carefreewannabe:
You can choose to read this article selectively and even call it sensationalist but geneticists have found similarities in the genetical make-up of gay people, which means that they have more evidence than you have for your statements. Scientific evidence. Not sentiments.

Exactly - similarities in the genetic make-up of "gay people", but those things deemed similarities are also found in non-gay people, so it's not proving anything - and like they strained to say, it's at best suggestive, not conclusive.

Her's the same study from an entirely different perspective - http://www.christiantoday.com/article/research.points.to.genetic.element.in.homosexuality/35856.htm#!
You are the one choosing to read what you want into it.

And you still refuse to answer the question Why?


Orientation which differs from functionality is innate and fixed. But "gender" which is innate & fixed can be fluid?
It's all ideological and you well know it


TV

TV01:

Carefree, I can't scientifically disprove what hasn't been scientifically proven?
No reputable scientist has, can (or even will)make the claim that homosexuality is biologically determined. Despite lots of funds and effort being spent to prove it, no proof!

It's like asking me to prove that Paedophilia is not genetic?


TV

If genes are not at play then genes are also not at play in hetereosexuality. It could possibly well be just our environment that influences our sexual orientation.

Actually in regards to paedophilia, I am not talking about those who in their culture can marry a girl once they have started their period but those who are actually just attracted to minors. There has been scientific research done on them. There is a difference in their brains to a normal healthy adult. The side of the brain which registers sexual response is triggered by pictures of children. There is a cross wiring between the sexual response part of the brain and the parental and nuturing part. There is a huge difference in the white matter of a paedophile to that of a typical adult male. Also paedophiles have a lower iq than average.

TV01:

Exactly - similarities in the genetic make-up of "gay people", but those things deemed similarities are also found in non-gay people, so it's not proving anything - and like they strained to say, it's at best suggestive, not conclusive.

Her's the same study from an entirely different perspective - http://www.christiantoday.com/article/research.points.to.genetic.element.in.homosexuality/35856.htm#!
You are the one choosing to read what you want into it.

And you still refuse to answer the question Why?


Orientation which differs from functionality is innate and fixed. But "gender" which is innate & fixed can be fluid?
It's all ideological and you well know it


TV

Please spare me with "Christianity today" sources.
If you want to provide evidence, then leave religion out of it.
I am talking about facts here and not religious sentiments.

Here you go:

After 37 Years of Trying to Change People’s Sexual Orientation, Group Is to Disband

IRVINE, Calif. — For 37 years, Exodus International was the leading beacon of the “ex gay” movement, which maintained that gay men and lesbians could change their sexual orientation through prayer and psychotherapy.

But on the opening night of the group’s 38th annual conference here, Exodus International announced that the organization would disband, amid growing skepticism among its top officials and board members that sexual attractions can be changed.

For the past year, the group’s president, Alan Chambers, has been increasingly vocal in proclaiming that therapy could not change a person’s sexual orientation. In a statement posted Wednesday on the group’s Web site, he cited a recent letter he had written to gay men and lesbians.

“I am sorry for the pain and hurt many of you have experienced,” he said in the letter. “I am sorry that some of you spent years working through the shame and guilt you felt when your attractions didn’t change. I am sorry we promoted sexual orientation change efforts and reparative theories about sexual orientation that stigmatized parents.”

In an interview on Thursday on the campus of Concordia University Irvine, Mr. Chambers said that he believed Exodus International had helped many Christians with same-sex attractions, including himself. But, he added: “Any good we could do in the future would be greatly overshadowed by the real stories of trauma and real stories of shame. So we decided, we can’t do anything but close this down. We can’t just change our name or change our mission.”

The closing of Exodus International signals a major upheaval for the ex-gay movement, which has been the target of increasing criticism.

Professional associations have denounced its focus on reparative therapy to “cure” homosexuality as not only ineffective but potentially harmful. At the same time, polls have shown a rising number of Americans are more accepting of homosexuality and approving of gay marriage. Last year, California banned gay conversion therapies for minors, although a legal challenge is pending.

(...)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/us/group-that-promoted-curing-gays-ceases-operations.html


Which question?

kandiikane:
If she has initially been the primary caregiver before the divorce....It doesn't necessarily have to be the birth mother. For example, If the father has been the primary care giver at a tender age breaking that bond at that period can cause issues for them as they grow up. If more fathers become the primary caregivers then it is unlikely the courts with assign the child to their mother especially at such an age unless of course they are unfit parents.

How likely is it that fathers are the primary caregivers and who would actually think that is the best thing?

kandiikane:
There are many cases in which fathers do take full custody of the child but again the phrase here is "best interest". This isn't the battle of the sexes, I am certain if more men take on the role of primary caregiver then more kids under the age of 6 will be with them.

Men being the primary caregiver can rarely be what's best - before any question of divorce. Where they are, it's usuall an economic, not care based decision. And it's rarely what happens in practiceThis is the crux, it's not the battle of the sexes, but the way cases are decided are weighted in favour of the woman gaining custody. I haven't even said that's always a bad thing.

kandiikane:
I don't know where you got your 10% from but majority of the time, custody issues are settled outside of court and majority of the time it is the father who allows the child to be with the mother. Those who want full custody and cannot agree with the arrangements outside are the ones who go to court.

And where did you get your "majority of the time cases are settled out of court" from?

kandiikane:
It is not untrue. I never said men didn't fight for custody, I said men do not fight as much as women because majority of the time when it is settled outside, the father allows the woman custody.

Men don't fight as much because most times it just costs them money and it won't go their way. It's standard advice.

kandiikane:
The % you see are those settled outside of course by the parents. In the uk it is only in rare cases do the parent go to court for custody. Just because you are a mother doesn't mean you will get custody, it's about who is the primary caregiver and who has the most time on their hands. I remember reading an newspaper article in which a lady worked and the man stayed at home to look after the children and he was given full custody and the woman paid money to the ex-husband. Before anyone could say anything, he cheated and still got custody and child support, i guess the courts arent as biased as many might think. Whether he cheated or not, he was more fit to take care of the children. Things are changing especially in England and parents are being encouraged to have equal responsibilities. It doesn't make sense to break away the child from the one who is always with them and give it to the other who only spends time with them between 6-9pm and sometimes weekend.

All covered I believe.

kandiikane:
I believe everyone should go sit and observe a court hearing when they have time. That is where all the facts are laid out, not the news papers. Even read case summaries instead of making judgements off the top of your head. Know the law.

I'm talking from experience and what I said about "sitting" previously still stands

kandiikane:
This statement is untrue and it is only your opinion.

Nope, it's only your assertion about my opinion.

In all, I don't agree with your implication that custody issues are settled in a totally unbiased fashion.

And even where fathers don't fight for custody, it's not that they don't want as much access as possible, which they often don't get, even if court granted, and the same courts can't help. Hence fathers4justice type campaaigns.

And I've seen it live. Mothers can play all sorts of games to frustrate fathers seeing their children - even contravening court orders. The courts however are reluctant ot enforce them as it means the best interests of the child are compromised.



TV

carefreewannabe:

Please spare me with "Christianity today" sources.
If you want to provide evidence, then leave religion out of it.
I am talking about facts here and not religious sentiments.

Here you go:

After 37 Years of Trying to Change People’s Sexual Orientation, Group Is to Disband

IRVINE, Calif. — For 37 years, Exodus International was the leading beacon of the “ex gay” movement, which maintained that gay men and lesbians could change their sexual orientation through prayer and psychotherapy.

But on the opening night of the group’s 38th annual conference here, Exodus International announced that the organization would disband, amid growing skepticism among its top officials and board members that sexual attractions can be changed.

For the past year, the group’s president, Alan Chambers, has been increasingly vocal in proclaiming that therapy could not change a person’s sexual orientation. In a statement posted Wednesday on the group’s Web site, he cited a recent letter he had written to gay men and lesbians.

“I am sorry for the pain and hurt many of you have experienced,” he said in the letter. “I am sorry that some of you spent years working through the shame and guilt you felt when your attractions didn’t change. I am sorry we promoted sexual orientation change efforts and reparative theories about sexual orientation that stigmatized parents.”

In an interview on Thursday on the campus of Concordia University Irvine, Mr. Chambers said that he believed Exodus International had helped many Christians with same-sex attractions, including himself. But, he added: “Any good we could do in the future would be greatly overshadowed by the real stories of trauma and real stories of shame. So we decided, we can’t do anything but close this down. We can’t just change our name or change our mission.”

The closing of Exodus International signals a major upheaval for the ex-gay movement, which has been the target of increasing criticism.

Professional associations have denounced its focus on reparative therapy to “cure” homosexuality as not only ineffective but potentially harmful. At the same time, polls have shown a rising number of Americans are more accepting of homosexuality and approving of gay marriage. Last year, California banned gay conversion therapies for minors, although a legal challenge is pending.

(...)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/us/group-that-promoted-curing-gays-ceases-operations.html


Which question?

I have presented evidence of people who have come out of a homosexual lifestyle - repeatedly. And shown where someone has clearly stated that she chose it. And I can;t show a Christian review of the same article you presented?

Question 1
since humans are designed to copulate with the opposite sex, if they have that function, but not that desire then something is wrong - no?

Question 2
How can orientation which be innate and fixed, but gender be fluid? Afterall orientation is not genetically determined - at best claims are made for it in part - but gender is?


TV

kandiikane:
If genes are not at play then genes are also not at play in hetereosexuality. It could possibly well be just our environment that influences our sexual orientation.

First, there is no such thing as heterosexuality. It's normality - human males and females are designed to copulate. Fact. Evidenced by outcome, preceeded by functionality and structure.

What is called homosexuality is better termed "abnormality", not least because it affects a small percentage of people and they have the exact same functionality and structure as normal people.

However you view it, it's a disorder.

kandiikane:
Actually in regards to paedophilia, I am not talking about those who in their culture can marry a girl once they have started their period but those who are actually just attracted to minors. There has been scientific research done on them. There is a difference in their brains to a normal healthy adult. The side of the brain which registers sexual response is triggered by pictures of children. There is a cross wiring between the sexual response part of the brain and the parental and nuturing part. There is a huge difference in the white matter of a paedophile to that of a typical adult male. Also paedophiles have a lower iq than average.

I believe we are all on the same page regards who we deem paedophiles in terms of pre-pubescents.

Are you claiming the wiring of ones brain is genetically determined? It can be programmed and developed in certain ways. What you've stated is no different for those that cultivate drug habits - are they also genetic?

I have made the point - I appreciate that in many case, it's not a choice as in waking up one morning and deciding for rectum as against vjay.
It can be any number of impressions, actions, traumas, feedback, wiring issues etc that accumulate over time that lead to a strongly embedded inclination that may seem innate. But the crux is it's no the way we designed to operate. So it can never be deemed to be normal - as prevelent or as right.


TV

TV01:

I have presented evidence of people who have come out of a homosexual lifestyle - repeatedly. And shown where someone has clearly stated that she chose it. And I can;t show a Christian review of the same article you presented?

I have read about these people who claim to have changed from homo to hetero because they are scared they will burn in hell if they don't. So much for "Christianity today" sources.

Question 1
since humans are designed to copulate with the opposite sex, if they have that function, but not that desire then something is wrong - no?

Who says "humans are designed to co*pulate with the opposite s.ex"?

Question 2
How can orientation which be innate and fixed, but gender be fluid? Afterall orientation is not genetically determined - at best claims are made for it in part - but gender is?

Who says gender is fluid?

carefreewannabe:
Who says "humans are designed to co*pulate with the opposite s.ex"?

Please don't answer a question witrh a question - you are German now, not Nigerian. ! Demonstrate otherwise

carefreewannabe:
Who says gender is fluid?

Your same ideology that says "orientation" is fixed - And as above.


TV

TV01:
Please don't answer a question witrh a question - you are German now, not Nigerian. ! Demonstrate otherwise

I don't think that ALL humans were designed to cop*ulate with the opposite s*ex. Consequently, I can't call homo*sexuality wrong on grounds of such a belief.

Your same ideology that says "orientation" is fixed - And as above.


TV

What ideology?

It's simple logic.

Could I re-orientate my attraction for the opposite s*ex and become homose*xual if someone told me to? Of course, not.

Could you change your se*xual orientation if you had to?

carefreewannabe:
I don't think that ALL humans were designed to cop*ulate with the opposite s*ex. Consequently, I can't call homo*sexuality wrong on grounds of such a belief.

But whatever your claim, male + female = babies. Whatever your belief, so called homosexuals males and females have exactly the same reporductive system as everyone else and are capable of functioning like everyone else with exaclt the same issues. Moreso, they desire children.

So again, if the functionality is there and the desire is there , but there is dissonance in the orientation, is that not prima facie evidence of dysfunction or a disorder

carefreewannabe:
What ideology?

It's simple logic.

Could I re-orientate my attraction for the opposite s*ex and become homose*xual if someone told me to? Of course, not.

Could you change your se*xual orientation if you had to?

And as i have clearly stated in an earlier response - to KK I believe - it is not necessarily as simple as flipping a switch. In manu cases it is a long-term combination of choices, internalising of impressions, stimuli, feedback and trauma, which lead to the mindset, which may appear innate.

It is well documented that men who do not identify as gay will engage in gay behaviour whilst in prison and revert back once on the streets.

My function, "orientation" and desires all align as they should. If someone who is likewise ordered consciously decided to engage differently - for whatever reason - they could. There have been many instances - of particulalrly women - switching between a preference for men or women. Take the mayor of NY' wife for example.

It's funny how my beliefs are excluded, but you are allowed to submit your own. Nice !


TV

TV01:
How likely is it that fathers are the primary caregivers and who would actually think that is the best thing?

What is wrong with a father being a caregiver? This your statement contradicts what you have written previously.
You say fathers hardly get custody yet denounce the idea of a father being a primary caregiver. We are not living in the times where only the father can go bushmeat hunting. Both are equality educated to work out in the field and a father should not be made ashamed to choose to be the primary care giver. I believe you saw my link where fathers who become primary care givers have the same brain patterns as mothers who are primary care givers.

Men being the primary caregiver can rarely be what's best - before any question of divorce. Where they are, it's usuall an economic, not care based decision. And it's rarely what happens in practiceThis is the crux, it's not the battle of the sexes, but the way cases are decided are weighted in favour of the woman gaining custody. I haven't even said that's always a bad thing.

And why is it rarely the best? I don't understand your third line here but if you mean a man cannot be a primary caregiver because of the economy then that is false. Unless you want to marry a stay home wife, many women are working and earning good enough to rent, get a mortgage and look after their children. If in a situation where a woman earns more than the man and they collectively decide for one of them to stay home, nothing wrong with the man staying during the tender years.

And where did you get your "majority of the time cases are settled out of court" from?

Research, do some.

Men don't fight as much because most times it just costs them money and it won't go their way. It's standard advice.

Lmao! Come off it, be honest and sincere to yourself, how many men do you think are readily willing to be full custodians? As much as men are fighting for the custody of their children many more rather leave them with the mother to have that freedom. That's just the honest truth.

I'm talking from experience and what I said about "sitting" previously still stands

Again your opinion

Nope, it's only your assertion about my opinion.

In all, I don't agree with your implication that custody issues are settled in a totally unbiased fashion.

And even where fathers don't fight for custody, it's not that they don't want as much access as possible, which they often don't get, even if court granted, and the same courts can't help. Hence fathers4justice type campaaigns.

And I've seen it live. Mothers can play all sorts of games to frustrate fathers seeing their children - even contravening court orders. The courts however are reluctant ot enforce them as it means the best interests of the child are compromised.



TV

Refer to my statement on fathers willingly allowing the woman to take custody. If fathers were wanting to be custodians of their children there won't be as much lone single parents. Yes, some women, a minority frustrate some fathers but once they take it to court it is the welfare of the child that is a priority not the anonymity between the parents. Majority of parents would want help to raise their children. Not every woman is bitter over a breakup or on a revenge mission against the ex by using the child.

kandiikane:
What is wrong with a father being a caregiver? This your statement contradicts what you have written previously.
You say fathers hardly get custody yet denounce the idea of a father being a primary caregiver. We are not living in the times where only the father can go bushmeat hunting. Both are equality educated to work out in the field and a father should not be made ashamed to choose to be the primary care giver. I believe you saw my link where fathers who become primary care givers have the same brain patterns as mothers who are primary care givers.


And why is it rarely the best? I don't understand your third line here but if you mean a man cannot be a primary caregiver because of the economy then that is false. Unless you want to marry a stay home wife, many women are working and earning good enough to rent, get a mortgage and look after their children. If in a situation where a woman earns more than the man and they collectively decide for one of them to stay home, nothing wrong with the man staying during the tender years.


Research, do some.



Lmao! Come off it, be honest and sincere to yourself, how many men do you think are readily willing to be full custodians? As much as men are fighting for the custody of their children many more rather leave them with the mother to have that freedom. That's just the honest truth.



Again your opinion


Refer to my statement on fathers willingly allowing the woman to take custody. If fathers were wanting to be custodians of their children there won't be as much lone single parents. Yes, some women, a minority frustrate some fathers but once they take it to court it is the welfare of the child that is a priority not the anonymity between the parents. Majority of parents would want help to raise their children. Not every woman is bitter over a breakup or on a revenge mission against the ex by using the child.

We can exchange opinions all day. The court systems are not unbiased in term sof custody and visitation judgements or enforcements. I previously posted the link to fathers for justice - http://www.fathers-4-justice.org/our-campaign/our-mission/ - at the very least it's plain to see that such a movement woul dbe redundant if there was no bias.

You may well be speaking about whats supposed to happen, but I have seen first hand what happens in practice. Often times a fathers involvement is reduced to purely monetary terms - even when they want and are able to give much more.



TV

TV01:
But whatever your claim, male + female = babies. Whatever your belief, so called homosexuals males and females have exactly the same reporductive system as everyone else and are capable of functioning like everyone else with exaclt the same issues. Moreso, they desire children.

So again, if the functionality is there and the desire is there , but there is dissonance in the orientation, is that not prima facie evidence of dysfunction or a disorder

No, it is not. It's your conclusion.

And as i have clearly stated in an earlier response - to KK I believe - it is not necessarily as simple as flipping a switch. In manu cases it is a long-term combination of choices, internalising of impressions, stimuli, feedback and trauma, which lead to the mindset, which may appear innate.

This is what you believe. This is what you want to believe.

But even if we agreed on that, how would it make someone change?

It is well documented that men who do not identify as gay will engage in gay behaviour whilst in prison and revert back once on the streets.

This is a state of emergency, in which these men find themselves in. It can't be compared to homes*exuals who live free.

My function, "orientation" and desires all align as they should. If someone who is likewise ordered consciously decided to engage differently - for whatever reason - they could. There have been many instances - of particulalrly women - switching between a preference for men or women. Take the mayor of NY' wife for example.

There is something called homes*exuality, heterose*xuality and bis*exuality. The third group has all options open. They don't have to force themselves to feel attracted to anyone, they feel attracted to "everyone".

It's funny how my beliefs are excluded, but you are allowed to submit your own. Nice !


TV

If you start talking about religion from your point of view, you will make me hate Christianity so let us keep religion out of it.

I am not arguing based on any belief system, am I?

You have not answered my question properly. Would you be able to turn gay IF YOU HAD TO?

Ha, ha, I have not answered your questions, yet you claim all my plainly observable facts are merely "my beliefs". Way to dodge CFW.

carefreewannabe:
No, it is not. It's your conclusion.

Observable, repeatable. Proven

carefreewannabe:
This is what you believe. This is what you want to believe.

It's the truth you can't face up to.

carefreewannabe:
But even if we agreed on that, how would it make someone change?

I agree it may not be easy, but it is certainly possible - google it. Fix what is broken, replace the disordered impressions and resulting desires.

carefreewannabe:
This is a state of emergency, in which these men find themselves in. It can't be compared to homes*exuals who live free.

Nope, it's adopting a behaviour. Choosing. Giving leave to sexual desire. Which is a very strong urge and can, unfortunately be disordered.

"Homosexuals in the wild" - you are funny today.

carefreewannabe:
There is something called homes*exuality, heterose*xuality and bis*exuality. The third group has all options open. They don't have to force themselves to feel attracted to anyone, they feel attracted to "everyone".

So it's not a spectrum then? And where do paeds, zoos and other parphillias fit in? Are they not sexualities?

carefreewannabe:
If you start talking about religion from your point of view, you will make me hate Christianity so let us keep religion out of it.

But your take is allowed, or your beliefs with unstated origins are permissable. I have not stated anything on belief or religion, only on plain observable fact.

carefreewannabe:
I am not arguing based on any belief system, am I?

Too easy. Everyone has a beliefs system and you've repeatedly stated your points as beliefs.

carefreewannabe:
You have not answered my question properly. Would you be able to turn gay IF YOU HAD TO?

I don't have to, neither do I want to. But it is possible as demonstrated in the prison example which you tried to wish away.


TV

TV01:
Ha, ha, I have not answered your questions, yet you claim all my plainly observable facts are merely "my beliefs". Way to dodge CFW.


Observable, repeatable. Proven


It's the truth you can't face up to.


I agree it may not be easy, but it is certainly possible - google it. Fix what is broken, replace the disordered impressions and resulting desires.


Nope, it's adopting a behaviour. Choosing. Giving leave to sexual desire. Which is a very strong urge and can, unfortunately be disordered.

"Homosexuals in the wild" - you are funny today.



So it's not a spectrum then? And where do paeds, zoos and other parphillias fit in? Are they not sexualities?


But your take is allowed, or your beliefs with unstated origins are permissable. I have not stated anything on belief or religion, only on plain observable fact.


Too easy. Everyone has a beliefs system and you've repeatedly stated your points as beliefs.


I don't have to, neither do I want to. But it is possible as demonstrated in the prison example which you tried to wish away.


TV

Even your friends from the "ex-gay" movement have confessed that they have done more harm than good (in almost 40 years) by trying to change people's se*xual orientation. So much for facts.

TV01:
First, there is no such thing as heterosexuality. It's normality - human males and females are designed to copulate. Fact. Evidenced by outcome, preceeded by functionality and structure.

Oh please, normality? Do you know that if allowed a woman can conceive without a sperm? What you call "normality" is what is called heterosexuality,

What is called homosexuality is better termed "abnormality", not least because it affects a small percentage of people and they have the exact same functionality and structure as normal people.

so there is not such thing as heterosexuality yet there is homosexuality. You are arguing over something that everyone knows. Yes heterosexuality is what humans are designed for genderwise but there can also be glitches in regards to orientation as you have written just as there are glitches in those born with two genders so what exactly are you arguing?

However you view it, it's a disorder.

So if it is a disorder how can you say it's not something that occurs in the womb? The same way downs syndrome occurs? Do you honestly think a person would genuinely choose to be homosexual?

I believe we are all on the same page regards who we deem paedophiles in terms of pre-pubescents.

Are you claiming the wiring of ones brain is genetically determined? It can be programmed and developed in certain ways. What you've stated is no different for those that cultivate drug habits - are they also genetic?

I am not claiming anything, I am stating facts.
How can wiring of the brain be something that is developed, what you think i am talking about a hypothetical wiring or a learned behaviour? I am talking about physically wiring, the connectors and circuits of the brain as real as the frontal lobe. I am not talking of "oh, he was wired to be a racist, no I am talking about the physicality of the brain itself, an abnormality of the brain. You dont Smoke weed because you have an abnormality in your brain.

I have made the point - I appreciate that in many case, it's not a choice as in waking up one morning and deciding for rectum as against vjay.
It can be any number of impressions, actions, traumas, feedback, wiring issues etc that accumulate over time that lead to a strongly embedded inclination that may seem innate. But the crux is it's no the way we designed to operate. So it can never be deemed to be normal - as prevelent or as right.


TV

Homosexuality may not be something certain societies calls "normal"(what the hell is normal even?but it is something that happens in nature that people should be okay in accepting.

TV01:

We can exchange opinions all day. The court systems are not unbiased in term sof custody and visitation judgements or enforcements. I previously posted the link to fathers for justice - http://www.fathers-4-justice.org/our-campaign/our-mission/ - at the very least it's plain to see that such a movement woul dbe redundant if there was no bias.

You may well be speaking about whats supposed to happen, but I have seen first hand what happens in practice. Often times a fathers involvement is reduced to purely monetary terms - even when they want and are able to give much more.



TV

I disagree..

carefreewannabe:

Even your friends from the "ex-gay" movement have confessed that they have done more harm than good (in almost 40 years) by trying to change people's se*xual orientation. So much for facts.

So you have no answers?

Exodus and it's operation are not more than a strand of this discussion. Devoid of answers you try and settle it thus? Please apply the renowned Bavarian work ethic and technological aptitude .


TV

TV01:
So you have no answers?

Exodus and it's operation are not more than a strand of this discussion. Devoid of answers you try and settle it thus? Please apply the renowned Bavarian work ethic and technological aptitude .


TV

Everything has been said.

kandiikane:
Oh please, normality? Do you know that if allowed a woman can conceive without a sperm? What you call "normality" is what is called heterosexuality,

Naturally, women cannot conceive without male genetic material.Please tell us how - without the use of technology
Normality is properly ordered use of our obvious functionality.

kandiikane:
so there is not such thing as heterosexuality yet there is homosexuality.

I use the terms normal and abnormal. My use of the terms het & hom are an accommodation for discussions sake.

kandiikane:
You are arguing over something that everyone knows. Yes heterosexuality is what humans are designed for genderwise but there can also be glitches in regards to orientation as you have written just as there are glitches in those born with two genders so what exactly are you arguing?

If there are glitches and these glitches are a statistically minor part and deleterious, we should accept them perhaps, but not re-engineer social morés and conventions to accommodate them.

kandiikane:
So if it is a disorder how can you say it's not something that occurs in the womb? The same way downs syndrome occurs? Do you honestly think a person would genuinely choose to be homosexual?

Are all disorders from the womb? Are all genetic? I can claim exactly that. And a disorder - especially one that adds no value and is possibly harmful - should not be normalised or encouraged.

kandiikane:
I am not claiming anything, I am stating facts. How can wiring of the brain be something that is developed, what you think i am talking about a hypothetical wiring or a learned behaviour? I am talking about physically wiring, the connectors and circuits of the brain as real as the frontal lobe. I am not talking of "oh, he was wired to be a racist, no I am talking about the physicality of the brain itself, an abnormality of the brain. You dont Smoke weed because you have an abnormality in your brain.

Assertion. The brain does learn and codify that learning. Re-enforcing it and expressing it. If the brain is wired in opposition to the obvious functionality it's still a disorder.

There is no homosexual form of reproduction and no homosexual gene so it has to be a disorder.

kandiikane:
Homosexuality may not be something certain societies calls "normal"(what the hell is normal even?but it is something that happens in nature that people should be okay in accepting.

Accepting it is one thing, making major changes to incorporate it, embedding it as normal and forcing everyone to celebrate it is another.


TV

kandiikane:

I disagree..

No problem. I appreciate your perspective.


TV

Make una stop to dey mention my name here. I don't knw what y'all are discussing and keep calling Normality?

Nonso23:
Actually science just like religion is a belief system as it is based on a set of unverifiable assumptions.
Both bear equal weight of testimony when appraised objectively.

Exactly... It only makes sense of what is known

The unknowns are parked

Nonso23:
Actually science just like religion is a belief system as it is based on a set of unverifiable assumptions.
Both bear equal weight of testimony when appraised objectively.

No, it's not true.

The MAIN difference between religion and science(s) is that scientists strictly distinguish between belief and fact.

A scientist can make a set of assumptions and then verify or disprove them through observations / experiments but even then s/he will strictly distinguish between belief / assumption and knowledge.

Medicine is a science.
Physicians do NOT give people pills because they believe that pill A helps relieve pain but because they know that pill A helps against pain based on scientific research. The chemical reaction of a pill in the human body has been tested and verified to help against headache.

Physics is a science.
Physicists do NOT believe a plane can fly. They know it can fly and they can explain how to make such a heavy object fly. They know that such a heavy object has to reach supersonic speed to rise. It works according to the laws of physics that are proven and not assumed to be true.

A belief is a belief, a fact is a totally different thing.

Nonso23:

We are in agreement about the methods employed by science to distinguish assumptions from facts. That was never in question. But yet you would agree that a building with a shaky foundation is still a faulty building.

What is a shaky foundation?
The fact that some pills relieve pain is not based on any whacky foundation but on FACTS.

My initial post stated that those methods, those processes science apply to distinguish facts from hokum is based on assumptions which are unverifiable nor can they ever be just like in religion.

Wrong!
It is can be verified that a heavy object (a plane) rises by breaking the sound barrier.

That is why science is referred to as a 'body of knowledge'. It keeps theoretising and disproving and re theoretising and disproving again in an endless cycle. This is to correct for modifications due to the effects of the underlying assumptions. Save for those underlying assumptions, all theories of science would become absolute but that's not the case.

Science is not only based on theories.
It is not a theory that pill A can help cure some sort of cancer but that pill B helps relieve pain. These are facts which are not based on theories.

Newtonian physics was replaced with modern physics, Molecular theories gave way for quantum mechanics, etc and each of these modern theories are still being scrutinized while the old ones become 'antique', obsolete.

Wrong. Newtonian physics were not replaced. Newton laid the foundation for classical mechanics. He hasn't become obsolete, his findings were just taken further.

Reason: those underlying assumptions of the scientific methods. They are:
1) The world is real.
2) All happenings in the world have a physical cause/explanation.
3) The world is knowable.
4) There exists objective reality.
5) Knowledge can only be emperical - i.e by experience.
6) Nature/universe is orderly and consistent with certain laws.
7)In statistical science - Random sampling is representative of a given population.
Experimental values are consistent for every similar condition.
Them plenty. Each scientific field has its own set.

All/some of the above assumptions are the foundations for all the laws, methods, procedures in science/technology today.
These assumptions ushers in the dreaded 'uncertainty' into science and hence to simplify issues, they are believed by 'FAITH'. Just like Religion.
HENCE NO DIFFERENCE IN OBJECTIVE SCRUTINY.

Nothing here is a question of faith.

The reason why a pill works is simple. The uncertainty in scientific methods doesn't mean those theories/tech products will not work. It means most of the assumptions that were considered absolute 'truth' during their design were correct. That is why a plane may suddenly stall even with perfect working conditions few moments ago, a set of ball bearings manufactured from the same line and material have very different reliability lives. A drug may act as a poison in person A and heal person B even if they are twins.
Reason is:
Once the machine/product created from the scientific 'assumptions' considered 'true' enters a realm where those assumptions do not hold, they fail immediately.

Even this can be explained with knowledge. No faith needed.

Science can't predict these realms but can only work around it based on assuming again and believing by faith until the trial and error yields results. Then they wait for it to fail again and then correct for new assumptions, then wait again for failure ad infinitum.

Nobody has ever said scientists know everything. If they did, they would be jobless.

But a fact is a fact and belief is belief. I am surprised you even compare religion to science.

It was the Church that believed the world was flat, until scientists proved that it was round. Nobody would argue today that it is flat and nobody in 500 years will argue that the world was round in 2014.
Best example of how a belief can be proven to be wrong whereas a fact cannot.

Nonso23:

The shaky foundation is that tomorrow that fact you know today may become a terrible error.

The fact that the world is round in 2014 will still be true in 500 years even if the world becomes flat in the course of time. It's very simple.

Wrong.
Actually planes do not fly by breaking the sound barrier they do by balancing aerodynamic forces. *You must be in the medical field.* Most commercial planes don't even fly up to sonic speeds. Only Jets and specially designed planes can afford that luxury.

I won't argue facts. Just googled it.

Every fact is based on theory(ies). Theories that have stood the test of time with practical applications are called facts.
What are truths?

Wrong.
Fact is that you and me are chatting on NL. This is a fact NOT based on any theory.

Wrong. In most modern engineering fields Newtonian physics is obsolete. The methods it employed are only suitable for the assumptions it was based upon. Its repeated failure at molecular and atomic level was what prompted the birth of modern physics. They run on parallels most of the time.

Are you seriously telling me that Newton's findings are obsolete?

Isaac Newton is arguably one of the most influential scientists in history. Though he lived in the late 1600s, many of his discoveries still affect us in the present. His various theories still hold true even centuries after his death and countless experiments. The scientists able to improve upon his work became famous themselves. (...)

Sir Isaac Newton’s largest contributions were in the areas of science and mathematics. Newton discovered many of the laws and theories that not only furthered our understanding of the universe, but also gave future scientists the tools to discover how to enter space. He discovered gravitational force and established the three Universal Laws of Motion. By tying these discoveries to the work Johannes Kepler and his Laws of Planetary motion, he established classic mechanics the beginning of modern Physics. This was huge in many ways as he proved definitively the heliocentric model first proposed by Copernicus. He also was the first to propose a set of laws that described the motion of all things in the universe. This served as the basis for our understanding how the universe functions and why it is the way it is. For his time and even now this was a major breakthrough.

http://www.universetoday.com/38643/what-did-isaac-newton-discover/

If it doesn't take faith to believe what you haven't experienced then i don't think there is any such thing as faith.

This is the point. You need faith to believe what you haven't experienced.
I need faith to believe in God because I have never met God.
I don't need faith to know that Nonso exists because he is talking to me, I know he exists.
Simple.

What knowledge are you talking about? Knowledge gotten by scientific methods? The knowledge is in agreement with the scientific methods because they are infact scientific knowledge. How then can they disagree? Science only advances when an external influence disagrees with their knowledge usually Nature.
Its root is an assumption laden process.

It still doesn't change the fact that scientific research is not a question of faith.

The condition for a belief system is simple - lack of omniscience.
Science fulfills this to the letter. At least you stated it yourself. Correct.

Ok.

I'm even suprised you don't know they are equal in the grand scheme of things. These stuffs i'm trying to explain form the introductory classes in the undergraduate course: 'Philosophy of Science'

What are we arguing about?
Haven't you said at the beginning that religion and science are both based on belief?
Pardon me, I have never said that scientists cannot err but saying that science is based on belief is WRONG.

In the days of old chemistry, scientists stated for a fact that there is a matter they believed could turn mercury into gold. They also accepted as a fact that all fuels contained 'phlogliston'. These are jokes now in the scientific community because they are false. They were once facts.

Have they proven that they can turn mercury to gold? No? Then their statements were claims, not facts.

Every fact can be proven to be wrong one day.

Then it wasn't a fact. I doubt that anyone will ever be able to prove that the world wasn't round in 2014.

When science proves that our perception of geometry is flawed and that we see 'round' because of one unknown cosmic wave hence the real geometry of earth is triangular don't be suprised. This is just an analogy.

This is very unlikely for a number of reasons.

Science changes as more assumptions are corrected and created. Today's fact will be tomorrow's fallacy. The only way they keep their criticism on the low is acceding to mistakes immediately unlike other belief systems.
Read objective books on philosophy.

Science unlike religion develops.
The next main difference.

Nonso23:

Actually science just like religion is a belief system as it is based on a set of unverifiable assumptions.
Both bear equal weight of testimony when appraised objectively.

This was your original statement. I just needed to dig it up to remind myself what we were arguing about.