'Two Gays Only Count as One Parent, Therefore they shouldn't be able to adopt':McCain, page 14
Pages: <<  11    12    13    14  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times


reply posted on 19-7-2008 @ 02:58 PM by Swingarm
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage



spacedoubt said,

If you don't believe homosexuality is a good thing, you have "homophobia". That is a LABEL, and an unfair one at that.

Do you work at fox ?


reply posted on 19-7-2008 @ 11:01 PM by Griff
Originally posted by Swingarm
reply to
post by rapinbatsisaltherage



spacedoubt said,

If you don't believe homosexuality is a good thing, you have "homophobia". That is a LABEL, and an unfair one at that.


Actually, I believe "homophobia" works as a word to describe most of these people too.

www.badmouth.net...

www.mydd.com...

So, yeah, it fits. It doesn't mean they have a "phobia" (fear) against other gays. It means they have a "phobia" of realizing they are gay themselves.

[edit on 7/19/2008 by Griff]


reply posted on 21-7-2008 @ 01:14 PM by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by Swingarm



I defended labeling people as such Swingarm. I do not know why you made this reply to me. If you have a problem with what that user labeled people as reply to them.



reply posted on 21-7-2008 @ 01:17 PM by rapinbatsisaltherage
Originally posted by djerwulfe
reply to
post by rapinbatsisaltherage



Aw, you didn't look ...
entered "selection in humans" into google...
Links:

science.cnpg.com...

www.bio-medicine.org...
ETC., ETC.,


These examinations are not the final say in this scientific matter. I thought you meant something more concrete entirely. Sorry for wasting your time.

Anyway I have looked, I simply have a life and do not have the time to weed through google for scientific examination that fits your theorizing. This has yet to play a significant role in anything regarding our species I've learned, perhaps it will when more concrete theorizing has been put into paper and updated in text books.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]


reply posted on 21-7-2008 @ 01:23 PM by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by LiquidTheBrit0



Seriously, shouldn't they at least do a study or something before jumping to conclusions?

They have done several around the globe stating basicly the same thing you did.

Here is a link to some studies: www.apa.org...


I'll warn you know that if you go in search of such information out side of the US things can get complicated, read carefully. While studying this topic I realized in several countries people confuse their documentation about homosexuality often thinking they refer to it as a disease when they are really talking about a mental disorder label used in other countries to define those who deny their sexuality.



[edit on 21-7-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]


reply posted on 21-7-2008 @ 01:23 PM by djerwulfe
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage



????????????
These studies aren't the final say.
But representative of the mainstream academic/science community view on the subject.
There was no digging to fit my "theory." They were the first two results of a google search.
You need to understand population genetics. Then this isn't a question, really. I made no value call. All I did was echo the middle-of-the-road science on the subject.
If a trait exists, there must be a reason for it.
And you won't waste my time again.
Pages: <<  11    12    13    14  >>    ^^TOP^^