social subject, NOT just the flavor of the month. I’ll put my self taught education on genetics up against yours any day of the week, so don’t be so quick to appeal to authority, Juronimo. I also taught myself about computer science and have made a nice career for myself, and have been a big part in designing and implementing a whole new way to approach information analysis for a large fortune 50 company. Not bad for a guy that knew nothing about computers until he was 26. I took no formal training, no schooling, just me and my ambition got me where I am today. I do spend time on a varied array of topical discussion boards not limited to philosophy, space, physics, politics, economics just to name a few. I educate myself every day, and never lower my thirst for knowledge. You can’t paint me into a corner because my room is round, and although you may try, I am not so easily frazzled. Those on the gay support train accuse those on the opposing side of being faith driven and irrational for their beliefs, yet, I contend that when you really dig down, those in support of gay rights are equally faith based and irrational. Irrational in the sense that you hold a position on the cause of homosexuality and the possible ramifications of institutionalizing it, yet, there is no solid science to support your position. You’ve allowed yourself to succumb to a faith-based philosophy because it feels right to you. I can appreciate that because I’m in no better position for my beliefs on the subject, but that doesn’t give you the torch my good man, we’re both still running for the light at the end of the tunnel. Tim-

Numark – How very tolerant of you, making fun of his predilection for decency as he sees it. You guys always expose yourselves eventually. In any regard, I have a question for you, another poster that fails to actually answer them when asked, instead choosing something else to respond with, however, why do you suppose sex feels good? Any ideas? Just curious? Tim-

Juronimo – See..Juronimo at it again. He asked you if you thought it was irrational to think anal sex was disgusting, and you’re answer was not what he asked you. By the way, it might be dead last on why you have sex “now” but it’s not dead last when you’re actually having or thinking about having children. Now THAT would be irrational. Tim-

Juronimo – Bro seriously, are you reading right out of the gay activist manual or something? Let’s take it one at a time, although I must add that you have ignored every single question aimed at you, but whatever, you’re a superficial debater, and nowhere near as informed, although, I’m sure you’re quite proud of just how super-duper tolerant you appear to others. First off, a homophobe is a person who are they themselves uncomfortable with their own homosexual tendencies. The words definition was re-written some 40 years ago to reflect opposing viewpoints on homosexuality as contemptuous. Look it up sparky, the word never meant what it means today as a rhetorical battering ram to attempt to shame those that are all “icky” with homosexuality. Secondly, ole Sam apparently told his teammates in August that he was gay, and this came out in February. Now, I don’t know about you, but I find that extremely hard to believe that over 90 people, at least, knew this guy was gay, and in a world where social media runs wild, not a single person blew his cover. Now, it appears as though it was going to come out anyway, so ole Sam decided to break the news himself. This is how I envision it all went down. Ole Sam never told his teammates to the extent we are lead to believe by the media. He may have told a few close friends and teammates, but I doubt very seriously (the cynic in me) that 90 guys some of them homophobes (as you put it) all kept his secret.. I call BS on that all day long. I read that the media suspected he was gay and started calling around, talking to family, friends, and THIS is how ole Sam learned it was going to come out eventually, and beat the news cycle by breaking the news himself. No one in his family knew and ole Dad got the call while he was eating at Denny’s.. Now if you believe that ole Sam told 90+ guys that he was gay and all of them kept his secret then all the power to ya sunshine. Thirdly, I have not done any 180 on the issue. I have evolved over time, yes, but my core belief that homosexuality is, one, preventable, and two, a mostly conditioned phenomenon stays the same. My tolerance level for some things gay has changed, granted, but I am still a firm believer that homosexuality should not be embraced or institutionalized in our schools, where I believe children are at their most vulnerable. By the way, I stopped posting on FreeRepublic a couple of years ago, although I was never really a big poster there anyway because of how vitriolic the anti-gay sentiment was. I have no use for hatred from ignorance, however, I do appreciate a good debate on fascinating topics such as the one involving sexuality. I could teach a first year college course on genetics with all that I’ve learned over the years, and I find when people on both sides appreciate the others viewpoints the debate topic can be quite rewarding. Now, ya got anything else, or are we done? All you’ve managed to accomplish is waste my time on this thread. I know you think you’re being super intellectual with your trap questions, and snide comments hoping to induce me into some gay bashing tirade but you’re wasting my and everyone else’s time for doing so. Save the bandwidth, or contribute in a positive and mutually understanding tone, and you’ll see that it will be reciprocal. Tim-

Juronimo – Dear Lord.. Tim-

Hmm well I missed that part of it.. Anyway, why am I not able to use the quote function? Tim-

Looks like ole Sam wasn't so courageous as originally thought: http://t.foxsports.msn.com/nfl/agent-leak-caused-sam-to-come-out-before-draft I'm sure we "going" to come out after h draft.. It's the cynic in me I suppose but I doubt it. Tim-

Android you say? I'll take two.. Tim- By h way why I the quote feature not workirig on this site?

Numark, I'm about done with you, you're not making any sense? What do you think a hypothesis is? More importantly, why do you see irony there? I question all methodology no matter what source or on any subject. Tim-

Dorkington – Agreed, and that’s all I’ve been really trying to convey, among other things, that drive by onlookers are so quick to judge on both sides of the debate. I would warn a little though about using Kinsey as a reliable source for discussions revolving around sexuality. He’s generally considered sort of a quack, and his scales have been shown to be inaccurate by contemporary measures, not to mention some of his ideas on sexuality as it were. That said, he did have some intriguing posits on sex and sexuality and still worth reading about for anyone looking at the history of the issue. The point I initially raised about humans having a primarily heterosexual potential at birth though coincides, or is at least not refuted by anything anyone else has presented thus far, nor any scientist research that I’ve ever read on the subject. Granted it is a hypothesis of mine, I like to think of it as a well-reasoned one, but none the less one that is at the moment not testable. Point being that I do not believe hat there is a homosexual, or bi-sexual, or any sexual or sexuality gene. We are who we are based on our experiences and our experiences train us to fall into one, two or three or any number of sexual attractive markers, and these markers are all primarily set prior to the maturation of our brains wiring, namely the prefrontal cortex. Regards, Tim-

Count me in the no thanks corner. We need a mean road grading Oline, first and foremost. Tm-

Knowing our luck, just watch the Brownies kick everyone's arse this season. LOL Tim-

Benjamin, your post on Bailey and Pillard's twin studies was an honest one, thank you. Years back and to this day it is still being used on both sides to bash each other over the head with. As to the others who claim to have "found me out" on other forums, I say, post away, provided that you post in full context. I've never posted anything I'm ashamed of, and I am and have been consistent. My opinions have evolved over the years like many. For instance, years ago I was so anti-homosexual that any notion that we give gays special rights was absurd. Now, I am of the opinion that gays should be allowed to adopt, rear, and raise their own children, form civil unions. However, I am still against gay marriage, but not because gays shouldn’t be allowed to love each other and commit to one another, but because I don’t see the issue of gay marriage as a legal equality matter. Heterosexuals, albeit not all, but fair to say most of us contribute way more to the posterity of society than do homosexuals, and to me marriage is and always will be about children. For case history and a better understanding of my position on this subject please read the summary brief by the proponents of Prop 8, http://sblog.s3.amaz...ion-7-31-12.pdf I see marriage as a social issue, and I am a firm believer that social issues shouldn’t be decided on by judges, where in a panel of 9 judges’ one side wins 5 – 4. You can take that, and extend it for any issue before the court. I’ve always thought, well how silly is that? The people decide something, turn it into law, and it gets overturned by one person effectively. I know it’s our system and it has worked, relatively speaking for 100’s of years, but matters that the people decide one way, and a single judge decides another way, piss me off. It effectively becomes legislation by the bench. Turning back to the topic of causality. I am under no illusion that the topic of sexuality is an easy one. It is really complex, and involves a myriad of variables, and one model cannot ever fit all people. One thing you neglected to mention about the various twin studies is that studies where identical twins were adopted and raised separately saw percentages of both being gay as adults dwindle even more, although marginally. Anyone interested in understanding the problems associated with social behavioral psychology specifically looking at clones, or twins can read http://www.washingto...wins/twins1.htm] this write up by the Washington Post. It’s actually a really fair assessment, and underlying difficulties with research and parameters. What further complicates the nature/nurture debate is what researchers and anthropologists are digging up in other species. Again though, what makes for a great headline in your local newspaper should be taken with a grain of salt. The irony, of course, is that those in the psych fields who are quick to suggest that there is no correlation from sex to sexuality and gender are also the ones trumpeting the astonishing frequency of homosexual pairings among the animal kingdom, yet I digress once again with a face palm. Anyway, I’m actually at work, and will post this in Politics as it does contain some politically sensitive information and belong more there than in this thread in TSW. Regards, Tim-

Huh? As someone with a background in statistics and research you have a problem with me stating that controlling for variables, and assigning weight to them has nothing to do with it? come one now? Tim-

Juronimo – Uh huh, yep, I remember now, and I addressed all of your points equally. Futility is in the eye of the beholder. But I am curious why you felt as though your opinions had more weight? And specifically, why you thought I wasn’t listening? If you are reasonable and honest in your debate I will also be so in kind. I think your memory of that exchange is devoid of the usual techniques employed by your side of the debate. You first start at attempting to shame your opponent with terms like intolerant, homophobic, bigot, hater, and then as has predictably happened already the insinuation that someone so opposed to homosexuality (which I am not but you’re all too blind to actually read what I’m suggesting and have become so programed to attack attack attack any alternative view) must themselves be gay. I have no use for this, and will respond with the same vitriol. That all said, if you have anything other than psychological studies I’d be curious to read them. If you’re referring to hormonal causation, or inuterin, or brain studies of females and gay males, save yourself some time, although I find some of the research promising it’s still rather inconclusive. Now with regards to twin studies (A psychological study by the way) your interpretation of those studies and what they actually say is amusing. It demonstrates that you actually do not understand the subject very well, or if you do, your delivery was way off. I’d would be curious to hear you speak intelligently about genetics though, not to mention evolution and how it all seems (in your mind) to point to a genetic cause for homosexuality, or some evolutionary mechanism where homosexuality would be advantageous. I’m all ears. The problem for psychology is not in the discipline if practiced honestly, it is in the ethics of setting a proper study. One where we can control for all possible variables, and assign weight to the correlations. It really can’t be done, so instead we have researchers claiming they can do it without all the need for this really important stuff, looking for grants, skin in the game, pick your poison, dude. I’ve never read a study by EITHER side that controls well enough to draw even proper correlations on where to go next, let alone a conclusive statement about the causal nature of homosexuality. Our friend benjamin would I hope admit this truism. There, can we now go back to talking about sports. Tim-

Dr. – Not for me it doesn't. Religion has nothing to do with it. The difference between me and some of you is that I'm willing to admit that I could be wrong about the causal nature. To me, the science suggest that I'm right, for others who ignore the science involved in brain dynamics apparently it matters little, and to some extent maybe they're right. In the end it probably won't matter but if I can be prevented I think from a science point of view, we should explore that option to test whether it's a viable one. If people want to be gay, and if society accept gay marriage and all that coms along with a tolerance of homosexuality then so be it. Who am I to question their collective judgment, it doesn't affect my life or my marriage and I frankly don' care. But to simply say something is something without any real hard evidence that is, is ignorance defined.[/size] Tim-

Juronimo – Oh you mean the only other time I ever delved into this discussion here and was attacked left, right and center by mostly ill-informed individuals calling me all sorts of rhetorical names that they themselves didn’t truly understand. If you have anything tangible to offer then please do so. You can cite your psychological studies and peer review to your blue in the face, but when you cite one that actually contains good methodology I’ll listen, until then you’re citing opinions of people’s opinion based on statistical data that was (cynically) manufactured to look the way it did. Now, perhaps benjamin will come in here and suggest for a moment that research in the psychology social science arena is real science, and he even attempted to make that argument, but I think he knows that he can’t really make that claim because it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. People change and science changes along with it was his best retort; a response I ignored as he was hoping I would drop it and I did, and am willing to do so again. Like I said, the issue used to be an important one to me and people I hung with, but now it is merely a passing amusement when I see people (Several in this very thread) jump to the side of the tolerant one’s citing misinformation propagated by an all too eager media. Science doesn’t or shouldn’t care if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. Tim-

Juronimo – Wow, twice in one thread. You seem to have a knack for the strawman; either that or you can’t comprehend what you’re reading? Judging by your comprehension of what I said, you clearly have no clue how genes work. Once more, but this time real slow like.. Ready? See if homosexuals were solely responsible for passing along the homosexual gene, it would have been long gone from our genome many eons ago. That my good man is a scientific fact, and not in dispute by anyone. What I did say is that, like albinism, dwarfism, and sickle-cell, if there is a gene or series of genes responsible for the expression of homosexuality it would be passed on by heterosexuals. Which means that although two perfectly functioning heterosexuals where at least one of them had the gene, but did not themselves express it, still possessed the gene, and as such through mating the gene itself reared its ugly head in their offspring because neither parent had dominant alleles that would have repressed the evolutionarily negative consequence of producing a purely homosexual human being. That would be a recessive gene, see also: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_recessive_gene#slide=3&article=What_is_a_dominant_gene_and_what_is_a_recessive_gene Are you clear now? Tim-

Benjamin – Let’s look at this first part. I didn’t read them all today, and I apologize if this is what you thought I meant. What I meant was that I have reviewed them over the years, and personally I find the APA and associations just like them to be political organizations in both structure, and efficiency. One only need to look at their history and flying their collective kites in whichever way the wind blows to find peace with this sentiment. Secondly, you may tell your students that, and great advise, although rather obviously a rhetorical to say the least, BUT, I have not confused anything. Although a topic for another discussion perhaps, I do find that discussing sexual behavior without discussing sexuality are rather tedious and intellectually dishonest. I do cede that one who has behaved in a homosexual manner is not necessarily a homosexual, I find that simply observing this phenomenon without suggesting why, is the intellectual dishonest part. Moreover using this enigma as a basis to define the two concepts as independent of each other is wholeheartedly what proves that my take on the light science of psychology as lacking true discipline, is more accurate than not. Also to your second point. Gender and gender identity are relatively new fields, and poorly understood, if not entirely manufactured. I do not profess to be an expert here, and I have read a good deal of literature and I also cede that there is some truth that GID appears to be a real thing, but as I stated, I did not make any assertions on gender in this thread. To your third point, I say right back atcha. Insert psychologists in place of politicians and everyday folk, and we’re not so far apart as to the relevance of either point of view. I argue as I stated, that politically on issues that seem unsettled, or so incredibly complex that a basis for review from a social standpoint should come from the people, not those with skin in the game. A judge is someone that we appoint to give us their opinion. A psychologist is someone that we pay for their opinion, and a politician is someone we elect to gives us their opinion, but they’re all really just opinions. Some better than others, but with the science not well understood by a great many, we should err on the side of caution. That is my opinion on the subject. Now I was reading that tomorrow the CFL has it’s free agency period and some big names can go north or south of the border. J Tim-

Thanks, however, I read it all, and am familiar with the current social science trends. The problem, if you will allow, is in what we define as science, and what we define as social engineering labeled as science. I'm a big believer in neuroscience and neuropsychology as there's very little one can do to manipulate the data. In other words, one cannot "misinterpret" the datasets or correlations. The same cannot be said of the "light" science we can psychology. If your in the field please do not take offense, but let' face it, when psychologists enter the realm of social matters, the do NOT have a good track record. Tim- To be honest I don't come here to talk about gays. Just the Bills, frankly. But thanks. Tim-

I dunno, I thought it was a fair reasonable description of the main questions regarding the homosexual issue both politically and scientifically. What part did you take issue with? Tim-

Well I wish him and his family well. he seemed like B-Lo kind of guy, which, ironically is tantamount to a Browns kinda guy. I root for the Browns as well, and I hope Mike can turn things around there. Good luck.. Now we need to find someone to replace him, which I am of the agreement that some are saying here that what Mike did with our D was simply use the talent that we had. There is a lot of talent on our D and nothing against Mike but anyone with half a brain could have done at least as well, IMO. Tim-

On the route running I will admit it was difficult trying to get a good gauge as most of his catches were from Johnny football and that usually meant scramble. I know this is going o sound really weird, but Evans kind of seems more apt as a TE in the NFL.

I've been watching tape of both, and although Watkins is certainly faster than Evans, I think Evan's is more physical, and runs better routes. On quality of hands, I'd say both are a tie. My breakdown is as follows: Hands - Tie Speed - Watkins Route running - Evans Physicality - Evans Blocking - Evans Size Reach - Evans So my question is, why is everyone projecting Watkins t go first? If Evans is there t 9 I say it's a no brainer we take him? Thoughts? Tim-