{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
4/21/2014 3:51:33 PM
13
none of your sources are peer reviewed, and none of them are done by accredited geneticists, or sociologists.
Once you provide proper sources i may debate with you.
English
-
Your sources by people with literally no background, who may or may not have existed thousands of years ago, are more reliable?
-
I have provided countless scientific facts. The fact that none of you except facts in your face is why i choose to only use the bible. It is out of spite.
-
I have never seen you abide by the standard you hold us to. The bible is not a reliable source, it's a collection of the most extremist propaganda from the Roman Catholic library. They wouldn't even let common folk read it when it was first published, for fear that they had made a mistake and left something in it they didn't want people to hear.
-
The irony here is that these links contain facts, facts that are easily observed by anyone who would take the time to look for them. These facts are in your face, on your Moniter, yet you refuse to take them seriously, you refuse to [i]accept[/i] them.
-
Edited by angry0lbgrampa: 4/21/2014 4:43:18 PMNo they are not facts, they are misconstrued evidence of animal dominance. [url]http://www.narth.org/docs/animalmyth.html[/url]
-
Edited by TechnoKat: 4/21/2014 5:34:54 PMI don't know if I should waste the time, but the second link there. Read it. It's there specifically to address that misconception that every instance of homosexuality in animals is about dominance. But that's only there if you don't already have your mind set on the idea that anything that contradicts your beliefs on the idea is a lie. Ah, edited in a link. By an individual who claims "...[T]he homosexual movement's attempt to establish that homosexuality is in accordance with human nature, by proving its animal homosexuality theory, is based more on mythological beliefs and erroneous philosophical tenets than on science." Let's see. I read that cutesy little read and here's a problem. He doesn't cover the long term mating of homosexual animals as seen in birds. He only concludes that every instance of homosexuality in animals is "a confusion between instinct and an outside stimulus" and that "animals are radically inferior to man" claiming that there is not instinctual desire to engage in homosexual activity due to the lacking in nature of anything conceivable as a "Homosexual Gene" (taken from his "study" on homosexuality being a choice, and not being something you can be born as) In other words, in order to believe in the complete subjectivity of how he brushes everything off as "the placing of human qualities into animals behaviors" you have to share his same views. What are his views? He is a Catholic, Conservative, [i]Anti-Gay[/i] Zoologist. Further more, his other "viable" publications speak out strongly against any and all "Misconstrued and unviable" facts that someone can be Born gay and state that the only way the "onset of homosexual preference can occur is through higher cognitive reasoning" meaning that he says the only way someone can be gay is if they choose to be gay. Have I made my point?
-
No i read them all, they are not peer reviewed, they are anecdotal and opinion at this point not scientific fact.
-
Just to make sure you get this. In response to the posting of "The Animal Homosexuality Myth" I would like to take and discredit the author, and subsequently his work by allowing you this: http://www.gaynz.com/blogs/redqueen/?p=1373
-
It's an opinion that female apes rub sex organs together? Or that dolphins often have bisexual orgies? That often pairs of male birds will live together indefinitely, both acting as parents? Or that dwarf chimps have bisexual orgies? What about the packleader Lions butt-blam!-ing eachother? Those are all opinions? Cause I dunno. It's usually considered Fact when something can be observed repeatedly and consistently.
-
You should provide sources that shows it's not natural then. Oh wait...
-
Please do the same.
-
funny coming from you who cites the bible for everything...
-
And I suspect you of being gay. You were shown sources (look at the links provided in each article) and still you say that they aren't. Which tells me that you are against the idea that homosexuality is natural. Which means you think its unnatural. Which to me means you are over protesting it, which is a classic sign that you are a closeted self loathing homosexual. Don't hide your gayness with that cloak of hate any more. Its OK. Baby, you were born that way.
