Homosexuals are born gay

DHK, I didn't write it; don't kill the messenger. You asked for substantiation. And the whole city of SF just went into Cardiac Arrest that you would assert they are pro-homo.

 

DUH!!
Homosexuality runs in the family for the same reason that violence runs in families. It is a learned behavior. It is not genetically passed on. It is learned. Drinking is not genetic. It is a learned behaviour. Drunks produce drunks. It has nothing to do with genetics. Monkey see; monkey do. Parents beware of what you teach your children by your example.
DHK

 

what about SFC statement of hermaphrodites being born that way and should be celebant, shouldn't that apply also to homosexuals?

 

hermaphrodism is not a learned trait. it is a genetic abnormality.

 

I don't care who wrote it. A monkey could have typed the thing out. I simply showed you why it was flawed. If you can't accept it then I feel sorry for you.
DHK

 

Yes, so children learn to be homosexual . . . from their heterosexual parents. . . Don't you think these are kind of odd patterns for a learned behavior to follow? Why should having many older brothers cause a baby boy in the womb to "learn" to be homosexual? Very odd. . .

Sfic, so is homosexuality.

 

Petrel, Blanchard's report does nothing to prove causality. Nothing in this report discounts nurture versus nature.

Blanchard's study also had a disproportionate number of single-parent homes (still looking for that...will find it tonight or tomorrow). The number was not statistically representative of society. In addition, Fully half of the sampled studies drew their population from pedophiles, sex offenders, and/or gender-dysphoric/transsexual men. One other study was of psychiatric patients.

 

DUH!!
Homosexuality runs in the family for the same reason that violence runs in families. It is a learned behavior. It is not genetically passed on. It is learned. Drinking is not genetic. It is a learned behaviour. Drunks produce drunks. It has nothing to do with genetics. Monkey see; monkey do. Parents beware of what you teach your children by your example.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Please substantiate. Both my mother and father were teadrinkers but I became an alcoholic; 13 years sober by the grace of God.

Charles Manson's parents were religious fundamnetalists. Where did he learn to kill? Oh, from the government...

 

Without even reading the thing the conclusion is quite obviouos isn't it?
In a family with no children what are the chances that the "no children" will be homosexuals?
In a families with only one child what percentage of those childrent will be homosexual?
In families with just two children what percentage of those children will be homosexual?

In families that have 100 children do you think the chances might be a little greater that some of them me homosexual than the families that don't have any children or only one children??
That is kind of a no brainer isn't it? The study is obviously flawed from the beginning. It is a simple study of statistics that any one can see through.
DHK

 

rbell, Are we talking about Kinsey now?

 

Another interesting article:

"Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity." Camperio-Ciani, A.; Corna, F.; Capiluppi, C. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 2004, 271, 2217-2221.

rbell, I'll look into that.

 

You lost me DHK.

 

Perhaps you should read the thing. If a mother has four boys, the odds that the youngest one will be homosexual is much higher than if she has three girls and then one boy. The youngest brother with only sisters has as much chance of being homosexual as any random boy in the population. The youngest brother with three older brothers is twice as likely to be homosexual. That's a definite positive correlation--kind of a no-brainer, right?

 

Darwin has been proven inferior science long ago, though evolution has not been scientifically disproven, just differently approached now.

 

Beautiful Mind, Petrel

 

Several years ago the Christian Life and Faith magazine presented some unusual facts about two families. In 1677 an immoral man married a very licentious woman. Nineteen hundred descendants came from the generations begun by that union. Of these, 771 were criminals, 250 were arrested for various offenses, 60 were thieves, and 39 were convicted for murder. Forty of the women were known to have venereal disease. These people spent a combined total of 1300 years behind bars and cost the State of New York nearly 3 million dollars.

The other family was the Edwards family. The third generation included Jonathan Edwards who was the great New England revival preacher and who became president of Princeton University. Of the 1,344 descendants, many were college presidents and professors. One hundred eighty-six became ministers of the gospel, and many others were active in their churches. Eighty-six were state senators, three were Congressmen, 30 judges, and one became Vice President of the United States. No reference was made of anyone spending time in jail or in the poorhouse.
Not all children of good parents become useful citizens, nor do all the offspring of wicked people turn out bad. Yet the possibility of a child getting the right start in life is enhanced if he comes from a home where love prevails, the Bible is taught, and prayer is offered.
Father, Mother, when you live for the Lord, you provide a strong incentive for your children to choose the Christian way of life. Parental example is extremely powerful -- either for good or for evil.

 

Sorry, gotta go. I have to rescue a Logic Student from a raging fallacy.

 

DHK, Indiana has the highest rate of serial murderers, but among the highest rate of religious fundamentalists and Southern Baptists. I refute the evidence from Faith Magazine as slightly biased, maybe no more than the whole city of San Francisco though.

Laterz

 

Yes, yes. We can go ahead and assume that if you like. That doesn't change the findings of these studies.