I agree. I also think it's a combination of nature and nurture. Researchers have done studies on adopted children and discovered young adoptees took on the psychological traits of their adoptive parents; but as they aged, psychological traits from their biological parents, such as mannerisms, thinking, behavior, became more apparent. The adopted adults did, however, retain the values, political views and faith that were influenced by their adoptive parents. This is a prime example of how nature and nurture play off eachother. (Kind of off topic, but interesting nonetheless.)

As for sexual orientation, I think it has more to do with nature because homosexuality has been shown to arise in non-human animals. I think the prevalence of homosexuality in the 'animal' world eliminates nurture as a factor. I don't think non-human animals treat their offspring different sexually, as humans do, culturally.

The primary nature theory that makes sense in deciding sexual orientation would be the lack of or too much of testerone activity in the womb. When testerone was injected into a female fetus growing inside a sheep's womb, the female offspring later showed homosexual tendencies.

But to imply that nurture is dominant implies that sexual orientation is learned or chosen, which I believe (and I would hope most would agree,) is not a consious or learned decision.

There were some republicans passing the hot potatoe (Bible) last night. One of the YouTube questions were, "Do you believe every word of the Bible?" I don't think any of them gave a straight answer. I would have liked to hear Paul's answer, but they didn't ask him.

Yeah, except if you want to base your idea on "Christianity", truth be told Jesus' words denouced everything written in the old testament. Hence why levitical law is no longer taught explicitly (unless you're Jewish). The old testament should only be brought up as proverbial examples, with a lot of good ideals, but not followed strictly to the T. That's ridiculous as you can look at a lot of it and go, "That's not realistic" or it simply doesn't carry with the times. I have no doubt in my mind that a lot of the Old Testament has been exagerated to tell epic stories. C'mon, what kind've stories last more than 2,000 years? First two humans, humans living 400 years, global floods, men getting their hair cut and lose their strength, freeing the Egyptian slaves.... it's quite subjective and open for interpretation.



As far as the homosexual thing with nature vs. nurture -- it goes both ways. Naturally speaking males are inclined to fuck, specifically with women as a means to procreate. That's the NATURAL order of things. When nature fucks up, a male may have female tendencies or whatever. That's not to completely denouce the fact that a male, even without a natural distortion couldn't CHOSE to be gay. That's just silly. It could be natural OR nurtured. But that's like saying I chose to be straight -- which isn't the case. I just don't dig dudes. I went with nature.


Nature inclines us to do things in order to survive. This can include negative things like stealing and killing if deemed necessary. We're nutured to the point that we aren't normally required to do these things, but obviously some still do. It's one thing to say that nurturing someone can completely remove their will to chose and make bad decisions.

The problem with dictating one thing tends to ignore that people still have the ability to chose, nurture or nature can't change this.

I feel it's best to educate a person with as much information as possible so that they are able to make their own decisions. They could be provided information that leans towards one ideal but that doesn't guarantee they're going to agree with it.

that sounds to me like treating the symptoms rather than curing the disease.

show me where the hell there are "excessive" teachings on abstinence.

you say "everybody knows" but people are idiots.

I don't know where the millions of dollars in federal grants for abtinence-only programs went. A handful of states did deny the funding though.

However, excessive teaching of abstinence now exists in Missouri, where the governor has banned Planned Parenthood's access to public schools. Wisconsin (SB86) now promotes abstinence as "the preferred choice of behavior" for unmarried individuals. The bill also requires public schools to place less attention on birth control.

Teenagers are not the idiots. I think the idiots are the people deciding the backwards curriculum within the educational system. Abstinence hasn't proven to treat the disease. Researchers have attributed drops in teen pregnancy rates to birth control, NOT to abstinence teachings.

There's nothing inherently wrong with abstinence, but like religion, it's abused, and as noted by the ACLU, has been associated with misinformation, such as abortion causing infertility. And what generally happens when someone tells another not to do something? People tend to want it more. Abstinence appears to do more harm than good.

A guy/girl grows up with a good family normal values and teaching ("normal" being parents don't divorce/stray and people in the family are to societies standard of being normal). Boy grows up and decides he digs boys and is a normal non flamboyant law abiding normal gay man or decides he wants to be a normal girl and becomes tranny.

nature.


A guy grows up with a fucked up family, parents on drugs and all kinds of problems. guy grows up and decides he wants to be gay. is super flamboyant male escort type gay man. he wants to be gay or tranny or dress in drag because he likes the attention.

enviormental (nurture)

So what you are saying is that he isn't really gay. He just acts gay for the attention.
I don't buy it.

not really "acts" gay but definately adopts the lifestyle partially because he enjoys the attention. my theory is only collected by my observations made from circles of gay/tranny friends that i'm casually in association with. Definately not a definition as to why people are gay.

people are gay because jesus hates jews. he's got some weird self loathing issues.

additionally, all catholics are secretly gay, and AIDS was first released when Clinton had sex with Monica Lewinsky.

Ron Paul is a weak candidate and a religious zealot.

sweet, count me in. if Dom hates him, he's got my vote!

The fact that a bunch of people who are on the opposite end of his ideological spectrum and want him to be president makes me happy that he's not running as a 3rd party candidate.

actually republicans are adjacent to libertarians.

but i'm suuuure you already knew that! that's what turns me on about ya. your attention to detail!

Give me some evidence of this. I like the guy, but I'm not above admiting to error.
I know he is religious, but from what I can see, he has no intention of pushing his ideology on others. He even has the support of some very educated and informed pagans.
As for being a weak candidate, I will agree that he doesn't get much support or coverage for that matter by the corporate media, but when I get out on the street and I notice all the bumper stickers and yard signs, the vast majority of them are for Ron Paul '08. This reminds me of the CNN debates. They did a text message poll after the debate to see which candidates have the most support and Ron Paul always won them by a very large margin, but of course the newscasters at CNN would quickly discredit the poll as being unreliable.

Just because someone grows up in an emotionally or physically abusive family doesn't mean someone will grow up to be extroverted, or more flamboyant. What about the abused who grow up to be introverted and withdrawn? The abused don't neccessarily grow up to crave attention. Some grow up to despise any form of attention. It's an interesting observation, but I think if it were tested scientifically one would find it happens sometimes, but not all the time. Two correlations do not always signify a truth to that relationship. I.E. Just because some abused children grow up to be abusive themselves, does not mean ALL abused grow up to become abusive adults.

Just so you know, my remarks were intentionally inflammatory.

Onward, the guy says he is a constitutionalist, but then goes and says this...

"Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity."

It's not about offending someone or not, it's about what the constitution says. Furthermore, that's the kind of childish political sway that I've seen in a Wal-Mart employee newsletter.

There's a bunch of articles written here.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/

And those polls are unreliable, because text polling primarily appeals to one type of person: a person who texts. The demographic of someone who uses text messaging is narrow. It's not like a 1-800 telephone poll. You have to think about the person who is responding. That's not your average-votes-in-every-election-Joe, cause even though they vote in mass numbers, the elderly don't text.

As for yard signs and bumper stickers, that also is done by a certain demographic. Remember all the Kinky stuff? Nader? And now it's Ron Paul, but he's not running third party.

My .02

you lack reading comprehension

http://rhlschool.com/reading.htm

I thought that was Fox.

Maybe so, I get the two confused sometimes. It's because Fox is so "fair and balanced".

Just noticed a gigantic tag today (roughly 10ft. x 40ft.) that said simply "RON PAUL". It was on the side of the MoPac rail bridge visible from the lamar foot and auto bridges. How's that for demographic?
I think that the status quo are going to be very surprised for this election to find a huge body of people voting that would normally be absent. And when the majority of those voters check Ron Paul on the ballot the status quo are going to be left gasping.
Maybe I'm just dreaming, but honestly I don't see any other candidate on the stage that's worth a flying fuck.
And don't forget that if he doesn't get elected in the primaries, it's all over, so go register to vote, register republican, and keep him in the race. And don't worry. If for some reason he doesn't win the primaries, you aren't stuck with the republicans. You can go vote for Hillary or whoever third party you want to support. The only thing that registering republican keeps you from doing is voting in the democrat primaries.

A lot of Ron Paul signs are in places where it's illegal to post signs. Closer to the election, we might see them taken down. In San Antonio, it's to the point of vandalism.

He has some good ideas, and if this were 2000, I'd probably vote for him. Since then, events have happened and reactions to the events have happened, and I don't think he'll be able to erase the past 6 years as well as someone else.

i don't even need reading comprehension when people make neat pictures that explain it!

are you deliberately antagonizing things or do you just not get it?

Put down the crackpipe Dom.

I know that in "school" they teach you that there is only one dimention to the political spectrum. This is not the case, which is why there are not actually just two parties like they try to teach you on Fox News.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

Republican party = Conservative
Opposite of conservative != Libertarian

I know you're 16 and think you know everything, but please do some more reading before you go and accuse somebody of "not getting it".