Quote:

---

No, it's often the transgender beginning.

---

But we weren't on the topic of TG. We were on the topic of homosexuals.

Quote:

---

So when did all the turmoil of life begin?

---

That's a good question, but you were talking about "binary". Now you change the subject to "turmoil of life". I would say that the turmoil of life started in Genesis 3. The text there certainly would support that idea. But to suggest, as you have, that it's perfectly OK to be a homosexual because, after all, "Adam and Eve, enjoying their God-given free will, pushed the universe toward unlimited possibilities," has no support there at all. And to refer to Adam and Eve "enjoying" their choice to disobey God and introduce all of the negatives of sin into the world seems more than a little strange. Is that really what you meant to write?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

But we weren't on the topic of TG. We were on the topic of homosexuals.

---

From Psychology Today --
"...there is credible evidence across cultures that, for men, their birth order has some effect on their sexual orientation. Men with more older brothers are significantly more likely to identify as gay compared with first-born sons or men with older sisters. This is likely related to evidence that prenatal hormones affect the sexual orientation of boys."

Did you know all fetuses begin as female? Do you know about all the hormones that slosh over that fetus's developing body?

Quote:

---

That's a good question, but you were talking about "binary". Now you change the subject to "turmoil of life". I would say that the turmoil of life started in Genesis 3. The text there certainly would support that idea. But to suggest, as you have, that it's perfectly OK to be a homosexual because, after all, "Adam and Eve, enjoying their God-given free will, pushed the universe toward unlimited possibilities," has no support there at all. And to refer to Adam and Eve "enjoying" their choice to disobey God and introduce all of the negatives of sin into the world seems more than a little strange. Is that really what you meant to write?

---

Yes, I've already mentioned Genesis 3. Keep up! Adam and Eve were enjoying that fruit until!!!!! Time for more coffee for you.

shoot me kill me . This is about Tech Giants censoring .

Quote:

---

From Psychology Today --
"...there is credible evidence across cultures that, for men, their birth order has some effect on their sexual orientation. Men with more older brothers are significantly more likely to identify as gay compared with first-born sons or men with older sisters. This is likely related to evidence that prenatal hormones affect the sexual orientation of boys."

---

Words like "credible evidence", "some effect", and "likely related" are all qualifiers intended to prevent the reader from drawing any hard conclusions. But even at that, you are affirming what I have already said. While there are no doubt many environmental influences at play, yet there is no genetic "hardwiring" that results in a man being "born gay". So again, thank you for your support.

Quote:

---

Did you know all fetuses begin as female? Do you know about all the hormones that slosh over that fetus's developing body?

---

Gender is determined at the moment of conception by the sex chromosomes, so everyone does not "begin as female". But even at that, your comment has nothing to do with people becoming homosexual. And hormones don't "slosh".

Quote:

---

Yes, I've already mentioned Genesis 3. Keep up! Adam and Eve were enjoying that fruit until!!!!!

---

It just went right over your head. Too bad.

Let's let Tom have his thread back. We've hijacked it long enough.

As I have said private companies police themselves and there are plenty of those available besides the big brand giants. Even MTG despite being banned on twitter, still posts on her government account so excuse me if I'm unsympathetic to conservative victim hood. It's a bit self serving to holler Soros and give Koch a free pass. I know I may be guilty of the inverse and won't apologize for it no more than you have. At least on some level you acknowledge the policy of big biz abusing it's public trust and should be corrected...left or right leaning.

Quote:

---

As I have said private companies police themselves and there are plenty of those available besides the big brand giants.

---

When the tech giants conspired to deny Parler access to the net they were acting in classic monopoly practices . Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful for any person to "monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations .The Sherman Act was created to combat juggernauts that ruled entire industries like oil and railroads. It was made precisely for the highly concentrated power we see today in Big Tech.

Could Parler bring suit based on the Sherman Act?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

When the tech giants conspired to deny Parler access to the net they were acting in classic monopoly practices . Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful for any person to "monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations .The Sherman Act was created to combat juggernauts that ruled entire industries like oil and railroads. It was made precisely for the highly concentrated power we see today in Big Tech.

---

Enforce the law...Go Tom Go!

I support efforts to do so. It is a bi-partisan effort in Congress. You are welcome to hop on the train.

Grassley, Klobuchar, Colleagues to Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Rein in Big Tech (senate.gov)

Congress Introduces 5 Antitrust Bills to Rein in Big Tech (businessinsider.com)

I've always been for reining in ALL the big money guys.