Epic Drop 6/22/09: Gay parents = Gay kids? Mother's Day discrimination, Facebook background checks, Iran mess, Expendables, 2012

I wish the pic was little more revealing

 

You mean like this?

Possibly NSF... http://k-beckinsale.net/kate_beckinsale_31.jpg

 

That just gave me full redwood.

 

Kate and Mary Louise Parker: separated at birth?

 

http://theblemish.com/images/2009/04/kate-beckinsale-crack.jpg

hawt lol

 

BRB inheriting homosexuality.

 

http://wowriot.gameriot.com/permalink/comment/425907  tells me we are a bit too late for that. 

 

The more gay people the better!

 

if homosexuality is formative does that imply being straight is learned behavior as well? That is somewhat disturbing 

 

Mimicking behaviour that you deem to be normal surely serves as a survival technique, the nail that sticks out gets hammered etc.
It seems intuitive to suggest we do learn subconsciously to 'be straight' although there will probably be genetic influence aswell.

 

Male animals don't go around ******* other mail animals unless for some reason they think they're on a female.

Humans however have ladyboys so we're fkd regardless.

 

Levidian, that's about as wrong as you could get lol. You could have at least googled
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

First hit! This research stuff is tough.

 

Wrong there are gay dolphins and many more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWx3hNSqslI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0vGamcQIYs&NR=1

 

My sisters rabbit used to hump peoples legs that doesn't mean it was emotionally attracted to something of the same sex.

 

Watch the second vid. They form lifetime bonds. Does your sisters rabbit have a lifetime bond with your "leg"?

 

So gay animals is a topic the GR audience takes seriously and rebuts with things other than name calling.

/study complete

 

It's just the hope that pointing out how much of a moron you are and proving it time and time against that you will eventually acknownledge that there is only one way out:





Slaying yourself.

 

haha...HAHAHAHAHH....BAHAHHRHHAHWHAHAHAHAHAHAH

All we see in the vids are a bunch of Dolphins swimming together while the narrator makes up a bunch of ****.

Gay dolphins... Gay is an human term.

 

Yeah because national geographic has been known for homosexual propaganda for decades now. And I guess in the first video they were wearing strap-ons. My bad, sir.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUwza5Grxos&feature=related
Although the guy presenting it is a douchebag

 

 

2 ez

 

Same-Sex Behavior found in Nearly All Animals
http://www.livescience.com/animals/090616-same-sex-animals.html

 

2 ez

 

i do admit special effects are nice for 2012, but really how many people will see that and go "AMG THE WORLD WILL END IN 2012 CUZ THE MAYANS SAID IT NOW!"

 

Like shouldn't their calendar have ended back in the 1800' when they were wiped out.

 

thing is the only reason people say it ended because they died while they were writting their calender and it ended on the year 2012, so thus a bunch of hype went around saying that the world will end in 2012, because we wiped their civilzation out and they didnt finish their calendar.

 

lol what

 

Love Kate! Always been one of my fav celebs. 

The truck vid is great, made me lol. I just wish you guys could understand russian, the commentary at the end is hilarious. Hard to translate it without losing the impact.


Not too surprised at the shooting in iran. Its ridiculous. But I was always expecting ridiculous **** like that to happen over there ever since the story hit global media treadmill.

 

Kate Beckinsale is the perfect woman.

In every single way.

BTW that's a terrible picture of her.

 

A perfect woman would always look brilliant in any photo!

 

You wouldn't know!

 

You wouldn't know!

QQ double post =( pls delete

 

I agree with everything except the part about the picture being terrible. Her shirt/blouse may be awefull, but the picture is great imo.

 

I just love her hair in that pic, looks great.

 

On the learned homosexuality bit-
Firstly, I found it a lot more informative to skip the statistics and read the doctor's opinion on the effects of same sex marriage on children http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_samesex.html
He thinks it is damaging to children to be raised by a same sex couple, and offers explanations a to why he thinks that way.  I disagree with him on most points; he certainly interprets the evidence he presents in a different way than I would, but at least his message is clear: I think this, and this is why.  All well and good.

However.

I'm always leery of people who quote statistics to 'prove' the correctness of their stance on contentious social topics.  They tend to be unreliable for a variety of reasons, most often due to selective interpretation.  This guy is a good example.  Firstly, its important to note that his should be divided into two categories 1)children raised by same-sex parents and 2)children born to parents where either the mother or father later came out of the closet to identify as homosexual.  He doesnt make the difference clear, but it's vital- rates of homosexuality from one set would indicate the effect of nurture in determining a child's sexuality (maybe.  even this is debatable) while the other does not address the circumstances of the child's upbringing, only the gender orientation of one of its parents.  Secondly, several of the studies he cites are seriously dated, and none of them use a sample size large enough to make their results broadly relevant.  3 out of the 8 apartments in my building are occupied by gay tenants.  What does that tell you about the proportion of homosexuals in my city? or even on my block? Approximately jack ****. 

Anyways, my main point is that it is alot more useful to read this doctor's opinions and justifications and agree or disagree with him based on the merits of his arguments rather than trusting in his statistical analysis.  ****ty small-scale studies from the 80's are not going to answer the underlying questions in all this, which are 'do you think homosexuality is morally and/or socially acceptable?' and 'why?' 

 

Although it could be said that something that is argued without solid evidence to support it, should be disregarded.
As the claim has no real grounds to stand on, if what is being professed is in fact not true in the real world?

Tangible evidence should be the basis of any argument surely (especially in one of this nature, where he states that x produces y)?
Not ones personal opinion and justification of that opinion.

 

Sorry, I could definitely have been more clear above-
I have two points- 
1)  the statistical evidence that that particular doctor cited was weak, and his conclusions based on that evidence were (therefore) useless.
2) the debate on homosexuality boils down to the questions I posed above because if it is just as ok for a child to be homosexual as heterosexual then what is the relevence of his/her upbringing?  Whether same sex couples make a child more or less likely to be gay is only relevant if being gay matters.

 

Oh ok
I thought you were encouraging people to just go off what he had to say regardless of his unsubstantial evidence!

I think there is definitely a relevance because there is a societal stigma which is held against gays which i think is undeniable; although there is an on going shift in people's stance towards the relevance of sexual orientation, it is clear that the majority, heterosexuals, sometimes have a certain distaste for the minority, homosexuals.

 

Gays are the only people who can cut my hair right. There should be a study on that.

 

Besides it has been demonstrated that the level of arousal they display is constant and independent of parents - it's their professed sexuality which changes based on parenting, implying a pretty obvious link of "If you have gay parents and you have feelings towards those of the same sex you are vastly less likely to be in denial". Given that sexuality is normally regarded as a continuum, with most people having some level of attraction to both sexes (Certainly as measured by arousal studies), this seems entirely consistent.

 

2010 looks average. Way over the top.

THE WORLD WILL COLLAPSE ZOMG!

 

2012

 

Okay, the actual review by Trayce Hansen is here.  Anyone with a little knowledge of things like the scientific method, statistical analysis, and standards of scientific rigour when evaluating, should be able to see just how valid her summary is.

If you need hints, we've got a correlation/causation cross, a minimal sample size, several appeals to probability, some serious statistical mispresentation (relative versus absolute oh my, as well as some interesting use of modal values without explanation), oh, and of course, how could I forget...  cherrypicking!

 

Last video looks like me playing Red Faction Guerrilla.