Gay genes

by veya_victaous Tue Nov 18, 2014 9:31 pm

New Scientist reported “the study clearly links sexual orientation in men with two regions of the human genome […] one on the X chromosome and one on chromosome 8.” However study leader Alan Sanders admits, while his work “erodes the notion that sexual orientation is a choice” there is further testing to be done.

He’s currently preparing to publish the next step in the process – “narrow[ing] down to fewer genes” – which really takes the wind out of your sales doesn’t it?

But never fear, science may be slow and painfully specific but everyone’s feeling optimistic. Neuroscientist Simon LeVay says it “knocks another nail into the coffin of the ‘chosen lifestyle’ theory of homosexuality” and, as New Scientist point out, if Sanders is able to narrow down a specific ‘gay gene’ it could have huge implications for gay rights around the world:

“The finding is an important contribution to mounting evidence that being gay is biologically determined rather than a lifestyle choice. In some countries, such as Uganda, being gay is still criminalised, and some religious groups believe that gay people can be "treated" to make them straight.”

http://www.thevine.com.au/life/news/gay-gene-suggests-people-are-born-this-way-20141118-290309/

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26572-study-of-hundreds-of-male-twins-zeroes-in-on-gay-genes.html#.VGu6M8leKtZ

Gay genes 1481518877

by Ben Reilly Tue Nov 18, 2014 10:08 pm

Waiting for the haters to chime in with "if it's genetic, maybe we could cure it" ...

by eddie Tue Nov 18, 2014 10:43 pm

I simply fail to understand why anyone would ever have a problem with it.
With all the shitty, horribly vile and heartbreaking things that go in in the world, people get upset over two people of the same sex loving each other?

I don't get it. Never will.

by Ben Reilly Wed Nov 19, 2014 2:05 am

eddie wrote:I simply fail to understand why anyone would ever have a problem with it.
With all the shitty, horribly vile and heartbreaking things that go in in the world, people get upset over two people of the same sex loving each other?

I don't get it. Never will.

Don't get it either! It's beyond a religious thing, beyond rational argument -- just hatred for difference that some people seem to be unable to at least keep to themselves.

by veya_victaous Wed Nov 19, 2014 2:16 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
eddie wrote:I simply fail to understand why anyone would ever have a problem with it.
With all the shitty, horribly vile and heartbreaking things that go in in the world, people get upset over two people of the same sex loving each other?

I don't get it. Never will.

Don't get it either! It's beyond a religious thing, beyond rational argument -- just hatred for difference that some people seem to be unable to at least keep to themselves.

closet homoerotic feelings... well that's my opinion anyway Rolling Eyes

by Eilzel Wed Nov 19, 2014 2:30 am

The science proving it is biological is all well and good, it is just a shame we even need it- anyone with half a brain cell should be able to reason that no one would choose to be gay; doing so would defy all rational sense!

And as Ben says if they did find out it was genetic some demented conservatives would start talking about cures (although from what I understand of genetics- admittedly little- that would be a possibly unrealistic prospect anyway since there aren't specific 'genes' for one thing or another. Anyone correct me if I have got that wrong).

Also, veya, though I do think a minority of homophobes probably are insecure, I don't think that's the case for the majority. The majority of homophobes are homophobes for the same reason they don't like people of different cultures, different nationalities, different races, different religions etc (I've used neutral terms since none of those are limited to white western Christians).

^eds, your point is so true, this picture has pretty depressing implications for the twisted world we live in (for the most part anyway):
Gay genes 3MaFj

by Ben Reilly Wed Nov 19, 2014 3:39 am

Some of y'all got me to thinking about how there's also an emerging idea in neuroscience of a "conservative brain" that according to early research indicates hardwiring of values like structure, order, hierarchy, the notion of being born into certain roles, etc.

It's associated with a larger-than-average fear center, and I think it's interesting that in a study done in China, people who have that brain type are typically hardline Communist Party supporters, while people with more "liberal" brain structure tend to be in favor of free-market reforms.

That's why I posted the OCEAN test recently, I was curious to see how people did because one of the best predictors of having a "liberal" brain is a high Openness score, while a low Openness score almost always predicts conservatism.

by veya_victaous Wed Nov 19, 2014 4:40 am

Eilzel wrote: no one would choose to be gay, doing so would defy all rational sense

says the man that DOESN'T deal with Chicks Razz

Do you know what else defies all rational sense????

Gay genes 1069003512

WOMEN

by veya_victaous Wed Nov 19, 2014 4:56 am

Eilzel wrote:The science proving it is biological is all well and good, it is just a shame we even need it- anyone with half a brain cell should be able to reason that no one would choose to be gay; doing so would defy all rational sense!

And as Ben says if they did find out it was genetic some demented conservatives would start talking about cures (although from what I understand of genetics- admittedly little- that would be a possibly unrealistic prospect anyway since there aren't specific 'genes' for one thing or another. Anyone correct me if I have got that wrong).

Also, veya, though I do think a minority of homophobes probably are insecure, I don't think that's the case for the majority. The majority of homophobes are homophobes for the same reason they don't like people of different cultures, different nationalities, different races, different religions etc (I've used neutral terms since none of those are limited to white western Christians). cause it makes them question if they are right, and they couldn't kiss a guy in a non-gay way, take TM for example (but not specifically Ugandan president is another) cause he is pretty average for a homophob notice how his opposition pretty much entirely revolves around the penises in anuses thing? that not because your different... that is because every time he looks at you and his mind remembers that your gay he thinks of dicks and bums. Biologically Homosexual should be liked by straight men because they can help hunt but are not competition for women, and they may look after the kids you have with their sister

^eds, your point is so true, this picture has pretty depressing implications for the twisted world we live in (for the most part anyway):

by Eilzel Wed Nov 19, 2014 5:13 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:Some of y'all got me to thinking about how there's also an emerging idea in neuroscience of a "conservative brain" that according to early research indicates hardwiring of values like structure, order, hierarchy, the notion of being born into certain roles, etc.

It's associated with a larger-than-average fear center, and I think it's interesting that in a study done in China, people who have that brain type are typically hardline Communist Party supporters, while people with more "liberal" brain structure tend to be in favor of free-market reforms.

That's why I posted the OCEAN test recently, I was curious to see how people did because one of the best predictors of having a "liberal" brain is a high Openness score, while a low Openness score almost always predicts conservatism.

Where is that test Ben?

by Eilzel Wed Nov 19, 2014 5:14 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Eilzel wrote: no one would choose to be gay, doing so would defy all rational sense

says the man that DOESN'T deal with Chicks
Do you know what else defies all rational sense????

WOMEN

Haha, well maybe I am the fortunate one then Wink

by Eilzel Wed Nov 19, 2014 5:16 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Eilzel wrote:The science proving it is biological is all well and good, it is just a shame we even need it- anyone with half a brain cell should be able to reason that no one would choose to be gay; doing so would defy all rational sense!

And as Ben says if they did find out it was genetic some demented conservatives would start talking about cures (although from what I understand of genetics- admittedly little- that would be a possibly unrealistic prospect anyway since there aren't specific 'genes' for one thing or another. Anyone correct me if I have got that wrong).

Also, veya, though I do think a minority of homophobes probably are insecure, I don't think that's the case for the majority. The majority of homophobes are homophobes for the same reason they don't like people of different cultures, different nationalities, different races, different religions etc (I've used neutral terms since none of those are limited to white western Christians). cause it makes them question if they are right, and they couldn't kiss a guy in a non-gay way, take TM for example (but not specifically Ugandan president is another) cause he is pretty average for a homophob notice how his opposition pretty much entirely revolves around the penises in anuses thing? that not because your different... that is because every time he looks at you and his mind remembers that your gay he thinks of dicks and bums. Biologically Homosexual should be liked by straight men because they can help hunt but are not competition for women, and they may look after the kids you have with their sister

^eds, your point is so true, this picture has pretty depressing implications for the twisted world we live in (for the most part anyway):

That is a good point; I suppose if a man who considers himself straight as they come, and arrogant with it, the fact he thinks that way might be discomforting haha Twisted Evil

by Guest Wed Nov 19, 2014 6:36 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:Some of y'all got me to thinking about how there's also an emerging idea in neuroscience of a "conservative brain" that according to early research indicates hardwiring of values like structure, order, hierarchy, the notion of being born into certain roles, etc.

It's associated with a larger-than-average fear center, and I think it's interesting that in a study done in China, people who have that brain type are typically hardline Communist Party supporters, while people with more "liberal" brain structure tend to be in favor of free-market reforms.

That's why I posted the OCEAN test recently, I was curious to see how people did because one of the best predictors of having a "liberal" brain is a high Openness score, while a low Openness score almost always predicts conservatism.

It is very flawed methodology that can be rigged to play off what a person fears compared to another, based upon their own political views, thus if the start point is favoured to ensure a response to fear from some then that methodology is rigged from the start. If we to take this view point based on fear, then the vast majority of the world would be conservative based on religion through the fear of death. I have read a view studies on this and if you showed a view to view to death being empty, it would prompt a fear reaction in any but not all.

Here is the study, which is based on a length of time given to a picture being looked at:

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/12458/20140807/why-conservatives-and-liberals-see-the-world-differently.htm

Humans have a natural view to defend against harm to themselves and to others, this could easily be viewed that conservatives take the view point based on an action of fear to protect others, whilst liberals, take the view to not see the threat whether it is real, but not concentrating on this. You can make many assumptions based on something if your starting point is fear. Even more so when there is heightened tension in the world, in the Middle East, Russia etc, it is then already preying on concerns people may have for the future. It may not even mean they are conservative at all. Some people are more susceptible to fear, this being again religious people, where again any people can change from being religious or even their political view point. Again the whole process is based off a very wide room for massive disparity. I think such views also are poor and damaging, which can then give a wrong perception of people to then stigmatized them, where again the only factor played here is based on fear. I mean to back this stance, how many of the participants had family memebers that were involved in armed conflicts, of these who had lost family members or to those who were injured. Such factors in life can have lasting affects on people and this is just one example of countless, where again it predisposes there then is something wrong with someone if they are more susceptible to fear, not knowing if other factors have created this, again they may have been raped etc.

It is this kind of really bad science that leads to the viewing of humans that one could be superior to another with a view to superiority, I find that not only dangerous but idiotic to say the least.

by Ben Reilly Wed Nov 19, 2014 6:49 am

I don't think it views one side as being superior to the other, rather that one side might be slightly more advantageous to dealing with violent threats (the conservative side) while the other might be slightly more advantageous when dealing with peaceful interactions (the liberal side). If you read the book I did ("The Republican Brain") the conclusion is that human society has survived because of both sides. The book also points out the relative strengths and weaknesses of both types of thinking and suggests ways we all might better get along.

I think the big thing is to stop viewing one another as enemies; I have never personally met a conservative I couldn't agree with on a great many issues, and never one who I thought was a bad person. Maybe misguided in some ways, but aren't we all Smile

by Guest Wed Nov 19, 2014 7:56 am

Again it is a very flawed concept, where again you are taking the view point people's perceptions and emotions do not change with time and that they are set, which is of course complete nonesense, where everything has advanatages, but can easily be used to create a myth around a view that somebody is flawed, the point you miss.

Again thse studies are taken as a snap shot in the time of someones life, in this example students, not knowing again, if any have actually faced real threats, how they were brought up, what affect events have had on them that have befallen others etc, it just goes off at this present fact in time they hold certain political at this present state of time.

To put this into better perspective, do this test with a company of men that have just spent a tour of active duty in combat experincing the worst kind of fear than no other human can even begin to imagine and I am sure each and everyone of them would give you the same answers to the test. The threat is very real in their mind at this present time and in many cases may have traumatized them. Then take another snap shot 5 years down the road, where the closeness to this threat will have slightly diminished, but not fully the traumas of the memmories and you will no doubt see different answers. Hence the methodlogy is flawed, it fails to counter many factors and is only a snap shot, not something conducted to the same people over a seriers of tests over time.

Each and everyone of us has skills and abilities others will not have and it is this uniqueness that through unity can build nations.
Again I find the concept around this methodology very flawed, because it then can instil the wrong view in a person of themselves based then off belief of a report.

by eddie Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:00 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Eilzel wrote: no one would choose to be gay, doing so would defy all rational sense

says the man that DOESN'T deal with Chicks
Do you know what else defies all rational sense????

WOMEN

by veya_victaous Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:27 am

@les
was gonna add.
if we look at societies pre or uninfected by Abrahamic religions
the majority of men are bi. yes, they get married and have kids but if they are away on a long war a tent mate will do.
look at the Greeks or samurai, Even Odysseus and Diomedes had relations if you read into the meaning in the conversation about 'sharing a fire'
Gay genes 1132368643

@eddie

by Eilzel Wed Nov 19, 2014 9:18 am

veya_victaous wrote:@les
was gonna add.
if we look at societies pre or uninfected by Abrahamic religions
the majority of men are bi. yes, they get married and have kids but if they are away on a long war a tent mate will do.
look at the Greeks or samurai, Even Odysseus and Diomedes had relations if you read into the meaning in the conversation about 'sharing a fire'

@eddie

pre Abrahamic religion yes; not sure about those uninfected by them though. Although East Asia and South Asia were never as strongly anti-homosexuality as the west, same-sex relationships were still not considered as legitimate as heterosexual ones and long term and man was still expected to take a wife.

On the Greeks though of course; most characters in Greek myth (especially among the gods) had both heterosexual and homosexual relationships, with the homosexual couplings often being much more passionate. And there has to be an assumption that if this was celebrated through literature and 'religion' (in as much as we can understand it as religion) then it was certainly a part of life and not treated with intolerance (though the works of Aristophanes do shed light on how some 'effeminate' men were poked ( Wink

) fun at.

by groomsy Fri Nov 21, 2014 3:13 am

i can cure lesbians! Gay genes 1716015268

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 22, 2014 3:48 am

Not normal or natural.

Goes against biological and mechanical design and purpose of reproductive organs.

There is no 'gay gene'.

But same sex attraction is definately an example of where something has malfunctioned or gone drastically wrong with the normal and natural way of things that by definition of the basic design of attraction is being between opposite sexes.

by Eilzel Sat Nov 22, 2014 7:42 am

Do you ever get bored of repeating that mantra (or copy and pasting it from some file you have?)

by eddie Sat Nov 22, 2014 7:52 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Not normal or natural.

Goes against biological and mechanical design and purpose of reproductive organs.

There is no 'gay gene'.

But same sex attraction is definately an example of where something has malfunctioned or gone drastically wrong with the normal and natural way of things that by definition of the basic design of attraction is being between opposite sexes.

If I was God, I'd make you come back as a raging queen who also loved to parade as a transvestite.

Oh boy I sure would. Cool

by Guest Sat Nov 22, 2014 8:46 am

Eilzel wrote:Do you ever get bored of repeating that mantra (or copy and pasting it from some file you have?)

Morning Eilzel

His zeal is like religion itself, which is all you really need to know.
Not sure how many ties he needs to be refuted before it will sink in.
What is more to the point why he argues so adamantly he believes it is not normal.

We have seen such ugliness before behind such views.

by Eilzel Sat Nov 22, 2014 9:22 am

Brasidas wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Do you ever get bored of repeating that mantra (or copy and pasting it from some file you have?)

Morning Eilzel

His zeal is like religion itself, which is all you really need to know.
Not sure how many ties he needs to be refuted before it will sink in.
What is more to the point why he argues so adamantly he believes it is not normal.

We have seen such ugliness before behind such views.

I know. It is only ever two things. He either over asserts his point to over compensate his own insecurity, or he is has a genuine dislike and opposition to gay people being granted any amount of equality.

It is frightening, there are people like him (a minority now thankfully) in places of influence. Their views are dangerous.

by Guest Sat Nov 22, 2014 10:30 am

Eilzel wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

Morning Eilzel

His zeal is like religion itself, which is all you really need to know.
Not sure how many ties he needs to be refuted before it will sink in.
What is more to the point why he argues so adamantly he believes it is not normal.

We have seen such ugliness before behind such views.

I know. It is only ever two things. He either over asserts his point to over compensate his own insecurity, or he is has a genuine dislike and opposition to gay people being granted any amount of equality.

It is frightening, there are people like him (a minority now thankfully) in places of influence. Their views are dangerous.

Agreed, what he fails to understand is his views are more in line with religions like Islam, Christianity for example and yet he calls Islam backward, which being as he follows some of their principles, ie them claiming homosexuality to be wrong, then this would thus make his own views backwards following the same method of thought.

He cannot have it both ways. I mean both yourself and I view the abrahamic faiths as backwards, why does he thus then excuse and promote some with his views?
It goes back to this:

Religion anchors believers to the Iron Age. Concubines, magical incantations, chosen people, stonings . . . The “Axial Age,” when the world’s largest religions got their start, was a time of rampant superstition, ignorance, inequality, racism, misogyny, and violence. Slavery had God’s sanction. Women and children were literally possessions of men. Warlords practiced scorched earth warfare. Desperate people sacrificed animals, children, agricultural products, and enemy soldiers as burnt offerings intended to appease dangerous gods. Sacred texts including the Bible, Torah and Koran all preserve and protect fragments of Iron Age culture, putting a god’s name and endorsement on some of the very worst human impulses. Any believer looking to excuse his own temper, sense of superiority, warmongering, bigotry, or planetary destruction can find validation in writings that claim to be authored by God. Today, humanity’s moral consciousness is evolving, grounded in an ever deeper and broader understanding of the Golden Rule. But conservative believers can’t move forward. They are anchored to the Iron Age. This pits them against change in a never-ending battle that consumes public energy and slows creative problem solving.

You can highlight many points in their and attribute them to Tommy, where he is clearly still living in the Iron age.

by Eilzel Sat Nov 22, 2014 10:40 am

Brasidas wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

I know. It is only ever two things. He either over asserts his point to over compensate his own insecurity, or he is has a genuine dislike and opposition to gay people being granted any amount of equality.

It is frightening, there are people like him (a minority now thankfully) in places of influence. Their views are dangerous.

Agreed, what he fails to understand is his views are more in line with religions like Islam, Christianity for example and yet he calls Islam backward, which being as he follows some of their principles, ie them claiming homosexuality to be wrong, then this would thus make his own views backwards following the same method of thought.

He cannot have it both ways. I mean both yourself and I view the abrahamic faiths as backwards, why does he thus then excuse and promote some with his views?
It goes back to this:

Religion anchors believers to the Iron Age. Concubines, magical incantations, chosen people, stonings . . . The “Axial Age,” when the world’s largest religions got their start, was a time of rampant superstition, ignorance, inequality, racism, misogyny, and violence. Slavery had God’s sanction. Women and children were literally possessions of men. Warlords practiced scorched earth warfare. Desperate people sacrificed animals, children, agricultural products, and enemy soldiers as burnt offerings intended to appease dangerous gods. Sacred texts including the Bible, Torah and Koran all preserve and protect fragments of Iron Age culture, putting a god’s name and endorsement on some of the very worst human impulses. Any believer looking to excuse his own temper, sense of superiority, warmongering, bigotry, or planetary destruction can find validation in writings that claim to be authored by God. Today, humanity’s moral consciousness is evolving, grounded in an ever deeper and broader understanding of the Golden Rule. But conservative believers can’t move forward. They are anchored to the Iron Age. This pits them against change in a never-ending battle that consumes public energy and slows creative problem solving.

You can highlight many points in their and attribute them to Tommy, where he is clearly still living in the Iron age.

Well Tommy certainly exemplifies those highlighted areas. Whether or not he does so while holding religious views I don't know, and he has never admitted to (perhaps through fearing it would potentially undermine his arguments). Either way you are right in his views being anchored in the Iron Age and a good reflection of the moral depravity of Islam and other Abrahamic faiths.

by Guest Sat Nov 22, 2014 11:02 am

Eilzel wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

Agreed, what he fails to understand is his views are more in line with religions like Islam, Christianity for example and yet he calls Islam backward, which being as he follows some of their principles, ie them claiming homosexuality to be wrong, then this would thus make his own views backwards following the same method of thought.

He cannot have it both ways. I mean both yourself and I view the abrahamic faiths as backwards, why does he thus then excuse and promote some with his views?
It goes back to this:

Religion anchors believers to the Iron Age. Concubines, magical incantations, chosen people, stonings . . . The “Axial Age,” when the world’s largest religions got their start, was a time of rampant superstition, ignorance, inequality, racism, misogyny, and violence. Slavery had God’s sanction. Women and children were literally possessions of men. Warlords practiced scorched earth warfare. Desperate people sacrificed animals, children, agricultural products, and enemy soldiers as burnt offerings intended to appease dangerous gods. Sacred texts including the Bible, Torah and Koran all preserve and protect fragments of Iron Age culture, putting a god’s name and endorsement on some of the very worst human impulses. Any believer looking to excuse his own temper, sense of superiority, warmongering, bigotry, or planetary destruction can find validation in writings that claim to be authored by God. Today, humanity’s moral consciousness is evolving, grounded in an ever deeper and broader understanding of the Golden Rule. But conservative believers can’t move forward. They are anchored to the Iron Age. This pits them against change in a never-ending battle that consumes public energy and slows creative problem solving.

You can highlight many points in their and attribute them to Tommy, where he is clearly still living in the Iron age.

Well Tommy certainly exemplifies those highlighted areas. Whether or not he does so while holding religious views I don't know, and he has never admitted to (perhaps through fearing it would potentially undermine his arguments). Either way you are right in his views being anchored in the Iron Age and a good reflection of the moral depravity of Islam and other Abrahamic faiths.

Well lets face it Eilzel, the vast majority of opposition to homosexuality is religion or founded from views within religion.
So lets ask Tommy.
Tommy was you brought up in a religious background or are you religious yourself?
If not, why do you hold views found and formulated within religion themselves?

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 22, 2014 2:30 pm

eddie wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Not normal or natural.

Goes against biological and mechanical design and purpose of reproductive organs.

There is no 'gay gene'.

But same sex attraction is definately an example of where something has malfunctioned or gone drastically wrong with the normal and natural way of things that by definition of the basic design of attraction is being between opposite sexes.

If I was God, I'd make you come back as a raging queen who also loved to parade as a transvestite.

Oh boy I sure would.

I'd still say the same thing....

It can be a little bit boring having to keep repeating facts to people who constantly try to deny the truth.

And no, not brought up in a strong religious way.

by Eilzel Sat Nov 22, 2014 2:34 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
eddie wrote:

If I was God, I'd make you come back as a raging queen who also loved to parade as a transvestite.

Oh boy I sure would.

I'd still say the same thing....

It can be a little bit boring having to keep repeating facts to people who constantly try to deny the truth.

And no, not brought up in a strong religious way.

Well as didge says your sexism, homophobia and xenophobia are all traits you share with radical Islamists. So you're in good company. You ignored the links in the OP I guess- tommy knows best right Rolling Eyes

by Eilzel Sat Nov 22, 2014 2:47 pm

A fair question is however, why are you so incessant when it comes to hammering this particular point.

The OP links are against what you say. No one has anything conclusive yet but science is getting there.

Regardless, you chose to come in here with your usual mantra (which hasn't altered by a word in 2 years), ignore the previous discussion just to once again speak against gay people.

My question is- why do you care so much?

Do gay people upset you?
Do we offend you?
Do you think we might or want to turn other people gay?
Do you oppose us loving our boyfriend/husband/partner?

What do you hope to gain from repeating the same dull lines over and over? Self-assurement?

You aren't going to convince anyone here of your antiquated view, so why keep going to the effort to assert it?

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 22, 2014 3:43 pm

I'm not sexist, I love women.

I'm not homophobic, just stating facts.

I'm not xenaphobic, I have friends and family of different ethnic backgrounds. Plus I love going to other countries, meeting different people and experiencing different cultures. I just think that immigration has been too much and has hugely negative social and economic impacts here.

Facts are facts I'm afraid.

by Eilzel Sat Nov 22, 2014 3:47 pm

Being sexist doesn't mean you hate women it means you hold negative stereotypes of women and express negative views which we saw recently in a thread (can't remember which).

And care to answer my previous post asking why you are so assertive of your repeated point on homosexuality even when it isn't warranted?

by Guest Sat Nov 22, 2014 4:02 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:I'm not sexist, I love women.

I'm not homophobic, just stating facts.

I'm not xenaphobic, I have friends and family of different ethnic backgrounds. Plus I love going to other countries, meeting different people and experiencing different cultures. I just think that immigration has been too much and has hugely negative social and economic impacts here.

Facts are facts I'm afraid.

lol well that is a given, I have friends.
You are xenophobic as argue the view point of stopping immigration based on where some criminals are foreign.
That is promoting a view that is xenophobic, a fear based argument against groups of people from a different country.

You are most certainly sexist as well, which makes me further believe you had a religious upbringing.
There is no doubt you are also homophobic, yet you shy away from all these titles, and yet happy to label others with title.

Contradiction that, as facts are facts, as proven you are xenophobic, homophobic and sexist.

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 22, 2014 4:21 pm

Facts are facts.....

And 77% of British people want immigration reduced.

The Torys were elected under a pledge to reduce it but it has risen and while we remain in the EU we have no control on EU immigration.

So it is not xenaphobic to support the reduction of immigration as I do.

Xenaphobe is just a word you throw around to attack and silence people with legitimate views on immigration and supported by the overwhelming majority of the British population.

And sexist?

Not at all... maybe you can back up this claim with some evidence???

Didn't think so....

Homophobic?

By stating facts?

lol!

The facts are the facts I'm afraid.... are you saying facts are homophobic???

lol!

by Guest Sat Nov 22, 2014 4:32 pm

Hilarious so he now uses polls to justify being xenophobic on those who wish to limit immigration, yet he argues to stop immigrants coming here based on crime some do. That is not even a comparison to your arguments you use on those who commit crime.

We are not talking about your view to reduce immigration, but your arguments to deny ethnic groups of people based off how some commit crime. You promote a fear based argument to then not allow anyone from that ethnic or religious group for that matter to come here. That is xenophobic, as you are forming a view of fear based on who they are and crime.

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 22, 2014 4:37 pm

Waffle....

I said that criminals should be prevented from coming here.

At the moment criminals are able to get here too easily, unchecked.

by Guest Sat Nov 22, 2014 4:39 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Waffle....

I said that criminals should be prevented from coming here.

At the moment criminals are able to get here too easily, unchecked.

Incorrect, you have used arguments that is clearly against immigration, based on levels of crime by some within ethnic or religious groups as a reason to stop people coing here. It is all there for people to see and thus such a view is steeped in xenophobia.

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 22, 2014 4:48 pm

I have pointed out crime figures before.

But there are many social and economic reasons to reduce immigration.

Plus it is the overwhelming majority will of the British people.

by Guest Sat Nov 22, 2014 4:51 pm

No on threads about immigration, you have brought up in regards to crimes committed by foreigners.
Stop trying to poorly worm your way out of denying things you have debated here, that is poor to say the least, when I have proven the fact you are xenophobic to use such arguments on immigration. UKIP do the same also, for examples the fear of Romanians coming here.
Xenophobic argument, that is a fact and yet you make excuses and now lie claiming you do not.

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 22, 2014 6:00 pm

No worming from me just more twisting from you, as usual.

by Guest Sat Nov 22, 2014 6:28 pm

Oh dear, you mean now you are being exposed as lying, by not admitting to arguments you have used.

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 22, 2014 7:35 pm

I'm not denying anything just saying that there are many reasons to limit immigration and be much more careful about who we allow entry to our country.

by Guest Sat Nov 22, 2014 7:42 pm

So you thus admit you are a xenophobe then As if you use a view to promote fear around an ethnic or religious groups, based off the criminality of some, you are doing so off xenophobia beliefs you have about them.
Seriously stop denying that you are Tommy, it is silly to be honest, when many know you are.

by Tommy Monk Sat Nov 22, 2014 8:11 pm

I highlight facts dodge.

Are you saying facts are xenaphobic...???

by Guest Sat Nov 22, 2014 8:36 pm

Dear me another poor excuse, what facts?
That some criminals commit crime and that you then attempt to use this as a means to promote fear of said group based on some committing crime.
That is xenophobic.
Stop being in denial.

by Guest Sat Nov 22, 2014 8:44 pm

I guess Tommy wants to live in denial, why his views will be in the main irrational.

Hey ho, this is getting repetitive on all 3 debates tonight Tommy. where you can never concede anything and you know you are in the wrong because you go into denial mode, it is your defense mechanism, when you are exposed.

So my points are made, and you clearly cannot refute them by your responses. So I shall leave you to stew on that fact.

Laters

by Eilzel Sat Nov 22, 2014 11:42 pm

Your 'facts' are not really facts though, you ignore everything that disagrees with your set view and rely on flawee logic.

Your homophobia is clear from the assertiveness by which you choose to barge into a thread like this, make the same point you've made 1000 times before and offer nothing to the debate.

And so I ask again- why are you set on speaking against gay people?

by Tommy Monk Sun Nov 23, 2014 12:50 am

Eilzel wrote:Your 'facts' are not really facts though, you ignore everything that disagrees with your set view and rely on flawee logic.

Tell everyone one fact I've ever posted here that was not factually correct?

Your homophobia is clear from the assertiveness by which you choose to barge into a thread like this, make the same point you've made 1000 times before and offer nothing to the debate.

Yeah right!

My homophobia is clear by my 'assertive barging' and stating facts....

And so I ask again- why are you set on speaking against gay people?

When has it been wrong to state facts and tell the truth?

by Eilzel Sun Nov 23, 2014 1:23 am

Say homosexuality is not normal or natural is entirely subjective, not a fact.

by Tommy Monk Sun Nov 23, 2014 3:18 am

Things that are subjective are open to interpretation.

The biological and mechanical design and intended purpose of reproductive organs are pretty unambiguous.....

by Sponsored content