I am agreeing with their conclusion. At least, until I'm given a good reason to beleive otherwise. YOU are the one who doesn't want to belevie their own reference. What is said in that reference - in black and white.
This is big irony. This is your OWN reference. And yet you don't actually beleive what it says!! And then, when that isn't enough, you accuse me of 'bashing' it, when I was doing anything but. I was defending it - against YOU.
It is not against me at all as I too agree with their conclusion and I have never said otherwise. You problem remains.
What this means is that homosexuality is neither genetic nor inborn if some genetic or inborn factor must be in combination with other factors.
Yes. We are born with a predisposition, but it can be altered due to social and physiological factors. (Prison, abuse, 'reorientation therapies').
Now - again - exactly who are you talking to?!
My data was to show that any biological roots of homsoexuality are shown to be more about conditions in the womb than genetics.
If you think I was saying anything else, this is yet another example of your reading deficiency.
Not my problem.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Sep 28, 2007 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What this means is that homosexuality is neither genetic nor inborn if some genetic or inborn factor must be in combination with other factors.
Emphasis added. So we've moved on from dismissing explanations that employ the word "may" and now are offering explanations that contain the word "probably"? If they used "probably" instead of "may", does it mean that there is somehow more evidence supporting their explanation?
bcspace wrote:It is not against me at all as I too agree with their conclusion and I have never said otherwise. You problem remains.
No. You do not beleive their conclusions.
They are talking about an 'actual' rate. Not a rate that needs to be 'offset' by the seperate detail of whether they are often reported or not. They don't specify it, therefore you need to make that part up to support your bigoted views.
A key problem identified by the authors is that the traditional model of domestic abuse involving a male and a female, in which the overwhelming majority of those experiencing abuse are female, hinders people in a same sex relationship from understanding that they may also be experiencing abuse. They add that a lack of awareness and appropriate training among police, GPs and agencies in turn hinders them from responding in an appropriate way although some individuals within them may respond sympathetically.
What precisely is your point in repeating this ad nauseam? You have upped the ante and it is now clear that you do lousy research even for an amateur and cite sources that state directly the opposite of what you think they do. And still somehow maintain your conviction that everyone but you has "no science".
What other glorious things are you hoping to achieve by upping the ante again?
This study contributed to the data about same-sex relationship violence with a large sample (n = 499) of ethnically diverse gay men, lesbians, and bisexual and transgendered people. Physical violence was reported in 9% of current and 32% of past relationships. One percent of participants had experienced forced sex in their current relationship. Nine percent reported this experience in past relationships. Emotional abuse was reported by 83% of the participants. Women reported higher frequencies than men for physical abuse, coercion, shame, threats, and use of children for control. Across types of abuse, ethnic differences emerged regarding physical abuse and coercion. Differences across age groups were found regarding coercion, shame, and use of children as tools. Higher income was correlated with increased threats, stalking, sexual, physical, and financial abuses. Preliminary patterns of same-sex relationship abuses were examined for bisexual and transgendered people.
Susan C. Turell, A Descriptive Analysis of Same-Sex Relationship Violence for a Diverse Sample , Journal of Family Violence, Volume 15, Number 3 / September, 2000
What precisely is your point in repeating this ad nauseam? You have upped the ante and it is now clear that you do lousy research even for an amateur and cite sources that state directly the opposite of what you think they do. And still somehow maintain your conviction that everyone but you has "no science".
What other glorious things are you hoping to achieve by upping the ante again?
The fact remains that homosexuality is a very risky lifestyle choice. None of you could adequately address the minor references I gave, you've yet to provide any science countering the scientific references I gave. The homosexual lobby has no compelling reasons to be legitimized in law and nothing to stand on.