Tim Hardaway and his love of gays

[midnight Target]

Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers
52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

If genetics doesn't have anything to do with it, how would you explain the huge difference between fraternal and identical twins in this study.

All you can really say is that genetics doesn't account for everything. You certainly can't support the argument that it accounts for nothing.

I also wonder about folks who admit that gays are likely born that way yet they still insist that the "lifestyle" was chosen. LOL.

[BTW]

Originally posted by lazs2
btw.. LOL...  ok.. so now you say that dna may not be all there is to a persons genetics... something had to make em have different fingerprints.   different skin pigmentation.. you agree that there are slight differences in twins?

I am saying that you can't prove that being a homo isn't genetic.   You/we don't know enough.   You are welcome to your theory.   I am not even sure that we are able to find slight differences in dna at this point.

shaky... you are talking about political agendas not a sexual preference.  Gays do not threaten me... the agendas of some gay groups do.  Womanly democrat socialists threaten me more tho.

lazs

This from my 2-17 post

Genetically, identical twins are er... identical. They have the exact same DNA. So, genetically they are identical human beings. (BTW, although identical twins have identical DNA, they have different finger prints! Its a phenotype trait)

Identical twins are genetically identical. Either you really don't get it or you are  foolishly trying to misrepresent what I've stated. What I've stated is on the board for anyone to read. The fact that you have not once quoted where I *supposedly* stated DNA was all there was to an individual makes it pretty clear you've resorted to misrepresentation in lieu of an actual argument.

This is alos from my 2-17 post

I don't know what a force of nature is in this context ( all these forces are natural), but as I stated above, I believe sexual orientation is established in a complex process of genetics, chemistry and environment.

As for as changing an individuals orientation, I don't think we're even close to that. We're not even sure what happens to create a specific orientation, let alone change it or if it can be changed (e.g., can you unring a bell?)

When people stand up and arrogantly proclaim they know the reason for sexual orientation, you can bet its politically biased. We don't have the science- not even close.

I never stated DNA was all there was to an individual, so I am not changing any claim. My claims are EXACTLY what they were on 2-17.  Either your comprehension is extremely poor or you have no intelligent argument. I really hope its the former, as the latter implies a juvenile need to right even after being slapped in the face with cold facts.

[BTW]

Originally posted by midnight Target
If genetics doesn't have anything to do with it, how would you explain the huge difference between fraternal and identical twins in this study.

All you can really say is that genetics doesn't account for everything. You certainly can't support the argument that it accounts for nothing.

I also wonder about folks who admit that gays are likely born that way yet they still insist that the "lifestyle" was chosen. LOL.

Quote the person or post that states genetics accounts for nothing in sexual orientation. Now I can quote a couple of post thats state behavior has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Here's one

Homosexuality is not a "behavior". It is part of what a person is and is no different than eye color or skin color or using your left hand to write.

Here's another

the fact that you are are or are not a homo is not behavior... what you do with it is...

Both of these statements are FALSE. Denying the behavioral aspect of sexuality is just as wrong as denying the genetic and chemical aspects of sexuality.

I keep hearing of this phantom person who claims genetics have nothing to do with sexuality. Please do quote that post or posts. I've quoted the contrary.

[lazs2]

Ok... now I get it..  You are saying that you don't know anything about it?

I am saying that perhaps we don't know everything there is to know about DNA..   I am saying that is sure appears that genetics play a role in homosexuality and that what a homo does about it is.... behavior.

I don't know what about that you don't understand.

So spit it out...  do you or do you not think that people are born homosexuals?

lazs

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by midnight Target
If genetics doesn't have anything to do with it, how would you explain the huge difference between fraternal and identical twins in this study.

All you can really say is that genetics doesn't account for everything. You certainly can't support the argument that it accounts for nothing.

I also wonder about folks who admit that gays are likely born that way yet they still insist that the "lifestyle" was chosen. LOL.

Thats very interesting, and sure to be ignored.

[Kieran]

I gotcha Lazs, and I agree.

[BTW]

It must be "natural forces"

[midnight Target]

Sooooo...

You are only hetero if you have sex with women?

Are you sure about that?


Cause I'd bet there are a lot of alt monkeys in here who wouldn't qualify.

[BTW]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Sooooo...

You are only hetero if you have sex with women?

Are you sure about that?


Cause I'd bet there are a lot of alt monkeys in here who wouldn't qualify.

No. That's behavior in a vary narrow context - a sex act. And please, QUOTE me if you intend to attribute it to something I said.

Children learn behaviors from others as infants and as they grow. Children further develop through their behavior and how their behavior interacts with others. Human behavior is  the environment. Its not the smog that's shaping the sexuality. In the scientific consensus that genetics, chemistry, and environment contribute to an individuals sexuality, environment is a behavioral environment, not a physical environment

And I am sure about that.

[eskimo2]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Sooooo...

You are only hetero if you have sex with women?

Are you sure about that?


Cause I'd bet there are a lot of alt monkeys in here who wouldn't qualify.

And to top it off, many homos get married and conceive children.  I’ve heard countless stories of married men who have “come out”.

[wulfie]

If I were Hardaway...

I'd tape myself getting naked and slippery and sinful with a pair of smoking-hot lesbians.

I would then release the tape to the public as proof that I now had a newfound appreciation for homosexuality, and would repeat said behavior on a nightly basis to ensure that I gained an even greater understanding of the beauties of (2 smoking hot chicks showing their) homosexuality.

Lazs, do you know how to operate a high-end video camera?

I'm sure I can count on Funked as director, and the FDBs as writers.

Now all I have to do is figure out how to be a professional basketball player.

[Thrawn]

George Takei responds...


http://youtube.com/watch?v=-me8KUtXIWo&mode=related&search=

[Flatbar]

Originally posted by Thrawn
George Takei responds...


http://youtube.com/watch?v=-me8KUtXIWo&mode=related&search=

Very good response!!!!

[lazs2]

you probly are a homo if you can't appreciate hot lesbian sex.

BTW...  you never answered.  Do you believe that people are born homosexual or not?  Are we born heterosexual or not?

What gene tells us men to like women?  what part of our dna?   Is is just brainwashing from our parents?

lazs

[BTW]

I guess the 19000 posts should have tipped me off.
Sorry Laz, but obviously you can't understand my point. I don't feel compelled to help you, because I think you are trolling. Have fun.