It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why is same-sex marriage wrong?

page: 17
11
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 01:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Rex282

Trust me... Reason didn't come easy in the above reply. Multiple self edits to try to contain simmering hostility were necessary. I find the entire premise of the poster in question to be rather repugnant and I'm still trying to gauge whether they're serious or one of the odder trolls I've come across on ATS




posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 02:00 AM
link   
a reply to: alphastrike101

Did you even read the link you posted? The author is refuting News findings' as not only suspect but with a dangerous political motivation.


It seems more than a little ironic to have New, one of the first women pediatric endocrinologists and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, constructing women who go into “men’s” fields as “abnormal.” And yet it appears that New is suggesting that the “prevention” of “behavioral masculinization” is a benefit of treatment to parents with whom she speaks about prenatal dex. In a 2001 presentation to the CARES Foundation (a videotape of which we have), New seemed to suggest to parents that one of the goals of treatment of girls with CAH is to turn them into wives and mothers.


Concluding with this final touch of well deserved snark:


Needless to say, we do not think it reasonable or just to use medicine to try to prevent homosexual and bisexual orientations. Nor do we think it reasonable to use medicine to prevent uppity women, like the sort who might raise just these kinds of alarms. Consider that our declaration of our conflict of interest.



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 02:18 AM
link   
a reply to: alphastrike101

Your argument now is

I don't need to provide citations or sets of facts to dispute the fact that you are wrong...


How am I wrong? Of course you will never cite any facts or sets of facts that one can confirm.
That last link I cited from dr. dranger was a peer review of one of the citations I made in an older post. Her report titled "preventing homosexuality and (uppity women) was presented as an attempt to refute dr. New and stop her research from moving on to larger cases studies. Dr. New was sinceapproved to continue based on the facts that dr. dranger could not refuted the findings.
The quotes you give only supports my post.


correlated with the degree of prenatal androgenization.”


insight into the influence of prenatal hormones on the development of sexual orientation




conclusion when Maria New isn't even using such concrete and conclusive language as you are?


This study was in 2008. There have since been more including dr. News current large scale clinical trials.


about one-third of homosexual women have (modestly) increased levels of androgens.”


But we are not talking about their current androgens levels. We were talking about their parents androgens levels while in their gestational stages.

As far as thre broken links they have since been removed for no apparent reason my mod nevermore. It still can be found in cached coppy for using the coppy url tool.



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 02:32 AM
link   
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

Yes I did read it and failed to refuted dr. news study because she has since been giving approval to continue.

Even the other poster had to admit that dr. dranger could not refuted the facts that


correlated with the degree of prenatal androgenization.”
insight into the influence of prenatal hormones on the development of sexual orientation


the poster wanted proof that this is what was going on and I provided not only peer reviewed data but the peer reviews themselves.

So not only do you have the data sets I cited you have the most critical peer review that still can not refuted the data presented.



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 03:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: alphastrike101
a reply to: alphastrike101
Your argument now is
"I don't need to provide citations or sets of facts to dispute the fact that you are wrong..."

Except you leave this quote lacking the appropriate context... let's add in the rest of the appropriate statement-
and aren't reading or at least not comprehending, the source material you cite. I am using your own citations for Christ's sake.



How am I wrong? Of course you will never cite any facts or sets of facts that one can confirm.


You really don't understand do you? You are misinterpreting or misrepresenting the data you perceive supports your argument. It does not. It isn't necessary for me to provide a separate outside citation when I am using your own source and pointing out what is wrong and how you are misunderstanding your own citations.

That last link I cited from dr. dranger was a peer review of one of the citations I made in an older post. Her report titled "preventing homosexuality and (uppity women) was presented as an attempt to refute dr. New and stop her research from moving on to larger cases studies.


Some quality backpedaling there. Why would you not make that point initially instead of after 2 people point out how it contradicts your statements.


Dr. New was sinceapproved to continue based on the facts that dr. dranger could not refuted the findings.


The quotes you give only supports my post.

They do nothing of the sort unless you use only portions out of context. This is why I include the full quote and then put emphasis in bold so there is no question as to context.



This study was in 2008. There have since been more including dr. News current large scale clinical trials.

Then why are you citing old data if there is newer data? Is this some kind of Bull S# troll game?

But we are not talking about their current androgens levels. We were talking about their parents androgens levels while in their gestational stages.

OK...so you aren't actually reading your own citations... you might not WANT to talk about it but those are Dr. New's words, not mine.

As far as thre broken links they have since been removed for no apparent reason my mod nevermore. It still can be found in cached coppy for using the coppy url tool.


Sorry, I'm through doing your research for you.



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 03:27 AM
link   
a reply to: alphastrike101


Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other. Many statistical tests calculate correlation between variables. A few go further use correlation as a basis for testing a hypothesis of a true causal relationship; examples are the Granger causality test and convergent cross mapping.

The counter-assumption, that correlation proves causation, is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy in that two events occurring together are taken to have a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this", and "false cause". A similar fallacy, that an event that follows another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is sometimes described as post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this").


This is what you are failing to understand when you are reading and quoting from those papers. They are all attempts at correlation and correlation is NOT PROOF or EVIDENCE.

Correlation between autism diagnosis and organic food sales

Here is a "scientific" study that demonstrates a correlation between national chocolate consumption and the number of Nobel prize winners

In conclusion: Correlation is NOT causation.



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 06:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: alphastrike101
a reply to: markosity1973

Please presented any evidence you can that refutes me or the peer reviewed studies I cited with reguard to congenital disorders.



Given that you stonewall every single reasonable argument that any member presents against your shaky theories and that you blatantly insult my intelligence every time you say I do not understand what you are trying to say, I do not feel compelled to do any such thing.

Maybe you were born 100 years too late. You'd have liked working at Auschwitz.



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 06:55 AM
link   
Im not gay myself but im totally fine with gay marriage, firstly religion is total BS made up by men 2000 years ago, probably for greed and contol over a population, isnt that the human way.
I can't belive how religion has lasted so long, but that's another topic.

Secondly, gay people are the solution to over population, nobodys making less babies than gay people.
edit on 14-7-2015 by NeoSpace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Peter vlar
a reply to: Rex282

Trust me... Reason didn't come easy in the above reply. Multiple self edits to try to contain simmering hostility were necessary. I find the entire premise of the poster in question to be rather repugnant and I'm still trying to gauge whether they're serious or one of the odder trolls I've come across on ATS


I understand.I went through the same thing but I didn't post any of mine.I have denied the ignorance of many of the religious on this forum however this is poster is spewing one of the most repugnant(the hell believers being the worst) propaganda I have ever read.It is unfortunate that there is even one person that thinks like this.Thanks for your work I just don't have the stomach or patience for this kind of #.



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

We are well past that because the testing of the hypothesis already has shown proof of concept.

dr. news clinical trials already provides proof of concept.

The proof of concept is that dr. new was able to prevent homosexuality in clinical trials.
edit on 14-7-2015 by alphastrike101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

There's is not back peddling at all. You were confused about the peer reviews process and wanted proof of concept so I was able to provided evidence for each.

You made the accusation that the study was not peer reviewed and I provided the peer review.
It would be dishonest not to provided critical analysis. The facts is though that critical analysis did not refuted the key points. Event dr. dranger had to admit that dr. news results were in fact valid. As much as she tried to minimize the results the AMA seen them as proof enough to proceed to large scale testing.

I do not considered these data sets old as it takes years to set up clinical trials and compile useable data. The debate about the findings lasted a long time. As you can see it was two years later and peer reviews were still coming out. Since then though subsequently dr. new was given the blessing of the ama to proceed.

You have not done any research at all.
Every time I provided valid scientific studies you have been unable to refuted any of the key points.

There's are plenty of peer reviews that are critical of these studies but as you have already found out key points could not be refuted.



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: alphastrike101

All your threads get shut down and so you come back here to continue to spout nonsense from studies you do not comprehend. Take a hint that no one wants your Flat Earther understanding of science anywhere near a topic like this.

peter vlar, you have the patience of a saint. I'm going to need to drop out of this for awhile to calm my anger.



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Rex282

I am very serious.


I know it is easy to refute ideological religous based foolishness. I am sure you would like nothing more thank to beat up low info ideologues but why is it so repugnant as you put it when one presents valid and peer reviewed data sets?

ATS apparently finds it acceptable to be out bigatory and calls homosexuals, wrong, sinners, child molesters and damned for eternity. But as soon as peer reviewed data is presented from someone to actually support their ideas it is to be rejected without thought and hidden just because it raises valid questions.

So who really is the bigot.. The ones allowing such foolishness to headline threads or the one using demonstrative facts and data sets to supports their conclusions



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog



Frankie Says Relax



posted on Jul, 14 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: markosity1973

originally posted by: alphastrike101
a reply to: markosity1973

Please presented any evidence you can that refutes me or the peer reviewed studies I cited with reguard to congenital disorders.



Given that you stonewall every single reasonable argument that any member presents against your shaky theories and that you blatantly insult my intelligence every time you say I do not understand what you are trying to say, I do not feel compelled to do any such thing.

Maybe you were born 100 years too late. You'd have liked working at Auschwitz.


Since when and where is asking for evidence to support your post considered stonewalling.
Me asking for evidence or at least some form of proof is now on the levels of auschwitz?

As I said if you can present any evidence to the contray please do. There are numerous critical reviews for the studies I have posted. but you, I am sure as well as the others poster know by now that the key points could not be refuted.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 02:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: alphastrike101

There's is not back peddling at all. You were confused about the peer reviews process and wanted proof of concept so I was able to provided evidence for each.


You're killing me with all of this B.S. telling other people they are confused about the peer review process. I'm not confused at all regarding how it works and will continue to deal with and be well aware and part of the process for many years to come. The only person with a misunderstanding here is you because you continue to make claims that your citations do not back up at all. You cherry pick and quote mine but ignore the vast majority because it doesn't actually say what you have decided it does.


You made the accusation that the study was not peer reviewed and I provided the peer review.

Not quite, I pointed out that you kept claiming that you were giving peer reviewed sources when all you were providing happened to be abstracts from papers(which usually means you don't actually have access to the full paper therefore don't know what it actually says) and articles about the data. You are reading the replies toyou as well as you are reading the papers, abstracts and articles you are providing.
Additionally, the article from Bioethics Forum was NOT a peer review. It was an article discussing the unethical research being conducted bt Dr. New. Were it a peer review, it would have involved a far more in depth analysis and would have been published in a scientific journal, not an internet blog. Just maybe it is YOU who is confused about the peer review process hmmm?


It would be dishonest not to provided critical analysis. The facts is though that critical analysis did not refuted the key points. Event dr. dranger had to admit that dr. news results were in fact valid. As much as she tried to minimize the results the AMA seen them as proof enough to proceed to large scale testing.

Can you provide a quotation, in context, with citation, that shows that Dr. Dranger says or admits such? I did not read or see that in any of your provided materials and in fact, Dr. Dranger comes to the opposite conclusion that you seem to believe. Can you show me where the AMA has stated or implied corroboration of your statement above?

I do not considered these data sets old as it takes years to set up clinical trials and compile useable data. The debate about the findings lasted a long time. As you can see it was two years later and peer reviews were still coming out. Since then though subsequently dr. new was given the blessing of the ama to proceed.


The debate regarding her "findings" is ongoing because people like you and Dr. New refuse to grasp how unethical and disgusting this entire line of research is. Preventing aspects of CAH is one thing. Forcing children into a situation that very likely will necessitate them taking powerful drugs in an off label manner for the rest of their lives because you think that being gay is such a horror is so far beyond the pale, so unethical and so archaic that it belongs in a 1920's German-British Symposium on Eugenics. Your parents must be so proud of how you've turned out that you can't even own up to your own bigotry because you hide it behind some faux medical concern.


You have not done any research at all.


But I actually have and in the process seem to have actually read all of the data as opposed to quote mining it to misrepresent my claims such as you are continuing to do. Its very disingenuous and intellectually dishonest for you to continue to take such an approach. Particularly when you don't appear to have done the research yourself. the only other option is that you're a very bored troll having a laugh at our expense.

Every time I provided valid scientific studies you have been unable to refuted any of the key points.

Completely untrue. You just choose to ignore what myself and other posters bring up to counter your argument with while merely repeating the same statements over and over ad nauseum. Like the above statement "You have not done any research". You've levied that charge too many times to count now at various posters and by reading their posts, it's absolutely untrue.

There's are plenty of peer reviews that are critical of these studies but as you have already found out key points could not be refuted.


I have not found that out at all. The key points can be refuted. The fact is that Maria New is using a powerful steroid in an off label fashion with little oversight because the people she is testing this inappropriate treatment on have not actually been enrolled in clinical trials. It is a highly unethical practice. Furthermore, she is playing god with her new focus on dexmethasone's effects on future fetuses' desires to explore "male careers" or have disinterest in becoming mothers. It has nothing to do with CAH and shows that she is far more obsessed with producing more feminine traits in children than she is with affecting CAH. You are aware that this "treatment" is not a one time thing during pregnancy right? That these children will be forced to undergo treatment for their entire lives based on small studies without proper clinical controls? This isn't just highly unethical, it's $#tty science


We are well past that because the testing of the hypothesis already has shown proof of concept.


You keep harping on this BS of data sets and proof of concept like a middle school student attempting to sound like he should be playing with the big boys in grad school but I don't think these words mean what you think they mean because she has NOT shown any such thing. She has demonstrated potential correlations but any good scientist knows that correlation is not equitable with causation.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 02:48 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar


dr. news clinical trials already provides proof of concept.


Dr New isn't performing clinical trials, she is performing off label experiments with limited oversight. Even at that, she is not providing "proof of concept". The fact that under the guise of finding a treatment for CAH, she's also trying to prevent the births of girls who display an "abnormal" disinterest in babies, don't want to play with girls' toys or become mothers, and whose "career preferences" are deemed too "masculine." That is not the "accidental bonus result" you have continuously implied occurred. It is a purposeful and biased direction she has chosen to undertake to fulfill her own prerogatives based on her own personal inclinations of what a woman should be. Her focus isn't on homosexuality, it is on Lesbianism as ALL of her subjects are women. Using medicine to predetermine sexuality, whether you want to admit it or not, is in fact eugenics. It's almost as vile as your insistence that being gay is a disease necessitating a cure.


The proof of concept is that dr. new was able to prevent homosexuality in clinical trials.


This is an absolutely false statement. How do you determine prevention of homosexuality in toddlers? You do not understand the science here, or any science at all for that matter. There has been absolutely zero prevention of anything short of your understanding of the data. Please, if I'm wrong, I'm all too happy to admit it so feel free to show me the study where she has cured homosexuality. I'd love to see that paper(read: not an abstract or an article pertaining to it, the full paper).



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 05:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: alphastrike101


Since when and where is asking for evidence to support your post considered stonewalling.



When you brush off every single argument that shows the gaping holes in what you present as us 'not understanding' the premise of your foetal 'correction' plot



Me asking for evidence or at least some form of proof is now on the levels of auschwitz?


Given that you said this in your opening post


I think homosexuality is wrong and I am not religous I think homosexuality(for the most part) is when a person has a body that is in a dysfunctional cross purpose with their brain


followed soon after by this


It is as wrong a cleft pallet.


Then this


If you are LGBT you maybe want to join the anti-choice movement because if the screen for homosexuality comes out before the prevention I predict increases in abortions.


It becomes clear that your agenda is the eradication of homosexuals. And that makes you as bad as the worst doctors in the Nazi death camps.

edit on 15-7-2015 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar


The Letter of Concern is a case study in unethical transgressive bioethics. We call on fetaldex.org to withdraw the letter and for co-signatories to withdraw their approval of it.


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


in December 2010, AJOB published a “vindication” by Dr. New that consisted mostly of a long quote from Nelson’s FDA response


...was conducted within regulatory and ethical bounds.

www.tandfonline.com...#/doi/abs/10.1080/15265161.2010.530916

Here you can see that dr. drangers claims were refuted.
Dr.New was permited to continue her research.

"she is playing god".

How is she playing god? By preventing homosexuality as pointed out by dr. dranger.

If then there's not proof of this than your point is moot and so is dr. drangers claimes that
"clinicians are actively trying to prevent homosexuality."

so is there's proof of this claim?
And if they are trying to prevent homosexuality clearly the underlined cause of homosexuality must be addresses.



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: markosity1973

And why should it not be considered a sexual orientational disorder, based on what we now know?
Is it because sex is involved?

given the fact that pedophila is a sexual orientational disorder why should we not try to prevent that?
In the end it is about preventing pedophila.
Because homosexuality is spawned by the same gestational errors as pedophila and others sexual orientational disorders.

So if the way to prevent pedophila is to prevent sexual orientational disorders why is it wrong to prevent pedophila?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join