The 'gay' truth: Kevin McCullough on homosexuality dominating American politics

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, May 30, 2003 | Kevin McCullough

[tdadams]

I sarcastically said you're leading by example because you accused me of "drive-by slanders" just before calling me a pipsqueak.

I know it must be a challenge, but try to comprehend the context before replying next time.

[Clint N. Suhks]

On the contrary, I am quite familiar with them, Mr. Condescending. As such, I know you're only presenting the studies that tend to support your particular prejudice.

No Susan I’m presenting real peer reviewed reseach studies that have a 0% concordance rate. Explain that for us Einstein.

[Clint N. Suhks]

I know it must be a challenge, but try to comprehend the context before replying next time.

The context is there for everyone to see but should you want to redeem yourself from your very apparent hypocrisy maybe you can answer where the canard is.

[Clint N. Suhks]

With little variation, monozygotic twins have a correlation of about 1 in 2,

Bwhahahaaa...stop I can't take it anymore. My side is hurting.

[tdadams]

Name one “canard” in this article.

I'm not playing any silly games with you. I know better than to think you'll actually give a reasoned thought to any of it, but I'll go along for the sake of other readers.

"It's damaging to individuals". B.S. Homosexuality, practiced safely and monogamously, is no more unhealthy than heterosexuality. The author's implication is that there is no such thing as safe or healthy homosexuality.

The author also states "it's damaging to society" and as supposed proof relates the story of one abberant convention in Chicago and extrapolates that this is representative of homosexuality. This is as ludicrous as saying the Black College Reunion in Daytona Beach, with it's rapes, stabbings, shootings, and deaths, are representative of black culture.

It's a canard. Anyone who would say otherwise simply refuses to acknowledge their prejudice and/or ignorance.

[Clint N. Suhks]

How about the 1993 study from Arizona State University, Tempe that states "[The] findings are interpreted as supporting the argument for a biological basis in sexual orientation."

Do you know the difference between DATA and conclusion? Apparently not.

BTW does this study have a source or was it preformed by the science building at ASU?

[tdadams]

I knew you must have some issues. You better spend some time on another thread before you start lisping and calling me girlfriend with an effete flip of the wrist.

[Clint N. Suhks]

"It's damaging to individuals". B.S. Homosexuality, practiced safely and monogamously, is no more unhealthy than heterosexuality. The author's implication is that there is no such thing as safe or healthy homosexuality.

Hehehe…you think a behavioral pathology is “healthy” for an individual? LOL Stop it, you’re killing me.

[tdadams]

With little variation, monozygotic twins have a correlation of about 1 in 2
Bwhahahaaa...stop I can't take it anymore. My side is hurting.

I don't know why you should laugh as if to flippantly disagree with me. You said the very same thing yourself in post #52.

[Clint N. Suhks]

I knew you must have some issues. You better spend some time on another thread before you start lisping and calling me girlfriend with an effete flip of the wrist.

That's our good little hypocrite, when you can't answer why several peer reviewed studies have a 0% concordance rate you have to change the subject like a true Liberaltarian.

[bvw]

BS. Crack cocaine, practiced safely and carefully, is no more unhealthy than coffee or tea. Your he implication is that there is no such thing as safe or healthy crack cocaine.

It's just as bigoted as saying that Rapper Emimem is characteristic of white boy culture.

[Clint N. Suhks]

I don't know why you should laugh as if to flippantly disagree with me. You said the very same thing yourself in post #52.

Bwhahahahaaaaa......I can't breath anymore.

How did you put it? "I know it must be a challenge, but try to before replying next time." And maybe who wrote it too?

[tdadams]

you think a behavioral pathology is “healthy” for an individual?

Now is that what I said? No. But this is just another fine example of why you, and people who argue similarly, are losing credibility on this and other issues. People aren't stupid and they recognize dishonest sophistry when they see it.

[tdadams]

Who's changed the subject? I see you got away from that subject pretty quickly yourself when I pointed out that several other studies have consistently shown a higher correlation of sexual orientation among identical twins than among fraternal twins, thus shattering your risible argument.

[Clint N. Suhks]

This is as ludicrous as saying the Black College Reunion in Daytona Beach, with it's rapes, stabbings, shootings, and deaths, are representative of black culture.

What's ludicrous is comparing innate characteristic to a behavior, come on cupcake you can do better.

SHOW ME THE CANARD!

[tdadams]

OK, when I'm wrong, I'll admit it. I should have looked at the name of the poster instead of just looking at the pattern of delusion. I suppose you and Always Right disagree on that study.

[tdadams]

You're dismissing a very legitimate comparison. And rightly so for the sake of your argument. It very thoroughly exposes the fallacy (or should I say the canard) of the author.

[Clint N. Suhks]

People aren't stupid and they recognize dishonest sophistry when they see it.

Dodging the obvious? You said homosexuality, which are those who have a behavioral pathology, can be a healthy practice. Where am I wrong?

[Clint N. Suhks]

I pointed out that several other studies have consistently shown a higher correlation of sexual orientation among identical twins than among fraternal twins, thus shattering your risible argument.

How??? I can show you studies that have a 60% concordance rate. It DOESN"T mean they are right or wrong, only that they were accurate for that sample that day.

What ALL our studies don't have is an ability to be replicated over and over. If you can't answer why that is you have NO credibility to impose your study over any other period.

[Clint N. Suhks]

You're dismissing a very legitimate comparison.

Behavior is comparable to innate characteristic???

Bwahahahaaaa.....what hoot!