Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Be Ye Not Gay
Topic Started: Oct 25 2011, 05:32 PM (3,713 Views)
AndyD
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4fU0Ajo4RM&feature=related

:leaving:
Every morning the soul is once again as good as new, and again one offers it to one's brothers & sisters in life.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Jolly thought the study refuted the idea that gays are 'born that way'.


I think I made it pretty clear that was the single conclusion of his I disagreed with.


from post 21:

Quote:
 
There's no reason why a handful of guilt-ridden religious homosexuals changing their behavior is inconsistent with congenital or even genetic origins of homosexuality



from post 31:

Quote:
 
He made the argument that a one time homosexual who later became hetero disproved congenital or genetic origin of homosexuality. By the same logic a one time heterosexual who later became homosexual would disprove congenital or genetic origin of heterosexuality.

Don't misunderstand - I think the logic is poor. I'm just applying his logic to the opposit case to help demonstrate its absurdity.



from post 38:

Quote:
 
Face it, that Baptist Press piece was pretty damn irrelevant to the whole nature v nurture debate.



from post 53:

Quote:
 
His logic doesn't stand even if his conclusion is correct. No conclusion can be drawn about the origins of homosexuality from the fact that some people who are brought up to feel guilt and shame about homosexuality later become practicing heterosexuals. You could imagine a possible world where homosexuality is a choice and some people abandon it out of guilt and shame. You could imagine a possible world where it is genetic and some people abandon it out of guilt and shame. You could imagine a possible world where its congenital and some people abandon it out of guilt and shame.



from post 59:

Quote:
 
But to reiterate my point, the study is pretty damn irrelevant to the whole nature vs. nurture argument, regardless of where it gets published.



from post 62:

Quote:
 
Yeah, and my point stands unscathed. The study has zero relevance to the nature v nurture debate.



from post 65:

Quote:
 
The outcome of the study has no bearing on the origins of sexual behavior. It simply tells us that a smallish minority of guilt ridden christian homosexuals will change their behavior after undergoing some (further) religious indoctrination. But it tells us not a thing about the origin of the homosexual behavior they feel so guilty about. Not a thing.



from post 75:

Quote:
 
On the contrary - no one has yet put forward a convincing argument as to how the origin of homosexual behavior can be determined from the fact that a small minority of religious homosexuals who attempt to change their behavior are successful in doing so.



from post 80:

Quote:
 
I don't see how that follows - care to explain? And, wouldn't that same logic imply that the hetero who later re-orients homo would 'prove' that we aren't born heterosexuals?


(a question never responded to by Jolly, by the way)



Those are just from the first 4 pages of the 8 page thread. I could go on, but no need since I really don't think you're obtuse.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Oct 29 2011, 12:07 PM
Jolly thought the study refuted the idea that gays are 'born that way'.


I think I made it pretty clear that was the single conclusion of his I disagreed with.


from post 21:

Quote:
 
There's no reason why a handful of guilt-ridden religious homosexuals changing their behavior is inconsistent with congenital or even genetic origins of homosexuality



from post 31:

Quote:
 
He made the argument that a one time homosexual who later became hetero disproved congenital or genetic origin of homosexuality. By the same logic a one time heterosexual who later became homosexual would disprove congenital or genetic origin of heterosexuality.

Don't misunderstand - I think the logic is poor. I'm just applying his logic to the opposit case to help demonstrate its absurdity.



from post 38:

Quote:
 
Face it, that Baptist Press piece was pretty damn irrelevant to the whole nature v nurture debate.



from post 53:

Quote:
 
His logic doesn't stand even if his conclusion is correct. No conclusion can be drawn about the origins of homosexuality from the fact that some people who are brought up to feel guilt and shame about homosexuality later become practicing heterosexuals. You could imagine a possible world where homosexuality is a choice and some people abandon it out of guilt and shame. You could imagine a possible world where it is genetic and some people abandon it out of guilt and shame. You could imagine a possible world where its congenital and some people abandon it out of guilt and shame.



from post 59:

Quote:
 
But to reiterate my point, the study is pretty damn irrelevant to the whole nature vs. nurture argument, regardless of where it gets published.



from post 62:

Quote:
 
Yeah, and my point stands unscathed. The study has zero relevance to the nature v nurture debate.



from post 65:

Quote:
 
The outcome of the study has no bearing on the origins of sexual behavior. It simply tells us that a smallish minority of guilt ridden christian homosexuals will change their behavior after undergoing some (further) religious indoctrination. But it tells us not a thing about the origin of the homosexual behavior they feel so guilty about. Not a thing.



from post 75:

Quote:
 
On the contrary - no one has yet put forward a convincing argument as to how the origin of homosexual behavior can be determined from the fact that a small minority of religious homosexuals who attempt to change their behavior are successful in doing so.



from post 80:

Quote:
 
I don't see how that follows - care to explain? And, wouldn't that same logic imply that the hetero who later re-orients homo would 'prove' that we aren't born heterosexuals?


(a question never responded to by Jolly, by the way)



Those are just from the first 4 pages of the 8 page thread. I could go on, but no need since I really don't think you're obtuse.
I think (as I pointed out to you in my summary in post #134) that you've made a strawman argument of Jolly's position.

You need to actually quote him to support your interpretation of his argument, not yourself to justify your position.

It's probably easier to regurgitate your own words than to honestly deal with another's.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Unbelievable.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Indeed, Moonbat, it really is unbelievable that Jon has continued this thread about my interpretation of Jolly's position without really sourcing Jolly's statements as a coherent body of thought, and without taking exception to my interpretation of Jolly's position.

Go figure.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
Oct 29 2011, 12:14 PM
jon-nyc
Oct 29 2011, 12:07 PM
Jolly thought the study refuted the idea that gays are 'born that way'.


I think I made it pretty clear that was the single conclusion of his I disagreed with.


from post 21:

Quote:
 
There's no reason why a handful of guilt-ridden religious homosexuals changing their behavior is inconsistent with congenital or even genetic origins of homosexuality



from post 31:

Quote:
 
He made the argument that a one time homosexual who later became hetero disproved congenital or genetic origin of homosexuality. By the same logic a one time heterosexual who later became homosexual would disprove congenital or genetic origin of heterosexuality.

Don't misunderstand - I think the logic is poor. I'm just applying his logic to the opposit case to help demonstrate its absurdity.



from post 38:

Quote:
 
Face it, that Baptist Press piece was pretty damn irrelevant to the whole nature v nurture debate.



from post 53:

Quote:
 
His logic doesn't stand even if his conclusion is correct. No conclusion can be drawn about the origins of homosexuality from the fact that some people who are brought up to feel guilt and shame about homosexuality later become practicing heterosexuals. You could imagine a possible world where homosexuality is a choice and some people abandon it out of guilt and shame. You could imagine a possible world where it is genetic and some people abandon it out of guilt and shame. You could imagine a possible world where its congenital and some people abandon it out of guilt and shame.



from post 59:

Quote:
 
But to reiterate my point, the study is pretty damn irrelevant to the whole nature vs. nurture argument, regardless of where it gets published.



from post 62:

Quote:
 
Yeah, and my point stands unscathed. The study has zero relevance to the nature v nurture debate.



from post 65:

Quote:
 
The outcome of the study has no bearing on the origins of sexual behavior. It simply tells us that a smallish minority of guilt ridden christian homosexuals will change their behavior after undergoing some (further) religious indoctrination. But it tells us not a thing about the origin of the homosexual behavior they feel so guilty about. Not a thing.



from post 75:

Quote:
 
On the contrary - no one has yet put forward a convincing argument as to how the origin of homosexual behavior can be determined from the fact that a small minority of religious homosexuals who attempt to change their behavior are successful in doing so.



from post 80:

Quote:
 
I don't see how that follows - care to explain? And, wouldn't that same logic imply that the hetero who later re-orients homo would 'prove' that we aren't born heterosexuals?


(a question never responded to by Jolly, by the way)



Those are just from the first 4 pages of the 8 page thread. I could go on, but no need since I really don't think you're obtuse.
I think (as I pointed out to you in my summary in post #134) that you've made a strawman argument of Jolly's position.

All 9 instances that you quoted of me taking issue with Jolly's conclusion were posted when Jolly was fully participating in this thread. If it was an inaccurate portrayal of his conclusion one imagines he would have said something.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Whatever else, I believe this thread gives me one free pass the next time I allow myself to get sucked into some train-wreck, death-spiral theological debate.

Posted Image
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
jon-nyc
Oct 29 2011, 04:51 PM
All 9 instances that you quoted of me taking issue with Jolly's conclusion were posted when Jolly was fully participating in this thread. If it was an inaccurate portrayal of his conclusion one imagines he would have said something.
Oh, and if I'm wrong, I stand ready to be corrected. Jolly could just chime in and say he agrees - unreservedly - with the following statement:

"The study referenced in the first post offers no insight whatsoever into the causes of homosexuality in humans. Specifically, the fact that some erstwhile homosexuals in the study later entered into heterosexual relationships after therapy is entirely consistent with the theory(ies) that homosexuality has genetic or congenital causes".


In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Oct 29 2011, 04:51 PM
I think (as I pointed out to you in my summary in post #134) that you've made a strawman argument of Jolly's position.

Quote:
 
All 9 instances that you quoted of me taking issue with Jolly's conclusion were posted when Jolly was fully participating in this thread. If it was an inaccurate portrayal of his conclusion one imagines he would have said something.
He certainly did seem to write things, and quite a lot, about how you weren't getting his point, as much as he tried to explain it:
Quote:
 

Predisposition?

I thought the argument was that you are either gay, or you are not?

You want to base tax policy and civil law on predispositions?


Quote:
 


Zero relevance?

That's your opinion. That's not the outcome of the study.


Quote:
 

If homosexuals can be "re-oriented" (for lack of a better word), then that means at least some of them are not born homosexuals, they are made homosexuals due to some external stimuli or another. If so, biology cannot be destiny, since biology would predicate if one is born an aardvark, one is an aardvark.

And, if one cannot definitively determine the biological process which renders one a homosexual, we are being asked to grant special treatment to a class of individuals who cannot define their own class.


It's not like he was shy about letting you know you didn't get it.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AndyD
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Have to say, given up reading much of what is written; now far more interested about who insists on getting the last word.

Ding ding...

Posted Image


Every morning the soul is once again as good as new, and again one offers it to one's brothers & sisters in life.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
as usual, i agree with moonbat, and kathy who mentioned that homosexuality was a continuum.

ivory.. you never answered my question.

i don't really care tho so keep posting your arguments.

it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
Oct 30 2011, 12:26 AM
Jolly
 

If homosexuals can be "re-oriented" (for lack of a better word), then that means at least some of them are not born homosexuals, they are made homosexuals due to some external stimuli or another. If so, biology cannot be destiny, since biology would predicate if one is born an aardvark, one is an aardvark.


Yeah, this was the conclusion I disagreed with. I was pretty clear about that throughout the thread.


Not sure what that little diversion accomplished, other than getting the conversation away from your feeble and transparent attempt at constructing a strawman.



In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
AndyD
Oct 30 2011, 01:31 AM
Have to say, given up reading much of what is written; now far more interested about who insists on getting the last word.

Oh I think we know the answer to that already.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
jon-nyc
Oct 30 2011, 03:39 AM
ivorythumper
Oct 30 2011, 12:26 AM
Jolly
 

If homosexuals can be "re-oriented" (for lack of a better word), then that means at least some of them are not born homosexuals, they are made homosexuals due to some external stimuli or another. If so, biology cannot be destiny, since biology would predicate if one is born an aardvark, one is an aardvark.
Wait ... to the extent that Jolly put the word "some" in there, it's clear that Jolly think/believe/know that there are "some others" who are not "not born homosexuals."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Dewey
Oct 29 2011, 05:18 PM
Whatever else, I believe this thread gives me one free pass the next time I allow myself to get sucked into some train-wreck, death-spiral theological debate.

Posted Image
Don't be so modest ... you deserve THREE free passes. Here are two more:
Posted ImagePosted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
apple
Oct 30 2011, 03:32 AM
as usual, i agree with moonbat, and kathy who mentioned that homosexuality was a continuum.

ivory.. you never answered my question.

i don't really care tho so keep posting your arguments.

What question, Apple? About anti-gays? Who here is anti gay?

But it's good to know that you don't really care about me. That's a shame since I like you. I guess friendship for you requires conformity to your worldview.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Oct 30 2011, 03:41 AM
AndyD
Oct 30 2011, 01:31 AM
Have to say, given up reading much of what is written; now far more interested about who insists on getting the last word.

Oh I think we know the answer to that already.
You take pussy parting shots, Jon. Only pussies take parting shots.

The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Oct 30 2011, 03:39 AM
ivorythumper
Oct 30 2011, 12:26 AM
Jolly
 

If homosexuals can be "re-oriented" (for lack of a better word), then that means at least some of them are not born homosexuals, they are made homosexuals due to some external stimuli or another. If so, biology cannot be destiny, since biology would predicate if one is born an aardvark, one is an aardvark.


Yeah, this was the conclusion I disagreed with. I was pretty clear about that throughout the thread.
Not sure what that little diversion accomplished, other than getting the conversation away from your feeble and transparent attempt at constructing a strawman.

Try to resolve a discussion without taking parting shots, Jon -- it's not good form to destroy friendships over mere topical disagreements. Like this:

"then that means at least some of them are not born homosexuals, they are made homosexuals due to some external stimuli or another. "

You disagree with this? Then why do you accept the study itself? AFAICT, Jolly just reiterated the conclusions of the study. :shrug:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Ok, I've read through the entire thing. First, some need to lookup and understand the difference between a spectrum, and a continuum - otherwise I'm mostly in agreement.

Now, to the real subject of the thread, I become increasingly confused.
IT, reading the entire thing in one go, your position seems to be both that a) this study says something about sexual origin, and b) this study asks/answers no questions having to do with sexual origin.

How are beings identified sexually? How, scientifically do we identify homosexuals and heterosexuals?

It seems to me that there is only self identification, and if that's the case, then I wholly agree with Jon's position, and your position comes off as rather obtuse. Scientifically, this study only shows conclusively that some people who call themselves homosexual can, through training, call themselves heterosexuals. The study does nothing to address whether or not one is born one way or the other, so jolly's conclusion (which is the entire point of this thread) seems folly, or at least not backed up by the study, which does nothing to address it. Jon just keeps pointing that out over and over, and you seem to be dancing around it (The reality is that you've both said the same thing over and over: this study asks, and answers zero questions about sexual origin).
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luke's Dad
Member Avatar
Emperor Pengin
195 posts. 18 debating the subject matter of the first post, 177 debating the debate.
The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
apple
Oct 29 2011, 11:32 AM
Do all you antigays think you are better than them?

yes or no


apple's the smartest person in this thread.
She gets it.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
ivorythumper
Oct 30 2011, 07:34 AM
apple
Oct 30 2011, 03:32 AM
as usual, i agree with moonbat, and kathy who mentioned that homosexuality was a continuum.

ivory.. you never answered my question.

i don't really care tho so keep posting your arguments.

What question, Apple? About anti-gays? Who here is anti gay?

But it's good to know that you don't really care about me. That's a shame since I like you. I guess friendship for you requires conformity to your worldview.
ya think?

whatever you think is fine with me.. you were just accusing people of evading questions but never answered mine except with a question..

so i keep asking more.

whether or not i like you (i do) has nothing to do with this thread.
it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Dewey
Oct 29 2011, 05:18 PM
Whatever else, I believe this thread gives me one free pass the next time I allow myself to get sucked into some train-wreck, death-spiral theological debate.

Posted Image
Chicken. :lol2:
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Who is anti-gay, and why does it become a question of "better than?"
What a dismal and boring worldview, where everything boils down to qualitative, comparative analysis.
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
I think most of us would agree that homosexuality is a continuum of inherited and learned behavior. I don't think anyone here is anti-gay. Once again we are confronted with the ultimatum of 'believe everything we stand for or be a bigot'.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply