Why is same-sex marriage wrong?

originally posted by: alphastrike101
a reply to: Darth_Prime

Subsequently when parental androgens levels are within healthy metrics homosexuality, ambiguous genitalia, transgender, ect are prevented.

As shown in the papers I cited in older posts.

And you stated several posts ago that the sexuality bit is nothing more than a mathematical model I e.there is no tangible proof as yet.

I've already pointed out the stupidity of relying on maths when humans are so unpredictable.

The theory is 100% reliant on the assumption that homosexuality is caused within the womb.

Ever considered that it could be incorrect?

originally posted by: alphastrike101

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: alphastrike101

So the conclusion is that Heterosexuality may be a defect

Healthy metrics of parental androgens produced heterosexuality with no ambiguous genitalia.

unhealthy levels produced defects of various effect.

Ambiguous genitalia = hermaphrodite = NOT gay.

You're talking yourself round in circles here....

a reply to: markosity1973

Not I did not state that.

I stated that it was discovered while treating CAH patients and was supported by mathamatical models.

originally posted by: alphastrike101
a reply to: markosity1973

Not I did not state that.

I stated that it was discovered while treating CAH patients and was supported by mathamatical models.

And yet I have not seen any proof. Where are the sexually active teenagers in a sample big enough to cross reference with general society?

a reply to: markosity1973

You are simply missing the point that unhealthy levels can cause all sorts of defects. Depending on how high or lower the levels are can drastically effect what defect there will be.

feta treatments for at risk CAH patients subsequently prevented homosexuality.

I think you should read some of the older posts rather than jumping in the middle.

a reply to: markosity1973

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

mobile.the-scientist.com...

Hopefully this will help you understand what I am saying.

originally posted by: alphastrike101
a reply to: markosity1973

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

mobile.the-scientist.com...

Hopefully this will help you understand what I am saying.

The sample group is 62 patients. Hardly a representative sample.

I ask again, where is the proof ?

a reply to: markosity1973

Here are a few more peer reviewed papers.

www.researchgate.net... ion_of_Degree_of_Prenatal_Androgen_Excess

www.jstor.org...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

a reply to: alphastrike101

Problems with all of these studies in relation to sexuality (I take no issue with physical birth defects as the results are immediately obvious)

1. The groups are tiny, less than 100
   
2. People lie about their sexuality all the time so the actual results are subjective
   
3. Given that there is no actaul accurate estimation on the % to population (varies from 1 to about 10%) it is impossible to reliably cross reference such small groups when 1% = less that one of 62 whereas 10% would be 6. Because the actual % of population that is gay is unkown and relatively small anyway, it is more than possible for the actual result to be zero in such small groups.
   

There is nothing but pure assumptions based upon the subject telling the truth in all of these studies.

You never did answer my quandry of twins where one is gay and the other is not either. There is a variable there that this theory does not allow for.

**EDIT**

Ahem, your source says this (bold added by me)

Although we cannot provide definitive evidence that homosexuality has a strong epigenetic underpinning, we do think that available evidence is fully consistent with this conclusion.

Assumptions, again with the assumptions.......

**DOUBLE EDIT**

Once again, great doubt over the complexity and the role of androgens / epigenetics in sexuality

Eric Vilain, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Los Angeles, worries that the model, which “might be true,” makes a few simplistic generalizations. “It assumes the same mechanism [for development of sexual orientation] in both sexes . . . and that androgen levels play an important role in the development of sexual orientation”—neither of which has been demonstrated, he said.

www.the-scientist.com.../articleNo/33773/title/Can-Epigenetics-Explain-Homosexuality-/

When kids on YouTube make more sense than the adults on ATS.

a reply to: Darth_Prime

Quick Question.. just throwing it out there but people seem not to always answer me

What if Religion was banned, Illegal and the States disallowed you to practice any Religion, churches would close.. of course you could in the privacy of your own home, but any public worship or signs of worship Crosses, Jewelry,Tattoos were Illegal and subject to jail etc But in the constitution Religion was protected, just the states were not upholding the constitution so the Supreme Court ruled that Religion is Free to practice.. would you defend their actions? would you welcome the ruling? or would you be upset the 5 People in black robes ruled in favor of a constitution that is supposed to keep and protect our freedoms allegedly

I am upset by any circumstance where the constitution is being trampled regardless of the situation. If the constitution is respected and obeyed then I would accept that authority. I am not saying that I would agree but I would accept. The problem I have is that a population of between 318 million to 319 million people are ruled by five lawyers.

To me that is about the same as being ruled by a sovereign king and hope that the king is just. This union was not formed to be ruled without fair representation and to say that five lawyers could make a law is reprehensible to me. If those same five lawyers made the opposite decision would not make it any more fair. This is very dangerous because now it is on the books as law and can and probably will be used in the future in other power grab situations.

If you think for a moment that this is a one shot deal then you are very naive. This nation is is now destroyed from its intent. Now this a religious forum and we have mixed politics with religion with this gay marriage ruling and I don't mean to derail the op but in this unique case it can not be avoided.

a reply to: markosity1973

As far as twins go the study:" Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development" goes over this.
identical twins share the same DNA, homosexuality is created by something else rather than the genes. Epi-genetic transformation allows the on and off switch of certain genes, subsequently shaping how cells respond to androgen signaling, which is critical in sexual development. Epi-genetic consequences is evident in multiple sclerosis identical twins. There are pairs of twins that are discordant with multiple sclerosis and do not both show the trait. After gene testing, the DNA was identical and that epigenetic differences contributed to the gene difference between identical twins.

And not all the studies I cited were under 100 people.
The study that went over twins looked at 1800 sets of twins.

When we put these studies together, with the mathamatical models the conclusions become very likely.

Even the sources you cited (that only looks at one of the 5 peer reviewed papers I cited) can not truely refute the conclusion. It simply states that more research should be done and it currently is.

Dr. Maria New is currently in clinical trials with over 600 high risk CAH cases studies to test the effects of dex given in fetal development.

a reply to: Seede

"Oh my lord, (fans self rapidly) where's my fainting couch!"

APPLAUSE!



My Goodness you do play the victim like a superstar!

a reply to: windword

You know i love that song, i was going to write a reply now.. now i just have to dance!

a reply to: Darth_Prime

You dance gurl!



Let that diatribe you were going write go!

No one could follow that act!

I just found out today that 'gay marriage' means people of the same gender are allowed to get married. I always thought it just meant that gay guys were allowed to marry lesbian women.

originally posted by: Xaphan
I just found out today that 'gay marriage' means people of the same gender are allowed to get married. I always thought it just meant that gay guys were allowed to marry lesbian women.

That's already been happening...forever...



Å99

a reply to: windword

I know it's like talking to a wall sometimes, but i feel i have to try

Anyone notice the op has done another hit and run job.
I think he is just pushing his youtube account.
Btw can you comment on his vids on youtube or has he stopped cpmments?.

a reply to: boymonkey74

I would really have more respect with people if they at least backed up their beliefs, if that is true true belief, ignorant or not at least have the dignity to own it