Seems pretty stupid to remove anything short of inciting violence. We live in a free country where you can have whatever views you want, as long as you respect the rights of others. Whether it is accurate or not doesn't really matter. LGBT myself, but the idea of trying to censor speech just because it doesn't agree with you is disturbing
That said, YouTube is a private company, not the government. They have a right to take down whatever they want. There are plenty of other video upload sites to use if you want to protest what's going on, but most don't care enough
Topic: YouTube Removes Movie Trailer Questioning Whether People Are Born Gay - page 2. (Read 1888 times)
July 09, 2015, 02:15:14 PM
July 09, 2015, 02:04:57 PM
Get used to it, we're in the information age now and science isn't going to stop calling out religion on its insidious deceptive bullshit.
You're just totally ignoring the studies that been posted in this thread that show homosexuality is not in the genes?
As Wilikon said, what's the harm in showing the video on YouTube, when you believe it's laughable? Wouldn't you want it on YouTube so people can post comments and laugh at it then?
July 09, 2015, 10:28:41 AM
Get used to it, we're in the information age now and science isn't going to stop calling out religion on its insidious deceptive bullshit.
Why be afraid of a little movie trailer on youtube then? If the trailer is deceptive let the people see it all. Unless your kind of people are control freaks and love to impose their views to others, exactly what you believe made you a 24/7 victim all your life, like now...
July 09, 2015, 09:58:59 AM
Get used to it, we're in the information age now and science isn't going to stop calling out religion on its insidious deceptive bullshit.
July 09, 2015, 09:16:14 AM
Well, to be fair, there is no evidence that homosexuality arises from birth. The best research we have is that there is correlation with factors at birth, but not conclusively proving it's caused at birth. There are many twin concordance studies where scientists looked at the sexual orientation of identical twins who were either raised together or separated at birth and raised apart. If it was something that arises from birth (e.g. gay genes), you'd expect to see almost 100% of twins separated at birth to either become matching homosexual or heterosexual. Instead it's only around 30% of identical twins where one is homosexual and the other turned out to be too.
What we have in science is a "nature-vs-nuture" debate. If homosexuality was exclusively by the way someone was raised, then you'd expect to see a very low rate of concordance in those separated twins (i.e. the twins raised in different homes by different people would have an expected homosexuality rate around the population average, rather than the 30% seen in the studies). There's other ambiguous evidence, like MRI scans that show structural differences in the brains of men and women, and homosexual men have brains that match the shape of women in certain areas (identified as the Sexually Dimorphic Nucleus, SDN ). Whether this is a pre-existing condition that causes homosexuality, or takes shape in the brain in response to homosexuality, is unclear in today's neuroscience research. The best answer I can say is that both nature and nurture are critical factors it seems.
It's not not something that presents at birth; for example 30% of gay couples with children in the US have their children from a previous straight marriage. I'd argue people arrive at homosexuality in different ways; it's through classical and operant conditioning that we develop our likes and dislikes, and our desires are shaped. The idea that homosexuality is present from birth would mean there are gay babies, which nobody takes seriously (even New York Times magazine said that it was an uncomfortable thought that even gay advocates didn't want to venture into).
What we have in science is a "nature-vs-nuture" debate. If homosexuality was exclusively by the way someone was raised, then you'd expect to see a very low rate of concordance in those separated twins (i.e. the twins raised in different homes by different people would have an expected homosexuality rate around the population average, rather than the 30% seen in the studies). There's other ambiguous evidence, like MRI scans that show structural differences in the brains of men and women, and homosexual men have brains that match the shape of women in certain areas (identified as the Sexually Dimorphic Nucleus, SDN ). Whether this is a pre-existing condition that causes homosexuality, or takes shape in the brain in response to homosexuality, is unclear in today's neuroscience research. The best answer I can say is that both nature and nurture are critical factors it seems.
It's not not something that presents at birth; for example 30% of gay couples with children in the US have their children from a previous straight marriage. I'd argue people arrive at homosexuality in different ways; it's through classical and operant conditioning that we develop our likes and dislikes, and our desires are shaped. The idea that homosexuality is present from birth would mean there are gay babies, which nobody takes seriously (even New York Times magazine said that it was an uncomfortable thought that even gay advocates didn't want to venture into).
Science is amazing, but has little chance standing when facing the mind numbing rainbow warriors...
July 09, 2015, 07:28:23 AM
Well, to be fair, there is no evidence that homosexuality arises from birth. The best research we have is that there is correlation with factors at birth, but not conclusively proving it's caused at birth. There are many twin concordance studies where scientists looked at the sexual orientation of identical twins who were either raised together or separated at birth and raised apart. If it was something that arises from birth (e.g. gay genes), you'd expect to see almost 100% of twins separated at birth to either become matching homosexual or heterosexual. Instead it's only around 30% of identical twins where one is homosexual and the other turned out to be too.
What we have in science is a "nature-vs-nuture" debate. If homosexuality was exclusively by the way someone was raised, then you'd expect to see a very low rate of concordance in those separated twins (i.e. the twins raised in different homes by different people would have an expected homosexuality rate around the population average, rather than the 30% seen in the studies). There's other ambiguous evidence, like MRI scans that show structural differences in the brains of men and women, and homosexual men have brains that match the shape of women in certain areas (identified as the Sexually Dimorphic Nucleus, SDN ). Whether this is a pre-existing condition that causes homosexuality, or takes shape in the brain in response to homosexuality, is unclear in today's neuroscience research. The best answer I can say is that both nature and nurture are critical factors it seems.
It's not not something that presents at birth; for example 30% of gay couples with children in the US have their children from a previous straight marriage. I'd argue people arrive at homosexuality in different ways; it's through classical and operant conditioning that we develop our likes and dislikes, and our desires are shaped. The idea that homosexuality is present from birth would mean there are gay babies, which nobody takes seriously (even New York Times magazine said that it was an uncomfortable thought that even gay advocates didn't want to venture into).
What we have in science is a "nature-vs-nuture" debate. If homosexuality was exclusively by the way someone was raised, then you'd expect to see a very low rate of concordance in those separated twins (i.e. the twins raised in different homes by different people would have an expected homosexuality rate around the population average, rather than the 30% seen in the studies). There's other ambiguous evidence, like MRI scans that show structural differences in the brains of men and women, and homosexual men have brains that match the shape of women in certain areas (identified as the Sexually Dimorphic Nucleus, SDN ). Whether this is a pre-existing condition that causes homosexuality, or takes shape in the brain in response to homosexuality, is unclear in today's neuroscience research. The best answer I can say is that both nature and nurture are critical factors it seems.
It's not not something that presents at birth; for example 30% of gay couples with children in the US have their children from a previous straight marriage. I'd argue people arrive at homosexuality in different ways; it's through classical and operant conditioning that we develop our likes and dislikes, and our desires are shaped. The idea that homosexuality is present from birth would mean there are gay babies, which nobody takes seriously (even New York Times magazine said that it was an uncomfortable thought that even gay advocates didn't want to venture into).
Thanks for that post. I haven't looked it up before, but just did. This article states one test came up with lower percentages than that, even:
“Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”
http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/identical-twin-studies-prove-homosexuality-is-not-genetic
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
It's Money 2.0| It’s gold for nerds | It's Bitcoin
July 09, 2015, 01:07:13 AM
Well, to be fair, there is no evidence that homosexuality arises from birth. The best research we have is that there is correlation with factors at birth, but not conclusively proving it's caused at birth. There are many twin concordance studies where scientists looked at the sexual orientation of identical twins who were either raised together or separated at birth and raised apart. If it was something that arises from birth (e.g. gay genes), you'd expect to see almost 100% of twins separated at birth to either become matching homosexual or heterosexual. Instead it's only around 30% of identical twins where one is homosexual and the other turned out to be too.
What we have in science is a "nature-vs-nuture" debate. If homosexuality was exclusively by the way someone was raised, then you'd expect to see a very low rate of concordance in those separated twins (i.e. the twins raised in different homes by different people would have an expected homosexuality rate around the population average, rather than the 30% seen in the studies). There's other ambiguous evidence, like MRI scans that show structural differences in the brains of men and women, and homosexual men have brains that match the shape of women in certain areas (identified as the Sexually Dimorphic Nucleus, SDN ). Whether this is a pre-existing condition that causes homosexuality, or takes shape in the brain in response to homosexuality, is unclear in today's neuroscience research. The best answer I can say is that both nature and nurture are critical factors it seems.
It's not not something that presents at birth; for example 30% of gay couples with children in the US have their children from a previous straight marriage. I'd argue people arrive at homosexuality in different ways; it's through classical and operant conditioning that we develop our likes and dislikes, and our desires are shaped. The idea that homosexuality is present from birth would mean there are gay babies, which nobody takes seriously (even New York Times magazine said that it was an uncomfortable thought that even gay advocates didn't want to venture into).
What we have in science is a "nature-vs-nuture" debate. If homosexuality was exclusively by the way someone was raised, then you'd expect to see a very low rate of concordance in those separated twins (i.e. the twins raised in different homes by different people would have an expected homosexuality rate around the population average, rather than the 30% seen in the studies). There's other ambiguous evidence, like MRI scans that show structural differences in the brains of men and women, and homosexual men have brains that match the shape of women in certain areas (identified as the Sexually Dimorphic Nucleus, SDN ). Whether this is a pre-existing condition that causes homosexuality, or takes shape in the brain in response to homosexuality, is unclear in today's neuroscience research. The best answer I can say is that both nature and nurture are critical factors it seems.
It's not not something that presents at birth; for example 30% of gay couples with children in the US have their children from a previous straight marriage. I'd argue people arrive at homosexuality in different ways; it's through classical and operant conditioning that we develop our likes and dislikes, and our desires are shaped. The idea that homosexuality is present from birth would mean there are gay babies, which nobody takes seriously (even New York Times magazine said that it was an uncomfortable thought that even gay advocates didn't want to venture into).
July 08, 2015, 04:34:10 PM
I'm guessing it had more to do with viewers complaining... Which could translate as "community standards" but youtube can claim whatever they want. The guy who posted it is supporting a very unpopular opinion and won't have much recourse in the court or Internet.
Freedom of speech... Just watch what you say.
Freedom of speech... Just watch what you say.
Freedom of speech was meant to protect very unpopular opinions. Not anymore?
July 07, 2015, 05:47:29 AM
I'm guessing it had more to do with viewers complaining... Which could translate as "community standards" but youtube can claim whatever they want. The guy who posted it is supporting a very unpopular opinion and won't have much recourse in the court or Internet.
Freedom of speech... Just watch what you say.
Freedom of speech... Just watch what you say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Znb8dRascg
July 07, 2015, 03:35:14 AM
I'm guessing it had more to do with viewers complaining... Which could translate as "community standards" but youtube can claim whatever they want. The guy who posted it is supporting a very unpopular opinion and won't have much recourse in the court or Internet.
Freedom of speech... Just watch what you say.
Freedom of speech... Just watch what you say.
July 06, 2015, 02:52:17 PM
This is the state of the freedom of speech in the United States. And still there will be idiots, who will call the US as the land of freedom or the land of the free. I watched the video in VIMEO, and honestly, I couldn't understand the reason why YouTube removed it. Couldn't find anything that is even remotely offensive to the Sodomite community.
Yeah, I agree with you - I don't see anything wrong with this and don't know why they removed it. I was expecting a far more extreme video tbh, I reckon there is some shady reason that it was removed, possibly an attempt at the "Streisand Effect" to gain publicity for the film?
Oh yeah, and you should probably stop using "sodomites" to describe gays, seeing as by your own admission you engage in sodomy (with ladies)
It also makes you sound a bit like a crazy preacher/dancehall MC. 
Like this guy getting publicity for his cause you mean?
Gay Man Faked Robbery-Beating and Carved Anti-Gay Slur Into His Own Arm
A man who reported someone beat him and carved a homophobic slur into his arm staged the attacks, authorities in rural Utah said Tuesday.
Millard County Sheriff Robert Dekker said Rick Jones, 21, could face charges after officers investigating the series of reported attacks found inconsistencies in the evidence. The Delta man eventually acknowledged faking the harassment, Dekker said.
Brett Tolman, an attorney for Jones, said the reports were a cry for help initially directed toward people close to him, and Jones didn’t realize how much attention they would get.
“I think it’s such good evidence of the difficulties members of the gay community deal with, and some make better choices than others,” Tolman said.
[...]
Dekker said prosecutors are considering possible charges including filing a false report and reckless burning.
Tolman said Jones didn't have any criminal intent and the outpouring of support after the allegations became public was a good message.
Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox publicly declared his support after the allegations were reported. Cox said Tuesday that he's relieved that the troubling allegations weren't authentic, but he's concerned for Jones and his family and hopes they find "peace and healing."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HATE_CRIME_UTAH?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-06-30-21-36-15
July 06, 2015, 02:44:24 PM
YouTube is a private company. It have the right the decide what content it allows on its servers. Bigots crying for no reason.
Like bakers making wedding cakes?
July 06, 2015, 02:39:12 PM
This is the state of the freedom of speech in the United States. And still there will be idiots, who will call the US as the land of freedom or the land of the free. I watched the video in VIMEO, and honestly, I couldn't understand the reason why YouTube removed it. Couldn't find anything that is even remotely offensive to the Sodomite community.
Yeah, I agree with you - I don't see anything wrong with this and don't know why they removed it. I was expecting a far more extreme video tbh, I reckon there is some shady reason that it was removed, possibly an attempt at the "Streisand Effect" to gain publicity for the film?
Oh yeah, and you should probably stop using "sodomites" to describe gays, seeing as by your own admission you engage in sodomy (with ladies)
It also makes you sound a bit like a crazy preacher/dancehall MC. 
July 06, 2015, 02:34:36 PM
YouTube is a private company. It have the right the decide what content it allows on its servers. Bigots crying for no reason.
July 06, 2015, 02:17:16 PM
I'm all for gay marriage but I care a lot more about the freedom to proclaim your ideas than gay marriage. I've watched the video and I fail to find anything that "commercially deceptive" or things of that sort and I do feel youtube is upset by something that counteracts their beliefs and instead of confronting it they shunned it away and sat in a corner with their hands over their ears.
Thank you for at least using your own mind and judgement...
July 06, 2015, 01:30:33 PM
doesnt surprise me at all, jewtube has a liberal political agenda, my clip of a battle scene from the film "zulu" got taken down because i entitled it "how to deal with the baltimore riots"
And at the same time YouTube has no issues with videos such as this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztSzoh8N6es
I had clicked on the Report button and written "hate propaganda against a particular ethnic group" in the description box a month back. So far, YouTube has taken no action.
July 06, 2015, 01:04:00 PM
I'm all for gay marriage but I care a lot more about the freedom to proclaim your ideas than gay marriage. I've watched the video and I fail to find anything that "commercially deceptive" or things of that sort and I do feel youtube is upset by something that counteracts their beliefs and instead of confronting it they shunned it away and sat in a corner with their hands over their ears.
July 06, 2015, 12:01:16 PM
doesnt surprise me at all, jewtube has a liberal political agenda, my clip of a battle scene from the film "zulu" got taken down because i entitled it "how to deal with the baltimore riots"
July 06, 2015, 11:28:00 AM
This is the state of the freedom of speech in the United States. And still there will be idiots, who will call the US as the land of freedom or the land of the free. I watched the video in VIMEO, and honestly, I couldn't understand the reason why YouTube removed it. Couldn't find anything that is even remotely offensive to the Sodomite community.
Jump to: