Stop using the word "homosexual"

[HapSmo19]

Just say "not straight."

And when speaking of them politically, use the term "not right".

[InkL0sed]

The premise of this thread is that it is offensive to use the word "homosexual" rather than "gay" because what the word "homosexual" implies about the nature of homosexuality is clearly proven not true (so clearly that only ignorant people who think the world is flat believe it). Therefore it is bigotry and hate. If, however, it is not clearly proven, the whole premise falls apart. I ask again, where is the compelling scientific proof?

Though I'm reluctant to even acknowledge you - I question whether you even deserve to know the truth - here it is. It's from this site called Wikipedia. I know it's fairly obscure, but if you'd, you know, googled it (instead of deciding to go the "I'm going to reveal myself to be a gullible and blind idiot on an Internet forum"-route), you may have found it.

(By the way, before you go there, just because there is no one cause doesn't suddenly mean that gay men must have decided to have been exposed to less testosterone in utero, or have had more older brothers, or have had a genetic predisposition in the first place, or ... the list goes on.)

PS. For the rest of you, note the usage of "gay" versus the usage of "homosexual" in this article. "Homosexual" is always contrasted with "heterosexual", while "gay" and "lesbian" are contrasted with "straight".

Nobody's making shit up.

[PLAYER57832]

PS. For the rest of you, note the usage of "gay" versus the usage of "homosexual" in this article. "Homosexual" is always contrasted with "heterosexual", while "gay" and "lesbian" are contrasted with "straight".

Nobody's making shit up.

The thing about Wikki is that it is edited by almost anyone. Therefore, it is very rife with errors or things that are just plain opinion.

This is a key example. In some circles, "gay" refers mostly to men, while "lesbian" refers mostly to women. In other places, "gay" refers to both. In either case, the correct opposite of heterosexual IS homosexual. Folks may use other terms, but that doesn't mean using homosexual is incorrect.

And, while this article attempts to claim that heterosexual is offensive, the truth is that many others consider "gay" , more rarely "lesbian" to be offensive.

There is no set standard here. Just some people's opinions. Attempting to claim that people who use any of these terms is automatically bigoted is not just wrong, it is being very bigoted itself.

[InkL0sed]

PS. For the rest of you, note the usage of "gay" versus the usage of "homosexual" in this article. "Homosexual" is always contrasted with "heterosexual", while "gay" and "lesbian" are contrasted with "straight".

Nobody's making shit up.

The thing about Wikki is that it is edited by almost anyone. Therefore, it is very rife with errors or things that are just plain opinion.

This is a key example. In some circles, "gay" refers mostly to men, while "lesbian" refers mostly to women. In other places, "gay" refers to both. In either case, the correct opposite of heterosexual IS homosexual. Folks may use other terms, but that doesn't mean using homosexual is incorrect.

And, while this article attempts to claim that heterosexual is offensive, the truth is that many others consider "gay" , more rarely "lesbian" to be offensive.

There is no set standard here. Just some people's opinions. Attempting to claim that people who use any of these terms is automatically bigoted is not just wrong, it is being very bigoted itself.

You didn't actually read the Wiki article, did you? (It was completely irrelevant to anything you just said.)

Player, I'm sorry, but you refuse to understand anything I say. You just repeat points you made pages ago. Yes, I understood what you said. You're wrong. Now shut up already.

[thegreekdog]

Though I'm reluctant to even acknowledge you - I question whether you even deserve to know the truth

Woah... why the hostility?

[InkL0sed]

Though I'm reluctant to even acknowledge you - I question whether you even deserve to know the truth

Woah... why the hostility?

Because he's not an honest truth-seeker - and why waste the truth on those who don't want it?

[PLAYER57832]

PS. For the rest of you, note the usage of "gay" versus the usage of "homosexual" in this article. "Homosexual" is always contrasted with "heterosexual", while "gay" and "lesbian" are contrasted with "straight".

Nobody's making shit up.

The thing about Wikki is that it is edited by almost anyone. Therefore, it is very rife with errors or things that are just plain opinion.

This is a key example. In some circles, "gay" refers mostly to men, while "lesbian" refers mostly to women. In other places, "gay" refers to both. In either case, the correct opposite of heterosexual IS homosexual. Folks may use other terms, but that doesn't mean using homosexual is incorrect.

And, while this article attempts to claim that heterosexual is offensive, the truth is that many others consider "gay" , more rarely "lesbian" to be offensive.

There is no set standard here. Just some people's opinions. Attempting to claim that people who use any of these terms is automatically bigoted is not just wrong, it is being very bigoted itself.

You didn't actually read the Wiki article, did you? (It was completely irrelevant to anything you just said.)

It was relevant to what I quoted. You implied that was wikki.

Player, I'm sorry, but you refuse to understand anything I say. You just repeat points you made pages ago. Yes, I understood what you said. You're wrong. Now shut up already.

Except, you don't get to just decide that your feelings are correct and no one else's are. Even if there is one guy writing an article saying a point of view, that doesn't make it valid. I firmly disagree. I have enough experience to have a right to disagree. What I said IS true, even if it is not what you see in your area or what your brother feels or sees in his area. He is not the only homosexual in the world. No one person gets to speak for that or any other community, so for you to come off so strong handed and arrogant when people are simply disagreeing is not appropriate.

Second, if you insist on making such a big issue of something that absolutely IS debateable, then you take credibility from things that are not, such as whether homosexuality is biological.

[InkL0sed]

PS. For the rest of you, note the usage of "gay" versus the usage of "homosexual" in this article. "Homosexual" is always contrasted with "heterosexual", while "gay" and "lesbian" are contrasted with "straight".

Nobody's making shit up.

The thing about Wikki is that it is edited by almost anyone. Therefore, it is very rife with errors or things that are just plain opinion.

This is a key example. In some circles, "gay" refers mostly to men, while "lesbian" refers mostly to women. In other places, "gay" refers to both. In either case, the correct opposite of heterosexual IS homosexual. Folks may use other terms, but that doesn't mean using homosexual is incorrect.

And, while this article attempts to claim that heterosexual is offensive, the truth is that many others consider "gay" , more rarely "lesbian" to be offensive.

There is no set standard here. Just some people's opinions. Attempting to claim that people who use any of these terms is automatically bigoted is not just wrong, it is being very bigoted itself.

You didn't actually read the Wiki article, did you? (It was completely irrelevant to anything you just said.)

It was relevant to what I quoted. You implied that was wikki.

The article is called "biological causes of sexual orientation". Nowhere does it argue anything about the word "homosexual" (which you'd know if you'd read it). I was merely pointing out that it was an example of correct usage of the terms.

Player, I'm sorry, but you refuse to understand anything I say. You just repeat points you made pages ago. Yes, I understood what you said. You're wrong. Now shut up already.

Except, you don't get to just decide that your feelings are correct and no one else's are. Even if there is one guy writing an article saying a point of view, that doesn't make it valid. I firmly disagree. I have enough experience to have a right to disagree. What I said IS true, even if it is not what you see in your area or what your brother feels or sees in his area. He is not the only homosexual in the world. No one person gets to speak for that or any other community, so for you to come off so strong handed and arrogant when people are simply disagreeing is not appropriate.

Second, if you insist on making such a big issue of something that absolutely IS debateable, then you take credibility from things that are not, such as whether homosexuality is biological.

What you said specifically about some people being offended by the terms "gay" and "lesbian" - that part is true. However, you are still wrong in general. I'm not going to bother explaining any more, because you don't process anything anyone says. You're just going to repeat yourself, and I just want it to stop already.

[BigBallinStalin]

PS. For the rest of you, note the usage of "gay" versus the usage of "homosexual" in this article. "Homosexual" is always contrasted with "heterosexual", while "gay" and "lesbian" are contrasted with "straight".

Nobody's making shit up.

The thing about Wikki is that it is edited by almost anyone. Therefore, it is very rife with errors or things that are just plain opinion.

This is a key example. In some circles, "gay" refers mostly to men, while "lesbian" refers mostly to women. In other places, "gay" refers to both. In either case, the correct opposite of heterosexual IS homosexual. Folks may use other terms, but that doesn't mean using homosexual is incorrect.

And, while this article attempts to claim that heterosexual is offensive, the truth is that many others consider "gay" , more rarely "lesbian" to be offensive.

There is no set standard here. Just some people's opinions. Attempting to claim that people who use any of these terms is automatically bigoted is not just wrong, it is being very bigoted itself.

You didn't actually read the Wiki article, did you? (It was completely irrelevant to anything you just said.)

It was relevant to what I quoted. You implied that was wikki.

The article is called "biological causes of sexual orientation". Nowhere does it argue anything about the word "homosexual" (which you'd know if you'd read it). I was merely pointing out that it was an example of correct usage of the terms.

Player, I'm sorry, but you refuse to understand anything I say. You just repeat points you made pages ago. Yes, I understood what you said. You're wrong. Now shut up already.

Except, you don't get to just decide that your feelings are correct and no one else's are. Even if there is one guy writing an article saying a point of view, that doesn't make it valid. I firmly disagree. I have enough experience to have a right to disagree. What I said IS true, even if it is not what you see in your area or what your brother feels or sees in his area. He is not the only homosexual in the world. No one person gets to speak for that or any other community, so for you to come off so strong handed and arrogant when people are simply disagreeing is not appropriate.

Second, if you insist on making such a big issue of something that absolutely IS debateable, then you take credibility from things that are not, such as whether homosexuality is biological.

What you said specifically about some people being offended by the terms "gay" and "lesbian" - that part is true. However, you are still wrong in general. I'm not going to bother explaining any more, because you don't process anything anyone says. You're just going to repeat yourself, and I just want it to stop already.

I can vouch for this.

[thegreekdog]

Though I'm reluctant to even acknowledge you - I question whether you even deserve to know the truth

Woah... why the hostility?

Because he's not an honest truth-seeker - and why waste the truth on those who don't want it?

Okay. Call me the "consistency police." I want to make sure you're not shutting him down in the same way that a fundamentalist Christian might shut down a supporter of gay marriage. Carry on.

[daddy1gringo]

The premise of this thread is that it is offensive to use the word "homosexual" rather than "gay" because what the word "homosexual" implies about the nature of homosexuality is clearly proven not true (so clearly that only ignorant people who think the world is flat believe it). Therefore it is bigotry and hate. If, however, it is not clearly proven, the whole premise falls apart. I ask again, where is the compelling scientific proof?

Though I'm reluctant to even acknowledge you - I question whether you even deserve to know the truth - here it is. It's from this site called Wikipedia. I know it's fairly obscure, but if you'd, you know, googled it (instead of deciding to go the "I'm going to reveal myself to be a gullible and blind idiot on an Internet forum"-route), you may have found it.

That's all you got? a WIKIPEDIA article all full of "...seems to indicate... but more recent studies with wider samples failed to replicate the findings."? Thank you, you proved my point. You and various others talk as if there is some kind of proof, and not to believe it is ignorance, but called on to back it up, you got nothing.

OK, I read YOUR article, now do you have the courage and the intellectual honesty to read mine? It mentions most of those same studies and debunks them with better research. Here is the link again. http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf And please don't try the cowardly cop-out again that it's not worthy for you to read it. Everybody sees through that one. You are just too closed-minded to check out anything that might challenge your prejudices.

You accuse me of bigotry, ignorance, and closed mindedness, when those are the very qualities that you, not I, have clearly exhibited. I am not in the habit of flaming or calling people names, but what do you call a person like that?

EDIT

Though I'm reluctant to even acknowledge you - I question whether you even deserve to know the truth

Woah... why the hostility?

Because he's not an honest truth-seeker - and why waste the truth on those who don't want it?

Oh this is precious. If I had said this about you, you would have gone off about those judgmental Christians. You presume to judge whether I am an honest truth seeker? I ask again, what do you call a person like that?

[HapSmo19]

a homosexual?

[InkL0sed]

The premise of this thread is that it is offensive to use the word "homosexual" rather than "gay" because what the word "homosexual" implies about the nature of homosexuality is clearly proven not true (so clearly that only ignorant people who think the world is flat believe it). Therefore it is bigotry and hate. If, however, it is not clearly proven, the whole premise falls apart. I ask again, where is the compelling scientific proof?

Though I'm reluctant to even acknowledge you - I question whether you even deserve to know the truth - here it is. It's from this site called Wikipedia. I know it's fairly obscure, but if you'd, you know, googled it (instead of deciding to go the "I'm going to reveal myself to be a gullible and blind idiot on an Internet forum"-route), you may have found it.

That's all you got? a WIKIPEDIA article all full of "...seems to indicate... but more recent studies with wider samples failed to replicate the findings."? Thank you, you proved my point. You and various others talk as if there is some kind of proof, and not to believe it is ignorance, but called on to back it up, you got nothing.

Yeah, clearly all I could ever get is one Wikipedia article that happens to mention a multitude of causes for homosexuality. You didn't explain how one chooses to have less testosterone exposed to one in utero (or all of the other things).

OK, I read YOUR article, now do you have the courage and the intellectual honesty to read mine? It mentions most of those same studies and debunks them with better research. Here is the link again. http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf And please don't try the cowardly cop-out again that it's not worthy for you to read it. Everybody sees through that one. You are just too closed-minded to check out anything that might challenge your prejudices.

You accuse me of bigotry, ignorance, and closed mindedness, when those are the very qualities that you, not I, have clearly exhibited. I am not in the habit of flaming or calling people names, but what do you call a person like that?

OK, sure, I'll write an essay about how this ridiculous pdf of yours - which seems to be a surrogate for an argument - is wrong. You may need to give me some time, Professor.

[BigBallinStalin]

The premise of this thread is that it is offensive to use the word "homosexual" rather than "gay" because what the word "homosexual" implies about the nature of homosexuality is clearly proven not true (so clearly that only ignorant people who think the world is flat believe it). Therefore it is bigotry and hate. If, however, it is not clearly proven, the whole premise falls apart. I ask again, where is the compelling scientific proof?

Though I'm reluctant to even acknowledge you - I question whether you even deserve to know the truth - here it is. It's from this site called Wikipedia. I know it's fairly obscure, but if you'd, you know, googled it (instead of deciding to go the "I'm going to reveal myself to be a gullible and blind idiot on an Internet forum"-route), you may have found it.

That's all you got? a WIKIPEDIA article all full of "...seems to indicate... but more recent studies with wider samples failed to replicate the findings."? Thank you, you proved my point. You and various others talk as if there is some kind of proof, and not to believe it is ignorance, but called on to back it up, you got nothing.

OK, I read YOUR article, now do you have the courage and the intellectual honesty to read mine? It mentions most of those same studies and debunks them with better research. Here is the link again. http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF10F01.pdf And please don't try the cowardly cop-out again that it's not worthy for you to read it. Everybody sees through that one. You are just too closed-minded to check out anything that might challenge your prejudices.

You accuse me of bigotry, ignorance, and closed mindedness, when those are the very qualities that you, not I, have clearly exhibited. I am not in the habit of flaming or calling people names, but what do you call a person like that?

Haha, I see what that pdf is doing. It's presenting a clever case against a group of people, but the problem is that the author wants to convince the viewer that the cherry-picked myths not only describe a category of people, but also the individuals within that category.

For example, here's one method which the author employs:

MYTH: Homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals.

FACT:
The percentage of child sexual abuse cases in
which men molest boys is many times higher
than the percentage of adult males who are
homosexual, and most men who molest boys
self-identify as homosexual or bisexual.

You see what they did there? They used a study that only looks at CHILD ABUSERS, who identify themselves as "homosexual or bisexual." Then, the author of that .pdf takes that category of CHILD ABUSERS and applies it to ALL HOMOSEXUALS.


Reread the "myth" again. "Homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals." Yet, throughout that chapter, author keeps saying that he's not trying to equate homosexuals with child abusers, yet he just implied it through the title. There's plenty more reasons why a homosexual child abuser abuses a child, and the answer lies beyond his sexual orientation. His sexual orientation only narrows his target market; however, it doesn't explain why that person abuses the child.

You see how the author fails to explain that? He just wants the reader to assume that ALL homosexuals have a disposition toward sexually abusing children simply because homosexuals are homosexuals (while ignoring the other factors that are involved with the motivations of underage sexual predators).


Your pdf is very clever, but it's clearly propaganda. Thanks for sharing your bigoted piece of work. If this was to be held to academic standards, the editors would profusely shit all over it and say, "Try again."

[daddy1gringo]

Your pdf is very clever, but it's clearly propaganda. Thanks for sharing your bigoted piece of work. If this was to be held to academic standards, the editors would profusely shit all over it and say, "Try again."

Oh, I admitted from the beginning:

Yes, the article is from a "biased" source, that is, one that has, and attempts to support a particular opinion. So was the article in the op. But it references studies and surveys from various sources, even biased pro-gay sources.

No I was not claiming that this article was an unbiased scientific study. Yes, it is trying to prove a particular point, but the research cited debunks the assertions that are relevant to this thread. Those studies that "seem to indicate" that it is genetic and immutable were for the most part ridiculously unscientific and performed on ridiculously small and/or clearly biased samples, and controverted by better research later. That's the point.

[PLAYER57832]

Your pdf is very clever, but it's clearly propaganda. Thanks for sharing your bigoted piece of work. If this was to be held to academic standards, the editors would profusely shit all over it and say, "Try again."

Oh, I admitted from the beginning:

Yes, the article is from a "biased" source, that is, one that has, and attempts to support a particular opinion. So was the article in the op. But it references studies and surveys from various sources, even biased pro-gay sources.

No I was not claiming that this article was an unbiased scientific study. Yes, it is trying to prove a particular point, but the research cited debunks the assertions that are relevant to this thread. Those studies that "seem to indicate" that it is genetic and immutable were for the most part ridiculously unscientific and performed on ridiculously small and/or clearly biased samples, and controverted by better research later. That's the point.

I don't have time to dig up the research right now, but its no where near as simple as you wish to claim.

The studies showing biological links to homosexuality, are in no way all unscientific, ridiculously small, etc.

[daddy1gringo]

I don't have time to dig up the research right now, but its no where near as simple as you wish to claim.

The studies showing biological links to homosexuality, are in no way all unscientific, ridiculously small, etc.

I'm sure you will do a better job than this guy did in supporting it. I was getting a bit hyperbolic in order to get some action. I predict, however, that it will still be far from conclusive, and far from "If you don't know this is true you're ignorant". As Harry Truman said, "If you took all the experts in the world and lined them up end-to-end, they'd still point in all directions."

[Woodruff]

The premise of this thread is that it is offensive to use the word "homosexual" rather than "gay" because what the word "homosexual" implies about the nature of homosexuality is clearly proven not true (so clearly that only ignorant people who think the world is flat believe it). Therefore it is bigotry and hate. If, however, it is not clearly proven, the whole premise falls apart. I ask again, where is the compelling scientific proof?

While I don't tend to agree with the article, I believe you're starting from a poor premise.

[InkL0sed]

You know what, I was going to actually give this a rigorous response, but as I read this pdf, it would take years to get to everything. Also, how is it fair to give only a link as your argument, but to demand more than that from me? So I'll quickly respond to the section "Myth: homosexuals are born gay", since that's the relevant section, and also very easy to dismiss with only the Wikipedia article (not that I'll rely only on that).

So that section of the pdf has this to say:

The widespread, popular belief that science has proven a biological or genetic origin to homosexuality can be traced to the publicity which surrounded three studies published in the early 1990’s. In August of 1991, researcher Simon LeVay published a study based on post-mortem examinations of the brains of cadavers. He concluded that differences in a particular brain structure suggested “that sexual orientation has a biological substrate.”2 In December of 1991, researchers J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard published a study of identical and fraternal twins and adoptive brothers, and found that “the pattern of rates of homosexuality . . . was generally consistent with substantial genetic influence.”3 Finally, in 1993, researcher Dean Hamer claimed to have found a specific “chromosomal region” containing “a gene that contributes to homosexual orientation in males.”4

These studies suffered from serious methodological weaknesses, such as small sample sizes, non-random samples and even possible mis-classification of their subjects. Other scientists have been unable to replicate these dramatic findings. These problems led two psychiatrists to conclude,
“Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking. . . . In fact, the current trend may be to underrate the explanatory power of extant psychosocial models.”5
Subsequently, more rigorous studies of identical twin pairs have essentially made it impossible to argue for the genetic determination of homosexuality. Since identical (“monozygotic,” in the scientific literature) twins have identical genes, if homosexuality were genetically fixed at birth, we should expect that whenever one twin is homosexual, the other twin would be homosexual (a “concordance rate” of 100%).

That's basically the extent of the "evidence". In conclusion, "no one is 'born gay'".

I'm afraid, daddy1gringo, that I have to call you a liar. Either you didn't read the Wikipedia article, or you didn't read this pdf. You can't possibly have read both and still believe this pdf. For instance, the pdf implies that this idea is predicated on only three flawed twin studies from the 90's, none of which have been verified. That of course is a lie. For one thing, there have been better studies conducted since. For another, the Wikipedia article makes a huge deal of the fact that the causes are complex, and cannot be explained only by genetics. Just because genetics aren't the sole cause does not make one's sexual orientation a choice.

Actually, since we're basically just engaged in a link war, I'll just link you here: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i ... /10-myths#

MYTH # 9
No one is born a homosexual.

THE ARGUMENT
Anti-gay activists keenly oppose the granting of “special” civil rights protections to homosexuals similar to those afforded black Americans and other minorities. But if people are born gay — in the same way people have no choice as to whether they are black or white — discrimination against homosexuals would be vastly more difficult to justify. Thus, anti-gay forces insist that sexual orientation is a behavior that can be changed, not an immutable characteristic.

THE FACTS
Modern science cannot state conclusively what causes sexual orientation, but a great many studies suggest that it is the result of biological and environmental forces, not a personal “choice.” One of the more recent is a 2008 Swedish study of twins (the world’s largest twin study) that appeared in The Archives of Sexual Behavior and concluded that “[h]omosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors.” Dr. Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, said: “This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single ‘gay gene’ or a single environmental variable which could be used to ‘select out’ homosexuality — the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here — heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.”

The American Psychological Association (APA) acknowledges that despite much research into the possible genetic, hormonal, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no evidence has emerged that would allow scientists to pinpoint the precise causes of sexual orientation. Still, the APA concludes that “most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”

In October 2010, Kansas State University family studies professor Walter Schumm said he was about to release a study showing that gay parents produced far more gay children than heterosexual parents. He told a reporter that he was “trying to prove [homosexuality is] not 100% genetic.” But critics suggested that his data did not prove that, and, in any event, virtually no scientists have suggested that homosexuality is caused only by genes.

And then there's this: http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

Is sexual orientation a choice?

No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

Basically, your claim is there is no "proof" that homosexuality is not a choice. While it's true that we don't "know" its cause (I'll get back to this assertion), that doesn't mean that it's correct to say we don't know if it's a choice. People don't choose their genes, they don't choose how much testosterone they're exposed to in utero, they don't choose how many older brothers they have. We know of many factors that influence sexual orientation, and none of these are chosen. Therefore, it follows that sexual orientation is not a choice. When we say we don't "know" the cause, we mean we don't know all there is to know about it. That is, scientists aren't able to predict any given baby's sexual orientation.

So yeah, like I've been saying, if you really wanted to know the truth, you wouldn't be making these stupid assertions and linking me to blatantly false pdf's. You would just google it and see for yourself.

You're right when you say my mind is closed: it's closed to certain ideas, like the idea that the earth is flat, or that it's hollow, or that dinosaurs never existed, or that one can choose one's sexual orientation. Anyway, I don't expect you to take any of these things seriously; like I said, you're not an honest truth-seeker. You're just going to cling to your protests that "nothing's been proven! And the studies were badly done! And the scientific community has been cowed by the gay activists!" I haven't even submitted this post yet, and I already regret wasting my time with it. I'm officially done with this thread. People like you are a waste of time and energy.

[Woodruff]

Though I'm reluctant to even acknowledge you - I question whether you even deserve to know the truth

Woah... why the hostility?

Because he's not an honest truth-seeker - and why waste the truth on those who don't want it?

I've actually never seen daddy1gringo try to avoid truth. While I happen to disagree with him completely on this particular issue, I'm not convinced that he's trying to avoid it here either.

[InkL0sed]

Though I'm reluctant to even acknowledge you - I question whether you even deserve to know the truth

Woah... why the hostility?

Because he's not an honest truth-seeker - and why waste the truth on those who don't want it?

I've actually never seen daddy1gringo try to avoid truth. While I happen to disagree with him completely on this particular issue, I'm not convinced that he's trying to avoid it here either.

Well, now you have. Getting one's information from one propaganda source (and rejecting all information from, you know, scientists), is what I call dishonest. Its motivations aren't truth; the motivation is validating one's opinion. As my friend's status on Facebook says, "You don't use sources to show you're right, you use sources to become right."

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't have time to dig up the research right now, but its no where near as simple as you wish to claim.

The studies showing biological links to homosexuality, are in no way all unscientific, ridiculously small, etc.

I'm sure you will do a better job than this guy did in supporting it. I was getting a bit hyperbolic in order to get some action. I predict, however, that it will still be far from conclusive, and far from "If you don't know this is true you're ignorant". As Harry Truman said, "If you took all the experts in the world and lined them up end-to-end, they'd still point in all directions."

From what I recall, the article harkens back to the days of 1960s psychology, within which there was a group who deemed "homosexuality" to be a disease. So, when you use the term "homosexual," according to the article, you're implying that there's something psychologically wrong with being homosexual.

Since a large segment of psychological thought did concur that homosexuality was a disease, or mental problem, (in the 1960s), and since this line of reasoning caused harm to that group deemed as "homosexual," then the article is correct in pointing out that such a word is offensive, because of what the term implies.

That's the jist of the argument, so I don't see how the genetic v. environmental debate is relevant.


_________________________________________


EDIT: It's poor form sourcing from propaganda. If it's done for teh lulz, I understand, but please don't mistaken such sources as credible.

[bedub1]

I'd like to get an opinion as to which of the following words are okay, and which are not. My apologies if somebody is offended by them, it is not my intention to offend you.

homosexual
homo
gay
fag
faggot
lesbian
lesbo
bisexual
bi
transgender
trany
dyke

[Pedronicus]

I'm pleased that we're being arsked to stop using this poxy word. I can get back to using my old favourites. shit stabbers and mug runchers.

anyone who gets upset with me using this language can either stick me on foe or f*ck off.

this is the new touchy feely Pedro coming round to understanding the minorities requirements. In the past I was a proper nasty right wing bigot. I'm glad I'm not like that anymore.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't have time to dig up the research right now, but its no where near as simple as you wish to claim.

The studies showing biological links to homosexuality, are in no way all unscientific, ridiculously small, etc.

I'm sure you will do a better job than this guy did in supporting it. I was getting a bit hyperbolic in order to get some action. I predict, however, that it will still be far from conclusive, and far from "If you don't know this is true you're ignorant". As Harry Truman said, "If you took all the experts in the world and lined them up end-to-end, they'd still point in all directions."

Just to clarify, you are trying to say that there is no such thing as biological homosexuality, that it is basically a mental illness?