Re: Jason Collins reveals he is gay
posted at 4/29/2013 6:43 PM EDT
In response to Kirk6's comment:
In response to aciemvp's comment:
In response to R9R's comment:
Wowwwzahss. A few points:
- Being Christian is your decision. Sort of like believing in horoscopes or in aliens.
- Being homophobic is your decision, and not validated by your choice in religion
- Being gay is not a choice
- Annoucning that your gay in the world of sports where nobody has taken that step, takes courage.
- There are many different types and levels of courage. Not all are equal, and they are not comparable. Courage on a battlefield can not be ranked verses courage to come out of the closet.
- The propper response to J. Collins, is summed up perfectly by Sean Grande: Will be prouder when the issue becomes less "who is" and more "who cares"
- My reaction: Good for him, but who cares. He isn't the only one who is, and nobody should really care either way.
umm, being gay is a choice. there is no proof that there is a genetic link. that ORIGINAL science from the early 1990s that "showed" gay was "genetic" was roundly debunked as trash at the time. because the studies were FAR from pure- look into it yourself. don't be an ignoramus your whole life.
the "science" at hand was 1) NOT re-creatable for peer review and 2) showed INCREDIBLE bias in sampling methods, to the point where it was quite obvious that the new leftist science method of "obtain your desired result in your mind and then build your data around it" was in full force.
so what do lefties do when they have junk science? they let it sit like dog doo on the lawn, only for YEARS and then suddenly, 6 to 8 years later they cite THAT SAME OLD GARBAGE "science" as "authoritative evidence" of whatever socio-political cause they want to advance.
oh, and i know the new whine is "but it's something about EPIgenetics!" (and we just have no idea what that may be yet but that's the company line we're going to put out while we are grasping for straws)
look no further than "gay science guru" so-called "Dr." Dean Hamer, who in 1993 rolled out JUNK SCIENCE SUPREME to try to get "two men having sex" favored minority status legally. for hamer's trouble he was put under investigation by the US Dept of HHS and his work regarding the mythical "gay gene" was found to be FRAUDULENT by both HHS and his peers who could not even come close to replicating Hamer's "science".
And there were two more clownish acts of not-even-neo-science in the name of "gay genetics" in the early 1990s that were also quickly put to bed due to OBVIOUS sampling bias and cart-before-the-horse hack approach. I'll leave it to you to excercise your brain ball a little bit and learn about it, I will not spoon feed you from ultimate ignoramus and delivery you into the light of truth. but the truth is there, and it has NOTHING to do with BBT- blaming bible thumpers and all to do with scientific fraud.
and the fraudulentarian homo-fascists are still sitting there, red faced, trying to grunt out a nugget of "gay gene" science- now they hang their hats on "epi-genetics" in a profoundly vague manner, since people have dug up hamer's stinko science and are saying "look, we know this is trash". but they have epi-genetics, they will tell you, really they do.
Being gay is not a choice. You really are out of touch with reality.
it's as much a choice as you dumping out brown frothy matter onto this discussion board. have you ever looked at hamer's "science" and the other two charlatans of the early 1990s?
or are you going to just sit there and tell me it's not a choice because you said so? the difference between me and you is that i have an inquiring mind. i want to know what i choose to support is true. this is not true.
once you're done never digesting "Dr." hamer's science fraud- check out the wonderful work of simon LeVay- such a SHARP lad that he concluded that certain clusters neurons in the hypothalmic portion of the brain of homosexuals were larger in homosexuals than heterosexuals. this bright bulb failed to make the connection that this difference was due to much of his sample of gay men having AIDS and then soon after they died from AIDS. well, so much for that.
then there was the SAGE "research" of bailey and pillard regarding the "genetic link" between being identical twins and being gay. issues emerged with the cognitive dissonance of his interpretation of his own data that was not conclusive of anything, and then furthermore he was guilty of sampling bias so that the science could not be replicated for peer review.
kirk, i don't know- you can lead a horse to water, but when you drown a horse in water, maybe they don't get over their thirst for knowledge. in your case there is significant evidence that you have no thirst for or knowledge at all. sad.