Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: »Real Spamtopic
Well, some think sexual preference can change at an early age, after being born. That's the third option. I think this is as strange as thinking it is a choice.
In fact, children of homosexuals parents should be most likely the first to change sexual preference because they grow up with those parents. Study has shown that this is absolutely not the case, almost all of these kids are heterosexuals and a few homosexuals, just as with non-homosexual parents.
But indeed, it is something personal. It's not up to others who we love :)
(edited)
In fact, children of homosexuals parents should be most likely the first to change sexual preference because they grow up with those parents. Study has shown that this is absolutely not the case, almost all of these kids are heterosexuals and a few homosexuals, just as with non-homosexual parents.
But indeed, it is something personal. It's not up to others who we love :)
(edited)
As for homophobia: pretty much nonsense. The ones being intolerant are rather homosexual activists...
I don't care what they do, as long they do it in private with no children involved.
I think it depends on where you live.
edit: and I disagree about children.
(edited)
I didn't say it's genetic or acquired. Both would seem logical.
Though personally I tend to go for genetically embedded, but social environment has an influence on whether or when it's clear to the person in question.
Though personally I tend to go for genetically embedded, but social environment has an influence on whether or when it's clear to the person in question.
Nope, all the hypothesis that came afterwards were based on that failed experiment and Money's conclusions... Free to you to ignore that, but that rather diminishes the scientific value of your own conclusion.
afaik John Money based his "theory" on that experiment. On the other hand, you can't call that experiment "scientific". His conclusions were simply false, he began the experiment without any advice of possible success (just the postulate that gender was acquired, which he falsely saw as proven after the experiment).
As I stated before, it was still called "gender theory" a few years ago (neither studies, nor hypothesis).
afaik John Money based his "theory" on that experiment. On the other hand, you can't call that experiment "scientific". His conclusions were simply false, he began the experiment without any advice of possible success (just the postulate that gender was acquired, which he falsely saw as proven after the experiment).
As I stated before, it was still called "gender theory" a few years ago (neither studies, nor hypothesis).
so you're for pedophilia? That what I meant with "with no children involved".
Believe whatever you want, it's fine by me. Apart from the science evidence, the people that I know told me their live experiences and based on that I know more then enough. What these homosexuals told me is way more valuable as your opinion and cherry picking argument. And as you told already, 'very stubborn'.
Besides, I have no idea what your background is and your honest opinion about homosexuality, without that it makes it even harder to have an open discussion because of the unknown factors. A common problem with internet discussions, so also on Sokker.
Now I'm finished, spend already way more time on this subject as I wanted in the first place.
EDIT: and when the pedophilia, polygamy and bestiality comments start it is time for everyone to quit the discussion :/
(edited)
Besides, I have no idea what your background is and your honest opinion about homosexuality, without that it makes it even harder to have an open discussion because of the unknown factors. A common problem with internet discussions, so also on Sokker.
Now I'm finished, spend already way more time on this subject as I wanted in the first place.
EDIT: and when the pedophilia, polygamy and bestiality comments start it is time for everyone to quit the discussion :/
(edited)
so you're for pedophilia? That what I meant with "with no children involved".
:O
no.. I was thinking about adoption! :D
:O
no.. I was thinking about adoption! :D
it is time for everyone to quit the discussion
why everybody?
talk for yourself.
why everybody?
talk for yourself.
33 Another parable He spoke to them: “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures[c] of meal till it was all leavened.”
i believe it's about christian, muslim and jew, one kingdom but can be all kingdoms
i believe it's about christian, muslim and jew, one kingdom but can be all kingdoms
You haven't read it yourself, at the most some fragments. You are as christian as you are a Buddhist.
Or in other words: people don't have drivers licenses because they knew what a car is.
Or in other words: people don't have drivers licenses because they knew what a car is.
i can see only the law, most important is love for God and neighbour..but it's hard to love you if you don't want love and i understand this
You are the lonely one without anyone to love, as you told yourself on the forum plenty of times. I know what love is, I love my girlfriend.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
You have no idea what you are talking about.