Putin propagates hateful gay stereotype

"Hypotheses" which "may confer" and "results suggested" are not conclusive. And sexual behavior is not the same as orientation.

Have you even read those papers? If you have, did you miss the scientifically responsible qualifications?

[150]Nongenetic alternative explanations cannot be ruled out.
For example, a homosexual twin could create social
pressure on the other twin to act in a more heterosexual
way and to acquire or declare more partners than they
would otherwise, or growing up with a homosexual twin
could provide an individual with a privileged insight into
the sexuality of the opposite sex, and hence a mating
advantage. However, it is difficult to see how such effects
would explain the genetic correlations between traits as
revealed in our genetic modelling.
Other limitations result from limited statistical power;
although our total sample is large, only a small proportion
(13% of men, 11% of women) reported a nonheterosexual
orientation, and a much smaller proportion (2.2% of men,
0.6% of women) reported an exclusively homosexual
orientation. This afforded limited power to detect any sex
differences that might have been expected in the genetic
influence on sexual orientation and prevented reasonable
statistical tests involving the exclusive homosexuality
phenotype - http://www.matthewckeller.com/Zietsch_HomosexualityEvolution_2008.pdf

[151]The genetic one is not, however, the only explanation for sexual orientation variety; other physiological and environmental effects contribute. As in most aspects of human nature, the behavior phenotype of homosexual orientation should be the result of the interaction of innate factors and experience before and during the lifetime. - http://faculty.bennington.edu/~sherman/sex/homo2009.pdf

[152]We mainly focus on same-sex behavior per se, without
inferring anything about the sexual preference or orien-
tation of individuals engaging in the behavior. Sexual
behavior, sexual preference and sexual orientation are
distinct but often conflated concepts (seeGlossary). Con-
fusion among them can undermine the clarity and accurate
interpretation of scientific research, so here we emphasize
that same-sex sexual behaviors are interactions between
same-sex individuals that also occur between opposite-sex
individuals in the context of reproduction. For example,
many Drosophila studies examine genetic mutations that
affect pheromone receptors (Box 1). Sex-specific phero-
mones and their accurate detection are crucial for sex
recognition in fruit flies, and alterations in sex-recognition
pathways can produce males that court other males,
females that court females, or males that switch from
same-sex to opposite-sex courtship within minutes
[4–13]. In other words, the mutations cause same-sex sexual
behavior. However, this behavior often occurs alongside
opposite-sex courtship as well, with males mating indis-
criminately [8,10,11]. So although they show same-sex
sexual behavior, males might not actually be exhibiting
a preference for one sex over the other (seeBox 1).
Individuals exhibiting a same-sex preference choose to
engage in sexual behavior with a member of the same sex,
when given the option of engaging in sexual behavior with
an opposite-sex individual. Preference implies that the
animal has made a choice. Examples of same-sex prefer-
ences in non-human animals are far more rare than
examples of same-sex behavior. - http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~mzuk/Bailey and Zuk 2009 Same sex behaviour.pdf​

What, so science of the gaps is reasonable when you use it to infer that a solely biological basis for homosexuality is guaranteed, but suddenly verboten when there are already FDA approved drugs that are thought to effect epigenetic changes? Epigenetics is not solely alterable in utero.

What were you saying about choice?

Women also limit who they divulge their sexual identities to, and more often see being lesbian as a choice, as opposed to gay men, who work more externally and see being gay as outside their control. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian#Mental​

Who ever said one did?

More not so subtle insult.

Again, "I asked if you thought it was acceptable, not whether you did it." Can you not read plain English?

And you are simply projecting your obvious intimations that I am a pedophile or homosexual onto me, where I have done no such thing. As I explained to MR, ? denotes a question, not an assertion or accusation.

But I will take all this pseudo-righteous evasion as an indication that you, in fact, cannot clearly define the line where sexual behavior becomes inappropriate in front of children. I have no doubt that the question does offend you, as I would be offended as well to find out that I could not readily define such a simple ethical line.

So I can only infer from that that you see nothing wrong with simulating sex in front of children. So we are that much closer to knowing where you would draw the line. And again, I asked if you thought it was acceptable, not whether you did it.

Never happened. You are empirically and demonstrably delusional. Seek help, or just quit your intention trolling with this completely fabricated straw man of yours.

IOW, quit fucking lying.

What, the version you made up? You are the one who made a simple question insulting by twisting what was ACTUALLY ask.

Quit fucking lying.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Most, if not all, of those are inappropriate for children.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Definitely better than any hypothesis or results you have suggested with your crackpot family environment myth. And the quote WAS talking about homosexuality as an orientation and a predisposition. You really should read more carefully the Wiki articles you cherry pick your ignorant bullshit from. Here it is again:

"They hypothesized that "while genes predisposing to homosexuality reduce homosexuals' reproductive success, they may confer some advantage in heterosexuals who carry them". Their results suggested that "genes predisposing to homosexuality may confer a mating advantage in heterosexuals, which could help explain the evolution and maintenance of homosexuality in the population".[150] A 2009 study also suggested a significant increase in fecundity in the females related to the homosexual people from the maternal line (but not in those related from the paternal one).[151]

I didn't need to. I read their conclusions in the Wiki paragraph you conveniently left out hoping to establish a conclusion opposite from the one the studies came to.

And as for your new theory that sexual behavior doesn't arise out of sexual orientation but happens for animals out of some kind of moment of free preferenceless choice, I won't even dignify that with a polemical response. Except maybe for this one: LMAO!

Tell us then what FDA drugs exist now that can epigenetically change a person's sexual orientation. That IS the basis for your assertion that epigenetics now makes sexual orientation a matter of choice isn't it?

Do you have anything other than the self-reports of some late coming out lesbians showing sexual orientation is a matter of choice? Perhaps your own personal experience of one day deciding to be attracted to women instead of men? lol!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Get this everyone. When Syne asks you if you think simulated sex in front of or with children is acceptable, he's not actually asking you if you'd do it. As if a person could possibly view it as morally acceptable for others but not for oneself. And so goes the skillful art of backpeddling to cover your own ass...

 

Syne : chalk it up as yet another information assimilation issue with bells.
:shrug:

 

I simply noted the inadequacy of your premise in regards to the behavioral contributions and detriments of the aforementioned constituents of humanity. It’s an obvious scientific fact that heterosexuals can decimate and homosexuals can procreate.

What specifically about depictions of sexual behavior is more damaging to the psyches of children than other depictions of adult behavior?

 

Good post Bells. You thoroughly confirm the violent effects of this ongoing attempt by homophobes to link gay people to pedophilia. I wonder if Syne would object to children being exposed to gay protesters being bashed with rocks and pummeled with fists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM8qeSVTOMU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Znp8kTGyRx0

And I had forgotten about Syne's out of the blue accusation against me of being a child abuser because of my gay "lifestyle". I guess I'm supposed to be one of those exhibitionists at gay parades he always posts pics of. It was in a thread where we weren't even talking about homosexuality, and yet suddenly Syne personally attacks my orientation just to get the upper hand in a debate. I reported his tactics along with more insults he hurled at me, at which point he attempted to ban me for a week. Thankfully Tiassa intervened and let me back in. But it makes me wonder if being a bigot is really suitable to the task of being a good moderator. Time will tell I guess..

 

In the OP Putin was quoted as stating :

I did not read, in the OP, nor in the article Linked in the OP, that Putin stated anything along the lines of pedophile homosexuals or homosexual pedophiles.

Putin seems, to me at least, to be referring to homosexuality and pedophilia as two separate types of :

I myself neither detected, nor perceived any :

 

This message is hidden because dumbest man on earth is on your ignore list.


View Post.


Remove user from ignore list

 

Lol. Cherry-pick? Oh, you mean like relying on a brief wiki quote in lieu of the actual papers? You really should read more carefully the actual papers.

Of course. Your bias would be far too threatened to read the actual papers quoted on a wiki page. Funny how you insist on using quotes you have not studied and refuting quotes from those exact same sources.

Not my theory, a direct quote from the same papers you are cherry-picking through brief wiki quotes.

Never said there was one, but if homosexuality is epigenetic, and since we do have some epigenetic-altering drugs already, it is not a huge leap to assume we may have a pharmaceutical choice in the no so distant future. Where did you read any implication that we had such a thing currently? Oh right, the same delusional reading Bells suffers from.

Or we could take a page from Bells' playbook and simply abort fetuses we find have this epigenetic "defect". I mean people who have children might want legit grandchildren, right? According to Bells, fetuses deserve no right to life, much less a right to any choice.

All data on personal sense of choice in the matter is self-reported.

Delusional lies. Never said "with children". Bells considers herself pro-life in her personal choices but advocates pro-choice for others, so it seems she could find one thing generally acceptable while not finding it personally so. Exactly what you are, here, being incredulous about.

Delusional. Not only have I never implied that homosexuality was a simple choice, I have actually said it is likely a complex interaction between environment, experience, and possibly inherent factors.

Why is that question so incredibly difficult for you to answer? And why would you find it insulting? The only reason I can fathom for you to infer insult would be because you do find it acceptable and that you think such an admission would weaken your arguments.

So you are forced to throw up a smoke screen of thinly-veiled insult.

Also, I did not ask "if they find it acceptable to simulate sex in front of children", I asked "So simulated sex in front of your children is perfectly acceptable". I wonder if you can even tell the difference. Hint, the latter does not assume the person being questioned has anything to do with the simulated sex.

What you do not seem capable of comprehending is that this question has nothing to do with pedophilia, just indecency in general. Here, let us see if you can manage to answer this question.

Do you find Miley Cyrus rubbing her ass on Robin Thick's crotch appropriate for children to watch?

Maybe disassociating it from homosexuality will finally manage to short-circuit your hysterical pedophilia obsession/paranoia.

I am talking about indecency in general. You are the one who keeps making this about "homosexuals corrupting children".

And you have STILL yet to define the line you claim readily capable of defining. Maybe if we could get SOME sense of what you think is indecent, we could actually have some semblance of a productive discussion.

Maybe you allow your children to watch television without restriction. I have no idea, hence asking a question to ascertain.

Obviously, and MR as well.

Ask parents of pregnant teens. Sex has repercussions, including the possibility for STDs. While most normal and public adult behavior does not have as serious of consequences, sexual behavior is not the only potential ethical lessons.

Another delusional lie.

 

Hey you're the one that had to scan and cherry pick the actual papers for lone statements suggesting conclusions opposite from those cited. I'm totally satisfied with the real conclusions as stated:

"There is considerable evidence that human sexual orientation is genetically influenced, so it is not known how homosexuality, which tends
to lower reproductive success, is maintained in the population at a relatively high frequency. One hypothesis proposes that while genes
predisposing to homosexuality reduce homosexuals' reproductive success, they may confer some advantage in heterosexuals who carry them.
However, it is not clear what such an advantage may be. To investigate this, we examine a data set where a large community-based twin
sample (N=4904) anonymously completed a detailed questionnaire examining sexual behaviors and attitudes. We show that psychologically
masculine females and feminine men are (a) more likely to be nonheterosexual but (b), when heterosexual, have more opposite-sex sexual
partners. With statistical modelling of the twin data, we show that both these relationships are partly due to pleiotropic genetic influences
common to each trait. We also find a trend for heterosexuals with a nonheterosexual twin to have more opposite-sex partners than do
heterosexual twin pairs. Taken together, these results suggest that genes predisposing to homosexuality may confer a mating advantage in
heterosexuals, which could help explain the evolution and maintenance of homosexuality in the population."

"There is a long-standing debate on the role of genetic factors influencing homosexuality because the presence of these factors contradicts the Darwinian prediction according to which natural selection should progressively eliminate the factors that reduce individual fecundity and fitness. Recently, however, Camperio Ciani, Corna, and Capiluppi (Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 271, 2217-2221, 2004), comparing the family trees of homosexuals with heterosexuals, reported a significant increase in fecundity in the females related to the homosexual probands from the maternal line but not in those related from the paternal one. This suggested that genetic factors that are partly linked to the X-chromosome and that influence homosexual orientation in males are not selected against because they increase fecundity in female carriers, thus offering a solution to the Darwinian paradox and an explanation of why natural selection does not progressively eliminate homosexuals. Since then, new data have emerged suggesting not only an increase in maternal fecundity but also larger paternal family sizes for homosexuals. These results are partly conflicting and indicate the need for a replication on a wider sample with a larger geographic distribution. This study examined the family trees of 250 male probands, of which 152 were homosexuals. The results confirmed the study of Camperio Ciani et al. (2004). We observed a significant fecundity increase even in primiparous mothers, which was not evident in the previous study. No evidence of increased paternal fecundity was found; thus, our data confirmed a sexually antagonistic inheritance partly linked to the X-chromosome that promotes fecundity in females and a homosexual sexual orientation in males."

But then again that has nothing to do with homosexuality being a choice now does it? Why you even mention epigenetics, which in fact proves homosexuality is biological and NOT a choice, was stupid to begin with. Unless you think any sentence with the word choice in it somehow mysteriously confirms your ludicrous and baseless claim that it is a matter of choice. Let's read that paragraph again that you seem to always forget:

"There is no consensus among scientists about why a person develops a particular sexual orientation; however, biologically-based theories for the cause of sexual orientation are favored by experts, which point to genetic factors, the early uterine environment, or both in combination. There is no substantive evidence which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role when it comes to sexual orientation; when it comes to same-sex sexual behavior, shared or familial environment plays no role for men and minor role for women. While some hold the view that homosexual activity is unnatural, research has shown that homosexuality is an example of a normal and natural variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects. Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation."---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

So why did you quote it if you weren't citing it as something you agree with. Are you in the habit of cherry-picking quotes you DON'T agree with?

Yes you did:

''So simulated sex in front of your children is perfectly acceptable? Where do you draw the line? What about simulated sex with someone who appears underage?''

So once again you're implying pedophilia not only for people who participate in gay parades but for anyone who even supports gay parades like me and Bells.

 

Bullshit it doesn't. You're insinuating anyone who even just supports gay parades would engage in simulated sex with underage minors. Why would someone engage in simulated sex with minors if they weren't expressing a desire to have sex with those minors?

Ofcourse this is a pattern for you. Like when you asked if I was an aspie and I took offence at such a question and refused to even dignify it with a response which you then took as evidence that I WAS an aspie. IOW, you insult people by insinuating they are a certain way, and then feign surprise when they are offended by it. THEN you re-insult them by claiming their refusal to justify your insulting question with an answer as evidence they ARE that way. You are one piece of work aren't you?

No you weren't. You posted the gay parade pics right after I posted the OP about Putin telling gays to "leave the children alone." That isn't indecency in general. That is direct support for Putin's claim that gay people are a threat to children. You were making a statement about gay people. Quit lying to cover your ass..

 

Do you two even know what you're arguing about any more?

 

Try reading the entire posts instead of randomly snipped phrases from them.

 

From what I have come to understand of the new law in Russia, is that it targets Homosexual and Pedophile propaganda towards children. The new law, it seems, will punish, by fine, speaking openly about Homosexuals and Pedophiles while among young people or the use of propaganda about Homosexuality and Pedophilia directed towards young people.

If the law that is being discussed was instead about Robbery and Murder propaganda, would we see Threads Titled : "Putin propagates hateful Robber stereotype" - or : "Putin propagates hateful Murderer stereotype" ?!

Would indeed there be any Threads//discussions/arguments about whether or not Robbers being stereotyped as Murderers was wrong?

Would indeed there be any Threads//discussions/arguments about whether or not Murderers being stereotyped as Robbers was wrong?

Just because a Journalist prefers to intentionally link the Two Separate Items : Homosexuality and Pedophilia, whether to sell more Media Product or to advance some agenda to paint Putin or Russia in a bad light, does not mean that that "journalistic link" must be accepted as fact.

*** NOTE I have not been able to access or view "the new law" that is referenced, nor do I presuppose that I would be able to fully agree or disagree with it. It just seems, to me at least, that a lot of "jumping to conclusions" have been utilized in the thought processes of many of the Pundits that have spoken on "the new law". NOTE ***

 

Not much better. Reading the whole posts reveals that you claim that he said that you think that he said that he claimed that homosexuals weren't . . . something. Any original meaning has long been lost in your exchange of personal attacks.

 

Get a clue. You just tried to link homosexuality with robbery and murder while Putin links homosexuality with pedophilia. Both of you are intellectually dishonest cretins.

 

I can't be held accountable for your lack of reading comprehension. If I could draw a diagram here I would. But I'm pretty sure that wouldn't help you either. Guess you should stick to simpler threads..