posted on February 12, 2004 10:55:34 AM newBaptists Are Saving Homosexuals asks what conservative Christians throughout America are demanding to know:
Is President Bush A Homo?
January 2004. Mr. Bush wandered over during Mr. [Scot] Reid's [senior strategist to Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin] chat with the Prime Minister. Mr. Reid introduced himself and shook hands with Mr. Bush.
The President chuckled. "Well, you got a pretty face," he told the surprised Mr. Reid. He wasn't done. "You got a pretty face," he said again. "You're a good-looking guy. Better looking than my Scott anyway."
-- President Bush in a coquettish bout of eye-batting homosexual diplomatic flirting January 16, 2004 The Globe and Mail
We at Baptists Are Saving Homosexuals have BASHed enough so-called "gays" with the blunt love of Jesus to know how to spot deviants across a crowded sale at Saks. Outside of Italian shoes, nothing sends up a rainbow-colored flare that you are dealing with a flaming homosexual more reliably than when a man breathlessly gushes the word "faaabulous!" When a Christian lady hears this word outside of her hair salon or florist, she instinctively reaches for the Bible tracts in her purse because she knows a nancy boy is within throwing range.
"It's been a fabulous year for Laura and me."
-- George W. Bush., three months after the World Trade Center towers went down.
You are born one color or one sex but you aren't born gay.
I dont think this has been proven to be fact. There is still great debate whether you are born gay or you "learn to be gay"
Everyone already has equal rights with the exception of marriage.
Exactly, but it is still discrimination in its basic form.
It comes down to whether you believe in what the Bible says or even believe in God. I know you have all probably heard it before but it is the truth "God hates the sin but loves the person". As Christians we are expected to do the same....not hate anyone.
I agree with you 100% in the above statement. If people are going to use the bible for their reference on the gay marriage debate, then they should also realize divorce is frowned upon.
posted on February 12, 2004 11:52:15 AM new
Naked hatred - a good term Gravid and a great post.
Paws, I'd like to ask you something... what if all of the gay people in the world made the choice to be gay and it wasn't genetic or whatever? What's the difference?
posted on February 12, 2004 01:24:57 PM new
Paws, the strongest refutation of homosexuality/lesbianism being a "choice" as opposed to something genetically or divinely inspired is this:
Who would seek a "lifestyle" that guaranteed discrimination in everything from housing to military service? Why would anyone "choose" to risk a loss of employment, or a partner for whom they could not secure health benefits? What would be the advantage of belonging to a social group that is violently preyed upon by the Twelvepoles of this world? Why would anyone willingly "choose" to be villified by so-called Christians or Muslims or Hindus, etc.? And, perhaps most importantly, why would anyone "choose" a life that everyone else on the planet believes they have a right to vote on?
Not so long ago, when homosexuality was classified as both a mental disorder and a criminal act punishable by everything from institutionalization/jail time to death, people still "chose" to be gay.
posted on February 12, 2004 03:12:21 PM new
Exactly, Pat! Don't you find it interesting that nobody can come up with any logical explanation of WHY they don't like gays? - NOBODY. I'm 48 and I haven't heard a good excuse yet. And, I'm sorry Paws, but saying that a child, who sees gays together will think it's OK, is borderline moronic. Children don't judge, and you doing it by proxy is a form of mind control. If you are trying to teach values, please tell me the value in telling a child that love of any kind is wrong?
I'm not going to sit idly by while some here spew their hatred, ESPECIALLY the ones that think they have God's approval on this, so I apologize if I get too blunt.
posted on February 12, 2004 03:29:05 PM new
I like it when you get blunt, Krafty
As a funny aside, The Comedy Channel (cable station here in the U.S. ) sometimes airs gay stand-up comedians. One of the funniest bits I ever saw was delivered by a brilliant guy who'd mastered mixing serious political issues with fall-down-funny humor:
"On 20/20 last night, Barbara Walters interviewed Pat Buchannan, and asked him if he was serious about wanting to lock up or kill all the gays. When he said, "Yes," Barbara got this horrified look on her face. You could just tell she was thinking, "But, who's going to dye my hair? Who's going to decorate my apartment?!"
posted on February 12, 2004 03:44:32 PM new
I feel the same about you, Pat. You can be very blunt and I like that. That's why I admire Helen, Gravid, Kiara, Prof, Fenix, etc. - it's a quality I'd like to aquire.
posted on February 12, 2004 04:09:03 PM new
Actually, Krafty, just to be clear, it was not I who designated gay people as "good decorators". My personal experience only allows me to say that my gay friends have been fine friends.
And, hahaha, the new mayor of San Francisco just allowed the weddings of several gay couples to go forth at city hall today! The most notable of the couples were Phyllis Lyon, 79, and Del Martin, 83, (who founded The Daughters of Bilitis in the 1950's) ; they've been together for 51 years!
posted on February 12, 2004 05:39:18 PM new
Concerned Women Applauds Massachusetts’ Rejection of Faux Marriage 2/12/2004
Washington, D.C. – Concerned Women for America (CWA) praised the Massachusetts legislature for rejecting an amendment to the state constitution that would have codified civil unions in the state.
“The Massachusetts Legislature appears to understand what the people want,” said Jan LaRue, CWA’s Chief Counsel. “We are very pleased the legislators refused to legitimize faux marriage by putting it into the state's constitution last night.”
Massachusetts lawmakers narrowly rejected two constitutional amendments last night defining marriage and dealing with civil unions. The combined House-Senate conclave, meeting as a Constitutional Convention, deliberated for six hours before adjourning. They are slated to begin again today at noon.
The original Marriage Protection and Affirmation Amendment offered by Democrat Rep. Phil Travis, supported by the Coalition for Marriage, of which CWA and its Massachusetts chapter are members, was not voted on as of last night. That amendment defines marriage and has language that could be construed to bar civil unions.
“I think there’s still hope that the Travis amendment will pass,” said Sandi Martinez, director of CWA of Massachusetts. “We’ve been surprised by the positive votes from some legislators. We’re making calls to encourage our champions and to persuade the people who really ought to be with us but weren’t last night.”
posted on February 12, 2004 05:53:15 PM new
THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT
RESPONSES TO COMMON QUESTIONS
Why should Americans care about the legal status of marriage?
For several decades, America has been wandering in a wilderness of social problems caused by family disintegration. Record rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births have created an epidemic of fatherless families in America. And an overwhelming body of social science data has established that America's greatest social problems -- violent crime, welfare dependency, and child poverty -- track more closely with family disintegration than they do with any other social variable.
Tragically, as bad as our current situation may be, it could soon become dramatically worse. This is because the courts in America are poised to erase the legal road map to marriage and the family from American law within this decade. In fact, the weakening of the legal status of marriage in America at the hands of the courts has already begun. This process represents nothing less than a profound social revolution -- advancing apart from the democratic process and against the will of the American people. If allowed to continue, this revolution will deprive future generations of Americans of the legal road map that they will need to have a fighting chance of finding their way out of the social wilderness of family disintegration.
Why do we need a constitutional amendment dealing with marriage?
The institution of marriage is so central to the well being of both children and our society that it was, until recently, difficult to imagine that marriage itself would need explicit constitutional protection. However, our country's time-honored understanding that marriage is - in its very essence -- the union of male and female has come under fire in the courts. And the time has come for America to put this issue back where it belongs -- in the hands of the American people.
How is the legal status of marriage being undermined by the courts?
After court decisions undermining marriage were rejected by large majorities of voters in Alaska and Hawaii, the courts finally overcame the will of the people in this national debate when the Vermont Supreme Court required the State of Vermont to grant all of the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. As a result of this judicial decree, the Vermont legislature passed a "civil unions" law that creates de facto homosexual "marriage" in all but name. And this is nothing less than a legal Trojan horse for allowing the courts to redefine marriage across America.
Significantly, the Vermont law contains no residency requirement at all. Less than a year after the law took effect, over 2,000 couples had entered into "civil unions" in Vermont. But less than one quarter of these cases involved someone from Vermont. This means that the vast majority of Vermont "civil unions" (approximately 80%) are held by non-Vermont residents -- from every state in the nation -- who will eventually sue for that quasi marital status, and all of its legal consequences, to carry over.
In addition, in the most recent effort to use the courts to defeat the democratic process at the state level, a major new lawsuit was recently filed in Massachusetts. As in the case of Vermont, this lawsuit asks the state courts of Massachusetts to abolish hundreds of years of social and legal precedent regarding the definition of marriage. Unfortunately, legal experts are convinced that marriage as a legal institution in Massachusetts will be undermined by the courts as easily as it was in Vermont. In turn, this will lead to even more efforts to use the state and federal courts to undermine marriage laws across the country.
Finally, there are clear indications that state and federal courts in the United States will soon be presented with the first of many foreign same-sex "marriage" recognition lawsuits. These lawsuits are simply vehicles to invite the courts to take control over the legal status of marriage in America away from the American people.
For many different reasons, it has become clear that neither our state laws defining marriage, nor the federal Defense of Marriage Act, will withstand the multiple challenges to the legal status of marriage in America that are currently being unleashed. A critical juncture has been reached: the progressive weakening of marriage is now so far advanced that we can no longer hope to preserve the understanding of marriage for future generations short of using the ultimate democratic tool available to the American people - a federal constitutional amendment.
Aren't existing state marriage laws, as well as the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) sufficient to protect the legal status of marriage in the states?
First, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) cannot prevent state courts from subverting democracy and undermining marriage at the state level in states such as Vermont and Massachusetts.
Second, there are very good reasons to believe that both state marriage laws and the federal Defense of Marriage Act will not survive if challenged in court. One example is the 1996 case of Romer v. Evans, in which the Supreme Court invalidated a Colorado constitutional amendment that sought to prohibit legislation favoring people on the basis of "sexual orientation." The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there could be no rational basis for the citizens of Colorado to pass such an amendment to their own state constitution. In the opinion of the majority, the law could only be explained on the basis animus against homosexuals. Under this view, state and federal Defense of Marriage Acts clearly appear to be vulnerable to similar legal attack. The only sure safeguard against such a development is a federal constitutional amendment that will provide the highest possible level of protection for the legal status of marriage in America.
Indeed, although the federal courts may uphold the federal Defense of Marriage Act insofar as it applies to federal law, they will almost certainly invalidate the section of the act that purports to bar interstate transmission of same-sex "marriage". This is because the section of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act that applies to the states will be treated as an effort by Congress to offer an authoritative interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause as applied to same-sex marriages. But the modern Supreme Court has repeatedly held that acts of Congress which are premised upon a purportedly authoritative interpretation of a constitutional text will be invalidated. This is because, under the established doctrine of Judicial Supremacy in matters of constitutional interpretation, only the Court can offer an authoritative interpretation of the Constitution. For example, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was struck down by the Supreme Court on the grounds that it purported to offer an authoritative interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause.
Finally, DOMA offers no protection against the potential for legal recognition of foreign same-sex ?marriages? involving US citizens by American courts. More protection is required to keep the American people in charge of the definition of marriage in the United States.
What does the Federal Marriage Amendment say?
The text of the Federal Marriage Amendment reads:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
The first sentence simply states that marriage in the United States consists of the union of male and female.
The second sentence ensures that the democratic process at the state level will decide the allocation of the benefits and privileges traditionally associated with marriage. State legislatures retain authority to legislate in the area of marital benefits. But the courts are precluded from distorting existing constitutional or statutory law into a requirement that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be reallocated pursuant to a judicial decree.
The Federal Marriage Amendment is thus narrowly tailored to address negative developments in the courts. At the same time, the amendment does not depart from principles of federalism under which family law is, for the most part, a state matter. The traditional autonomy of state legislatures on family law matters is preserved by the text of the amendment.
How will the Federal Marriage Amendment affect foreign same-sex marriages?
The Federal Marriage Amendment will keep the American people in charge of the definition of marriage in the United States.
I urge every decent American to write your Congressman/Senators to let them know you support a Marriage admendment and help lay the foundation to stopping these queers... lets get them back under their rocks where they belong.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
posted on February 12, 2004 07:27:55 PM new
Kraft===
Paws, I'd like to ask you something... what if all of the gay people in the world made the choice to be gay and it wasn't genetic or whatever? What's the difference?
If they made the choice consciously then it would be different. Most research has shown that it starts out relational and ends up sexual. Of course your over all personality plays into it also. It is probably many things but those seem to be the basics.
A staff person in my church has come out of the lifestyle and has taught me alot on the matter. He has a ministry that helps people who want to change and he has some interesting stories. You can't change the color of your skin but you can change your sexual preferences. I know it can't be easy in any way, shape or form!! God does some very amazing things you know.
Yes divorce is frowned upon but is allowed. The bible is very clear about homosexuality and clear on divorce both of which God hates. If you decide to turn from you ways God will forgive you. There is no sin that can't be forgiven but we are expected to turn from them.
As I said before I don't hate anyone...especially because they are gay. One of my best friends in the whole world is gay and I would do anything I could if he needed me to do it.
We could all message our fingers off on this and it probably wouldn't change anyone's mind even a little. As I said before it all depends on whether or not you believe in God and his Word. I just can't stand when people spew hate but they are saying what God says. God doesn't hate anyone and if a person has accepted Jesus as their saviour they lie if they hate someone. Jesus said if anyone claims he loves God yet hates his brother the truth is not in him. We are commanded to love people. You have never locked eyes with any person who doesn't matter to God. It doesn't take one drop more of Jesus' blood to forgive the worst person you know than the best person you know. Sin is sin period. So if you say you hate gay and say you are a Christian you are a liar.
posted on February 12, 2004 07:32:00 PM new
Wait, Paws!
What about my questions? Won't you answer them?
Jesus would want you to...
Edited to add: And, while you're busy not answering my earlier questions, Paws, I'll give you yet another to run from:
You said:
"You can't change the color of your skin but you can change your sexual preferences."
Which literally screams the question, "When did you CHOOSE to become heterosexual?" Sexual preference, by your remark above, being a choice, and all...
Really, how old were you when you CHOSE to like members of the opposite sex, Paws?
posted on February 12, 2004 08:17:38 PM new
Paws, your religion teaches you to think of gays as sinners. That's mistake number one. If everyone in the world said they were gay, I could care less. Maybe gay people were sent by God to help adopt some of our unwanted children. Maybe they were sent here to help control the population that heterosexual couples seem to ignore. Maybe they're here to show us how to be compassionate. Whatever the reason, they deserve equal rights at the very least and not judgement from their glass-house peers.
posted on February 12, 2004 08:19:48 PM new
Tut, tut, Krafty. It's already been established that gay people are here to do our hair and decorate our dwellings...
posted on February 12, 2004 11:41:03 PM new
Black clergy rejection stirs gay marriage backers
By Michael Paulson, Globe Staff, 2/10/2004
The three major associations of Greater Boston's black clergy, exercising their considerable influence within the minority community and asserting moral authority on civil rights matters, have shaken up the debate over same-sex marriage with their insistence that the quest by gays and lesbians for marriage licenses is not a civil rights issue.
The Black Ministerial Alliance, the Boston Ten Point Coalition, and the Cambridge Black Pastors Conference issued a joint statement this weekend opposing gay marriage.
In response, gay and lesbian African-Americans are hastily pulling together an organization they say will seek to end their invisibility within the black church.
But the region's black pastors, some long associated with liberal political causes, say they are proud to be speaking out on an issue they consider to be hugely important. Several said that gay marriage would contribute to the further erosion of traditional family structure in the black community.
posted on February 12, 2004 11:54:24 PM new
Is There a "Gay Gene"?
Many laymen now believe that homosexuality is part of who a person really is from the moment of conception.
The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature?
No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.
How The Public Was Misled
In July of 1993, the prestigious research journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer which claims that there might be a gene for homosexuality. Research seemed to be on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeablea normal variant of human nature.
Soon afterward, National Public Radio trumpeted those findings. Newsweek ran the cover story, "Gay Gene?" The Wall Street Journal announced, "Research Points Toward a Gay Gene...Normal Variation."
Of course, certain necessary qualifiers were added within those news stories. But only an expert knew what those qualifiers meant. The vast majority of readers were urged to believe that homosexuals had been proven to be "born that way."
In order to grasp what is really going on, one needs to understand some littleknown facts about behavioral genetics.
Gene Linkage Studies
Dean Hamer and his colleagues had performed a common type of behavioral genetics investigation called the "linkage study." Researchers identify a behavioral trait that runs in a family, and then:
a) look for a chromosomal variant in the genetic material of that family, and
b) determine whether that variant is more frequent in family members who share the particular trait.
To the layman, the "correlation" of a genetic structure with a behavioral trait means that trait "is genetic"-in other words, inherited.
In fact, it means absolutely nothing of the sort, and it should be emphasized that there is virtually no human trait without innumerable such correlations.
Scientists Know the Truth about "Gay Gene" Research
But before we consider the specifics, here is what serious scientists think about recent genetics-of-behavior research. From Science, 1994:
Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."{1}
Homosexual Twin Studies
Two American activists recently published studies showing that if one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, the other member of the pair will be, too, in just under 50% of the cases. On this basis, they claim that "homosexuality is genetic."
But two other genetic researchers--one heads one of the largest genetics departments in the country, the other is at Harvard--comment:
While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment.{2}
The author of the lead article on genes and behavior in a special issue of Science speaks of the renewed scientific recognition of the importance of environment. He notes the growing understanding that:
... the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple "violence genes" and intelligence genes" touted in the popular press.The same data that show the effects of genes, also point to the enormous influence of nongenetic factors.{3}
More Modest Claims to the Scientific Community
Researchers' public statements to the press are often grand and far-reaching. But when answering the scientific community, they speak much more cautiously.
"Gay gene" researcher Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:
"Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."{4}
But in qualifying their findings, researchers often use language that will surely evade general understanding making statements that will continue to be avoided by the popular press, such as:
...the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a nonMendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic.{5}
Sounds too complex to bother translating? This is actually a very important statement. In layman's terms, this means:
It is not possible to know what the findings mean--if anything--since sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited in the direct way eyecolor is.
Thus, to their fellow scientists, the researchers have been honestly acknowledging the limitations of their research. However, the media doesn't understand that message. Columnist Ann Landers, for example, tells her readers that "homosexuals are born, not made." The media offers partial truths because the scientific reality is simply too unexciting to make the evening news; too complex for mass consumption; and furthermore, not fully and accurately understood by reporters.
Accurate Reporting Will Never Come in "Sound Bites"
There are no "lite," soundbite versions of behavioral genetics that are not fundamentally in error in one way or another.
Nonetheless, if one grasps at least some of the basics, in simple form, it will be possible to see exactly why the current research into homosexuality means so littleand will continue to mean little, even should the quality of the research methods improveso long as it remains driven by political, rather than scientific objectives.
Understanding the Theory
There are only two major principles that need to be carefully understood in order to see through the distortions of the recent research. They are as follows:
1. Heritable does not mean inherited.
2. Genetics research which is truly meaningful will identify, and then focus on, only traits that are directly inherited.
Almost every human characteristic is in significant measure heritable. But few human behavioral traits are directly inherited, in the manner of height, for example, or eye color. Inherited means "directly determined by genes," with little or no way of preventing or modifying the trait through a change in the environment.
How to "Prove" That Basketball-Players are Born that Way
Suppose you are motivated to demonstratefor political reasons--that there is a basketball gene that makes people grow up to be basketball players. You would use the same methods that have been used with homosexuality: (1) twin studies; (2) brain dissections; (3) gene "linkage" studies.
The basic idea in twin studies is to show that the more genetically similar two people are, the more likely it is that they will share the trait you are studying.
So you identify groups of twins in which at least one is a basketball player. You will probably find that if one identical twin is a basketball player, his twin brother is statistically more likely be one, too. You would need to create groups of different kinds of pairs to make further comparisons--one set of identical twin pairs, one set of nonidentical twin pairs, one set of sibling pairs, etc.
Using the "concordance rate" (the percentage of pairs in which both twins are basketball players, or both are not), you would calculate a "heritability" rate. The concordance rate would be quite high--just as in the concordance rate for homosexuality.
Then, you announce to the reporter from Sports Illustrated: "Our research demonstrates that basketball playing is strongly heritable." (And you would be right. It would be "heritable"--but not directly inherited. Few readers would be aware of the distinction, however.)
Soon after, the article appears. It says:
"...New research shows that basketball playing is probably inherited. Basketball players are apparently 'born that way!' A number of outside researchers examined the work and found it substantially accurate and wellperformed..."
But no one (other than the serious scientist) notices the media's inaccurate reporting.
What All Neuroscientists Know:
The Brain Changes with Use
Then you move on to conduct some brain research. As in the well-known LeVay brain study which measured parts of the hypothalamus, your colleagues perform a series of autopsies on the brains of some dead people who, they have reason to believe, were basketball players.
Next, they do the same with a group of dead nonbasketball players. Your colleagues report that, on average, "Certain parts of the brain long thought to be involved with basketball playing are much larger in the group of basketball players."
A few national newspapers pick up on the story and editorialize, "Clearly, basketball playing is not a choice. Not only does basketball playing run in families, but even these people's brains are different."
You, of course, as a scientist, are well aware that the brain changes with use...indeed quite dramatically. Those parts responsible for an activity get larger over time, and there are specific parts of the brain that are more utilized in basketball playing.
Now, as a scientist, you will not lie about this fact, if asked (since you will not be), but neither will you go out of your way to offer the truth. The truth, after all, would put an end to the worldwide media blitz accompanying the announcement of your findings.
Gene Linkage Studies:
"Associated With" Does Not Mean "Caused By"
Now, for the last phase, you find a small number of families of basketball players and compare them to some families of nonplayers. You have a hunch that of the innumerable genes likely to be associated with basketball playing (those for height, athleticism, and quick reflexes, for example), some will be located on the x-chromosome.
You won't say these genes cause basketball playing because such a claim would be scientifically insupportable, but the public thinks "caused by" and "associated with" are synonymous.
After a few false starts, sure enough, you find what you are looking for: among the basketball-playing families, one particular cluster of genes is found more commonly.
With a Little Help from the Media
Now, it happens that you have some sympathizers at National People's Radio, and they were long ago quietly informed of your research. They want people to come around to certain beliefs, too. So, as soon as your work hits the press, they are on the air: "Researchers are hot on the trail of the Basketball Gene. In an article to be published tomorrow in Sports Science..."
Commentators pontificate about the enormous public-policy implications of this superb piece of science. Two weeks later, there it is again, on the cover of the major national newsweekly: "Basketball Gene?"
Now what is wrong with this scenario? It is simple: of course basketball playing is associated with certain genes; of course it is heritable. But it is those intermediate physiological traitsmuscle strength, speed, agility, reflex speed, height, etc.-which are themselves directly inherited. Those are the traits that make it likely one will be able to, and will want to, play basketball.
In the case of homosexuality, the inherited traits that are more common among male homosexuals might include a greater than average tendency to anxiety, shyness, sensitivity, intelligence, and aesthetic abilities. But this is speculation. To date, researchers have not yet sought to identify these factors with scientific rigor.
What the majority of respected scientists now believe is that homosexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social, and biological factors.
From the American Psychological Association
"[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."{6}
From "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay
"At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role."{7}
From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist:
"Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."{8}
From Sociologist Steven Goldberg
"I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."{9}
As we have seen, there is no evidence that homosexuality is simply "genetic"--and none of the research itself claims there is.
Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.
posted on February 13, 2004 12:21:23 AM new
I don't know if being gay is a genetic disposition or not, and until they've analyzed every single molecule of DNA, I also have reservations about any certifiable proof of this.
Pat, you ask why would someone choose to be gay when it is obviously a painful lifestyle within mainstream society to do so? As if that in itself is the full evidence against it being a choice.
Well, my question then, is why do people choose to smoke; or do drugs, or any of the things they do, knowing it's going its bad or painful to them, or knowing whatever they choose is ostracized by society as being outside the norm? Even bigots choose to be bigots, but maybe we could argue they are genetically predisosed to that. ?
I dont know why people choose what they do in life. I can only guess because utimately they Want to. That's where they feel comfortable and want to be. I have always thought sexual preference is a personal choice.
posted on February 13, 2004 12:24:25 AM new
Coming out of the closet subjects homosexuals to hatred,intolerance, discrimination, and physical attacks (in some cases leading to death). Not coming out of the closet means living a lie, hiding your true self from friends and family and living in fear of discovery.
I sincerely doubt that anyone would subject themseleves to all that on a whim. No one wakes up one day and says "I think I will be a homosexual."
Not only do I believe that homosexuality is something one is born with, I also believe that, since homosexuality has been present in humans throughout recorded time (& before, most likely), that it is an inherent part of our species.
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on February 13, 2004 12:33:20 AM new
Staying up late to spew, eh, Gnatpole? But, to no avail, as usual.
Let's look at some facts. Facts, by the way, come from law , not church cabals. And just so you'll be perfectly clear, beliefs are what one gets in church, and you can BELIEVE whatever you like.
Fact: Lawmaker Lida Harkins eloquently argued that the long history of the constitution was one of expanding rights, not restricting them.
In part, she said:
"As Lincoln said, this nation was conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. I have marched with Martin Luther King to this common in Boston to support civil rights. Today I will cast another civil rights vote in defense of our constitution."
Fact: Senator Dianne Wilkerson spoke of her past civil rights work and her childhood, saying she cannot vote for a measure that would make one group of people less than equal.
"I was born in my grandmother's house in a shotgun shack in Arkansas," Wilkerson said. "The public hospital did not allow blacks to deliver children. We lived in constant fear of the Ku Klux Klan. Blacks had to pull off the road for whites to pass. I had two uncles that decided enough was enough in 1935. . . . It sent one uncle to Springfield, which is how I got there.
"I can't send anyone to that place from where my family fled. My grandmother would never forgive me."
Fact: Senator Brian Joyce spoke of his own wedding 17 years ago in a Catholic Church (you following along here, Twelvebeans?) and then urged his colleagues to extend the same right to gays.
Fact: You're going to have to abide by the Law.
You can dance with as many snakes as you like in church...
posted on February 13, 2004 12:42:22 AM newNeroter said:
"I have always thought sexual preference is a personal choice."
So, Neroter, at what point in your life did you CHOOSE to become heterosexual? Age five? Ten? When?
Bunnicula, if you missed it, please go read this article Gravid linked a few days ago. You'll laugh your socks off and also fuel what I believe are your correct assumptions...
posted on February 13, 2004 12:47:51 AM new
bunnicula, no one wakes on one day and says either; "I think I am going to be fat today and enjoy it, even though I will never feel good about myself and 'society' frowns upon it." Everything we do is a long process from A to Z. You're right there is a long history of homosexuality in our species. Which makes me ask; why other mammals and/or animals do not engage in this?
hmmmm...points to ponder lol
posted on February 13, 2004 12:50:13 AM newI dont know why people choose what they do in life. I can only guess because utimately they Want to. That's where they feel comfortable and want to be. I have always thought sexual preference is a personal choice.
That's right, by refusing to get the mental help they need, they continue down that path and deserve whatever befalls them for making that choice... just like a smoker takes a chance that this cigarette won't give me cancer and I will die...
It is proven that with some psychotherapy that queers came come back to the heterosexual life style and no longer trod the deviant path...
Just look at all the queer priests that molest boys... had they sought help for their homosexuality, how many youngboys would of not been molested... queers are a disease and they can be cured...
posted on February 13, 2004 12:51:05 AM new
You need to go read that article I just linked for Bunnicula too, Neroter. Really, you'll be glad -- as in smarter -- that you did...
