Originally posted by .😖pace Opera:.
there just trying to make up some bullshit explanation for the gay 'gene' so they can get equal rights. now believe me, once they come out with a reasonable argument for gay rights then i will support it, but i havent seen anything yet that makes me wanna side with it.
Originally posted by .😖pace Opera:.
there just trying to make up some bullshit explanation for the gay 'gene' so they can get equal rights. now believe me, once they come out with a reasonable argument for gay rights then i will support it, but i havent seen anything yet that makes me wanna side with it.
Be carefful though. Designating a "gay gene" will also open up te posibillity that homosexuality could be selected for, repressed, and/or engineered out of humans. It could become genetic descrimination. The "gay gene" is a very sharp two edged sword. On the one hand it gives gay rights ultimate credibility, on the other hand it opens up physical descrimination.
Originally posted by .😖pace Opera:.
there just trying to make up some bullshit explanation for the gay 'gene' so they can get equal rights. now believe me, once they come out with a reasonable argument for gay rights then i will support it, but i havent seen anything yet that makes me wanna side with it.
Yeah, it is most certainly isn't a reasonable argument that gay people are no different from heterosexual people and are just as capable and deserving or having a loving relationship and therefore deserve equal rights.
And you don't seem to have much respect for science - fact: scientists are not, repeat not, in the habit of making up theories to support political stances. However they are often victims of people with political stances who try and censure them with theological/political views. Similar to what you seem to be saying here, which is the way I read it.
"Scientists have an agenda to trick people into allowing gay people to marry. Thus anything scientists say on the subject should be ignored due to this and rather people should insist on maintaining the status quo - that is not giving gays equal rights"
Since other groups who have been discriminated against (such as women, blacks and the disabled) have been given equal opportunity, homosexuals claim that they, too, should be liberated. However, as one Christian expert has said...
"Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does."
In contrast, homosexuals claim that scientific studies have shown that there is a biological basis for homosexuality.
Three main studies are cited by "gay rights" activists in support of their argument—Hamer's X-chromosome research, LeVay's study of the hypothalamus, and Bailey and Pillard's study of identical twins who were homosexuals.
In all three cases, the researchers had a vested interest in obtaining a certain outcome because they were homosexuals themselves. More importantly, their studies did not stand up to scientific scrutiny by other researchers. Also, "the media typically do not explain the methodological flaws in these studies, and they typically oversimplify the results". There is no reliable evidence to date that homosexual behavior is determined by a person's genes.
To the extent that biological or social factors may contribute to a person's bent toward homosexual behavior, this does not excuse it. Some people have a strong bent towards stealing stuff or abuse of alcohol, but they still choose to engage or not engage in this behavior—the law rightly holds them accountable.
Originally posted by .😖pace Opera:.
Since other groups who have been discriminated against (such as women, blacks and the disabled) have been given equal opportunity, homosexuals claim that they, too, should be liberated. However, as one Christian expert has said..."Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does."
By the same token, by that definition it should be ok then for people not to be given rights based upon - religious views, political views, being a part of a union and so on. I wonder if that Christian expert believes a Christian should have equal rights to a Muslim or Buddhist, or would he accept the discrimination because it is what he chooses to be rather then it being in his blood.
[b]In contrast, homosexuals claim that scientific studies have shown that there is a biological basis for homosexuality.Three main studies are cited by "gay rights" activists in support of their argument—Hamer's X-chromosome research, LeVay's study of the hypothalamus, and Bailey and Pillard's study of identical twins who were homosexuals.
In all three cases, the researchers had a vested interest in obtaining a certain outcome because they were homosexuals themselves. More importantly, their studies did not stand up to scientific scrutiny by other researchers. Also, "the media typically do not explain the methodological flaws in these studies, and they typically oversimplify the results". There is no reliable evidence to date that homosexual behavior is determined by a person's genes.
If you pop over to the "homosexual: chosen or genetic" thread you will discover a great many more studies. It is a contentious issue because it is not certain, and because there is perceived to be a lot of evidence for both sides - it is untrue that there is "no reliable" evidence, plenty of studies support the proposition that it is not chosen.
And it reminds me of some of the old historical texts dealing with early studies of Africans - when they proved that genetically they were no different or genetically inferior to a white people would say "propaganda, just trying to make the slavers look bad, damn abolitionists, they can't be let say blacks are equal to us, then they will want equal rights."
And really that is a crux, isn't it? If it turns out to be natural it would fall into the "Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is..." category, and there would be no way people could argue a gay person should be discriminated against without appearing to be a bigot. Thus it is vital to attack any fact or finding that would make this so.
To the extent that biological or social factors may contribute to a person's bent toward homosexual behavior, this does not excuse it. Some people have a strong bent towards stealing stuff or abuse of alcohol, but they still choose to engage or not engage in this behavior—the law rightly holds them accountable.
I feel like saying there is a lot of difference between kleptomania and alcoholism and homosexuality. To compare them is erroneous and misleading. If people believe homosexuality to be psychological they have a tendency to group it with things like kleptomania or schizophrenia. Madness
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, if it is biological or not does in my opinion hardly matter. Certainly something I'd like to know, but in what way does it affect equal rights? Not at all, equal rights should just be there for everybody.
Originally posted by .😖pace Opera:.
remember, im a hristian, so its a little harder for me to except 😉
And how is it hard to "except"? You can't neglect the fact that there are plenty of two males out there loving each other. So, why should they not be allowed to get married and adopt kids?
Originally posted by botankus
Where's Gay Guy when you actually need him? He's the new and improved authority on Gays and genes, so I'd like to hear his take on the matter.
Ha Ha..funny.
Tell me just because a Jew is Jewish..does that automatically mean he knows how to save money?
Just because a black guy is black, does that mean that he can shoot hoops and speak ghetto slang?
You think because they now have that show called "Queer eye" or whatever that Gay people know everything about being fashion conscience.
Personally I prefer Jordache genes to Levis, but what the hell does that have to do with me being Gay? I've seen hetero's who are just as much of the close horses as us "homos"
You mentioned how your father likes to stick 18 inch steel rods up his butt in another thread..should I now assume that you also like to stick 18 inch rods up your but?
You see how it works Mister?
Stereotyping is wrong, and it hurts the feelings of all those who are involved in it.
Originally posted by .😖pace Opera:.
sounds like an oversimplified hypothesis to me...
Does it sound any simpler than this one..
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
💃
You Christians don't talk about abiogenesis and cosmology like the real sciences do. They just believe that everything complex is created..🙄
Tell me, since homosexuality is a complex human behavior, would that then mean that God designed homosexuality?
Originally posted by .😖pace Opera:.
there just trying to make up some bullshit explanation for the gay 'gene' so they can get equal rights. now believe me, once they come out with a reasonable argument for gay rights then i will support it, but i havent seen anything yet that makes me wanna side with it.
Uh...Wrong. Scientists don't normally get involved in Politics, it's not thier job.
1) So you wouldn't support Gay Rights until you have proof that being gay is genetic? Wow...you are so loving a person 🙄
2) Again like Eis said, the fact that Gay people are human beings who deserve the right to be with the person they love means.......?
3) You haven't seen anything that makes you wanna side with gay rights.....what could possibly make a conservative Christian like yourself side with gay civil rights?
Originally posted by .😖pace Opera:.
Since other groups who have been discriminated against (such as women, blacks and the disabled) have been given equal opportunity, homosexuals claim that they, too, should be liberated. However, as one Christian expert has said..."Gender, race and impairment all relate to what a person is, whereas homosexuality relates to what a person does."
In contrast, homosexuals claim that scientific studies have shown that there is a biological basis for homosexuality.
Three main studies are cited by "gay rights" activists in support of their argument—Hamer's X-chromosome research, LeVay's study of the hypothalamus, and Bailey and Pillard's study of identical twins who were homosexuals.
In all three cases, the researchers had a vested interest in obtaining a certain outcome because they were homosexuals themselves. More importantly, their studies did not stand up to scientific scrutiny by other researchers. Also, "the media typically do not explain the methodological flaws in these studies, and they typically oversimplify the results". There is no reliable evidence to date that homosexual behavior is determined by a person's genes.
To the extent that biological or social factors may contribute to a person's bent toward homosexual behavior, this does not excuse it. Some people have a strong bent towards stealing stuff or abuse of alcohol, but they still choose to engage or not engage in this behavior—the law rightly holds them accountable.
First, can you provide some evidence to back up your claim that these researchers were gay or had a gay agenda? Or are you just assuming they're gay because only gay people would care enought to do the research in the first place?
So, in your conclusion you compare homosexuality with alcoholism and and theft. However in several studies, alcoholism, or at least a proclivity towards it, has been found to be an inherited behavior. Are you also saying that those researchers were trying to justify their alcoholism? I don't think alcoholics make very good scientists. Not that I would know, I'm no scientist.
Are you at least willing to admit that your position on this issue is based solely on your religion and the information you've read on christian websites? Also, that you think that your religiously based values should be written into the law of this nation?