It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Death_Kron
The point being, trying to understand what makes an individual swing one way or another? It's fine to accept it but there's nothing wrong in questioning what influence/s are at play, fairly interesting I think.
Nothing wrong with questioning it.
But this study makes no sense. Only 20% of identical twins are both gay? That leaves 80% of them with one gay and not the other one.
Identical twins grow up in the same environment, fed the same food, exposed to the same thing, etc.
You would think it would trigger the gay genes more than the 20%.
originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: ketsuko
Of course, the answer must be to celebrate homosexuality in these populations as normal and natural, not to seek to reduce the incidence of mercury poisoning
LOL yeah that's right. The Gays are celebrating the poisoning.
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: ketsuko
Of course, the answer must be to celebrate homosexuality in these populations as normal and natural, not to seek to reduce the incidence of mercury poisoning
LOL yeah that's right. The Gays are celebrating the poisoning.
But if you celebrate it as "normal and natural" when in this instance it isn't, what are you doing? That would be like celebrating a autism as "normal and natural" even if we found out it was caused by environmental damage.
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: ketsuko
Of course, the answer must be to celebrate homosexuality in these populations as normal and natural, not to seek to reduce the incidence of mercury poisoning
LOL yeah that's right. The Gays are celebrating the poisoning.
But if you celebrate it as "normal and natural" when in this instance it isn't, what are you doing? That would be like celebrating a autism as "normal and natural" even if we found out it was caused by environmental damage. It's one thing to not stigmatize an individual who winds up different because of such damage, and it's another to say, "I know this is the result of environmental damage, but I'm going to call it completely natural and hold it up and something we should aspire to and celebrate in society." It leaves the impression that people should want their children to end up that way and if it turns out that a lot of it is due to environmental factors that could be controlled ... do we want to encourage it or avoid it?
originally posted by: Annee
*snip*
Please provide link to this study.
Otherwise it's just more nonsense.
originally posted by: Qwerm
originally posted by: Annee
*snip*
Please provide link to this study.
Otherwise it's just more nonsense.
www.wnd.com...
www.frc.org...
Just to set you off on the path you requested.