Posted on 02/03/2005 4:20:37 PM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
A team of researchers funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have just published a study that claims to have mapped the human genome and discovered chromosomes related to sexual orientation in males.
The study, "A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation," was led by homosexual researcher Dr. Dean Hamer and other pro-homosexual associates.
Dr. A. Dean Byrd, a member of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) Scientific Advisory Committee reviewed the study and concluded: "The researchers' attempt to manipulate the data to come up with something meaningful was not realized. They find nothing and yet they insist that they might find something. Good science begins with a strong hypothesis not with a 'fishing expedition.'
How do you know Jamie Lee Curtis has XY chromosomes? Isn't that awfully personal information?
So how long have you had these feelings about "Fundamentalist Christians"?
You do realize, don't you, that that statement is in fact an expression of extreme hatred?
Correct, she adopted two kids, one in the 80's and one in the 90's. But if you insist she's a "man", I think you'll get an argument from Christopher Guest. They've been married for something like 20 years; since he inherited his title, she's been a baroness, Lady Haden-Guest, and uses the title in England.
I only point it out to make fun of people who claim XY makes someone a man and XX makes them a woman, and there's nothing in between (or if there is anything in between, it's unnatural/evil/sinful/should be cast out by society)
Using errors of nature to ridicule society doesn't seem like a such a winning argument to me. What does it prove? Do you seriously intend to argue that we should norm to mutations and abnormalities?
We should not consider mutations and other abnormalities to be immoral, and we should recognize that they exist: when we pretend that people can only be "male" or "female," we're saying that everyone else is subhuman.
You do realize, don't you, that that statement is in fact an expression of extreme hatred?
Is it, really?
First, we have to have some sort of definition of mental illness: Mental illness is when someone operates according to rules seriously outside of reality, and this has negative consequences. I think that's a good definition as any.
If people choose to believe something unscientific just because it "fits" better with their ideology, then they aren't really operating in our reality. If they want to believe that homos have a choice just because their religion says homosexuality is a sin (and you can't have sin without choice), then they aren't interested in reality. This does have negative consequences, because it leads them to mistreat homosexuals.
If someone was preaching that a racial minority was inherently sinful, and that the evidence for it was all around us, we might consider them to be mentally ill, right? If some group of people gathered on a street corner to express their views, loudly, and if they wrote letters to the editors of newspapers, and formed political groups to have their voice heard, we would consider them to be whacky. If they cited unscientific junk to make their claims, or even pointed to the Bible, we wouldn't take them seriously.
Why? Because we know they're wrong. Likewise, scientists can see that there is a biological component to homosexuality. Certain people deny this because it interferes with their religious or political beliefs. They deny science because they don't like the results of it. They deny reality because they don't want to live in this reality.
Is this an extremely hateful view? I don't think so. Considering that there is plenty of room in what I said to accomodate non-anti-science Christians who accept the world around them in addition to their Bible stories.
When someone is grasping at straws, he will dance with any strawman that makes him feel normal.
Once again, the homophobes who call themselves "gay" to escape the fact that they are homosexuals, seek to deny their homosexuality.
Sure sounded like it to me -- pure vitriol.
If people choose to believe something unscientific just because it "fits" better with their ideology, then they aren't really operating in our reality.
This is what I mean. You're parsing your words to claim that people who are religionists are mentally impaired. I think that you offer this reductionist rationalization of faith in full knowledge of the fact that homosexuality was once listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as a paraphilia, a mental disorder.
You are accusing Christians of the same thing of which homosexuals used to be accused. This is garden-variety vindictiveness on your part, irrespective of the merits of the original argument about homosexuality. Which may have been correct, by the way.
If they want to believe that homos have a choice just because their religion says homosexuality is a sin (and you can't have sin without choice), ....
This is not what they are saying, and that is not why they are saying it. It is the other way around: gays argue essentialism (which seems to be a message lost on the Queer Theory radicals in their own ranks) in order to claim an objective condition parallel to race. The entire HRC is founded on the premise that gays can imitate the successes of the civil rights movement, with the difference that they intend to claim their victories in courtrooms, not in the U.S. Congress.
......then they aren't interested in reality.
Begging the question, since arriving at that conclusion demands your premise be accepted. You're smearing religionists.
This does have negative consequences, because it leads them to mistreat homosexuals.
You're defining deviancy up -- for the Christians. Everything they do or believe, you will now claim is "mistreatment" of homosexuals, since their dealing with sexual deviancy does not rise to the standard that your good opinion of yourself demands. As if they, the majority, had to cater to you.
Of course, you have some statistical evidence to back up your walkaway smear of Christians.
If someone was preaching that a racial minority was inherently sinful, and that the evidence for it was all around us, we might consider them to be mentally ill, right?
Premise contrary to fact -- a condition you ignore in rushing to your prejudicial judgment of insanity. This is odious.
Because we know they're wrong.
Not about you, pal, and your mephitic patter.
Likewise, scientists can see that there is a biological component to homosexuality. Certain people deny this because it interferes with their religious or political beliefs.
Nonsense. Your "biological component" has eluded Robert Spitzer, one of the original gay cabal in the heart of the psychotherapeutical professions, lo these many years, and now he is attacked by your fellow polemicists because he couldn't come up with "the gay gene", and was impolitic enough to say so.
People who disagree with the essentialists have evidences of their own that you deny completely by omission, and by ascribing prejudice instead. Which is a form of lying.
They deny science because they don't like the results of it.
Funny, but right now it's your friends who are complaining about results.
They deny reality because they don't want to live in this reality.
Your venomous assertions and ascriptions notwithstanding, Christians do not "deny reality" -- that is your construction, and your hatred showing.
Is this an extremely hateful view?
Yes. Your malice flows like a sump-drain.
Considering that there is plenty of room in what I said to accomodate non-anti-science Christians who accept the world around them in addition to their Bible stories.
You gave nothing. Your sneering reference to "their Bible stories" says it all. You're an ex-Christian, a non-Christian who hates believing Christians. They have judged you and found you wanting, and now it's on. That's all that is left for you -- to find out who is stronger in the house of representative democracy, the God-fearing or their detractors like you.
This is what I mean. You're parsing your words to claim that people who are religionists are mentally impaired. I think that you offer this reductionist rationalization of faith in full knowledge of the fact that homosexuality was once listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as a paraphilia, a mental disorder.
Stop harassing xm1234 with the facts. She doesn’t want to hear that homosexuality is a paraphilic disorder because it interrupts her homosexual propaganda. She doesn’t want to hear that homosexuality was removed from the DSM for political reasons and NOT scientific reasons as she so desperately wants to believe. She’d rather put forth debunked research of finger tip length corollaries for those who practice perversion as proof it’s innate to further her homosexual agenda here on FR.
I just don’t understand why the Viking Kitties keep ignoring her.
If I was a woman or a gay man, I wouldn't have time to post on these threads. I would be out having orgies and whatnot.
Mods, see exchange above.
This is what I mean. You're parsing your words to claim that people who are religionists are mentally impaired.
Nope. I said no such thing. There are plenty of religious folk who don't meet the description I made in the post above.
There is a difference between faith (believing in something for which there is no evidence) and willful blindness (believing in something the evidence strongly suggests to be false).
There is no evidence for God's existence (scientific evidence, at least), but I don't think it's a sign of mental illness to believe in God, and I never said such a thing.
I think that you offer this reductionist rationalization of faith in full knowledge of the fact that homosexuality was once listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as a paraphilia, a mental disorder.
In full knowledge of? Yes. Was that the reason I made the connection in question? No.
gays argue essentialism... in order to claim an objective condition parallel to race
Sure. Gays generally argue they are that way biologically, and anti-gays generally argue that gays choose to be that way. The problem I have is not with taking a stance, but with failing to admit evidence contrary to the stance. If there was some big piece of evidence that homosexuality is completely a choice and there is no biological imperative to it, and gays deliberately ignored that because they wanted to justify their gayness, then I would accuse them of the same thing.
You're defining deviancy up -- for the Christians. Everything they do or believe, you will now claim is "mistreatment" of homosexuals
I never said "everything they do or believe" could constitute mistreatment. If their anti-gay views lead them to seriously mistreat gays, then they have done something with negative consequences for society. My assumption was that if they mistreated gays, some of that mistreatment would rise to a serious level (such as casting them out of family homes, denying them jobs, beating them up, etc.). If there is no serious mistreatment, then there is no negative consequence. Are you really arguing that no serious mistreatment of homosexuals occurs because of the way they are demonized by some anti-gay groups?
he couldn't come up with "the gay gene"
That's a logical fallacy. Gays gave up a long time ago trying to find one single "the gay gene." There could be a complex interaction of multiple genes. Homosexuality can be biological even if ZERO genes are involved--there are other biological factors besides DNA (such as exposure to chemicals in the womb).
You're an ex-Christian
I am neither a homosexual, nor a woman, nor a Christian, nor have I ever been any of those things, nor have I ever claimed to be any of those things on FR.
a non-Christian
Brilliant deduction!
who hates believing Christians
But wrong again.
No -you just support gays homosexuals and gay homosexual 'marriage' as evident in your all your pro-homosexual liberal talking point postings on the subject and seemingly ambiguous contradictory non- scientific yet scientific profiled declarations:
xm177e2Why do you favor Legalizing Gay Marriage?
Because I agree with the reasoning of this legal opinion. Marriage has in fact evolved over time (it no longer involves the extinction of the wife's legal personhood, for example). Interracial marriage was banned for the same reasons as gay marriage: it was seen as an affront to the Bible (if God created humanity, then He created the races, right?) and there was not much tradition of interracial marriage in America.
Agreeing with the reasoning behind the opinion is different from agreeing that the opinion was the right decision--the decision to legalize gay marriage should be made by legislatures. I don't particularly like the idea of a court forcing the issue.
??? Homosexuality equates to race? Am I morally wrong to oppose homosexuality as anything other than disordered? Is the liberal opinion you agree with and conservatives disagree with right?
Statement by the founder of Free RepublicAs a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.
Unlike you apparently believe, FR is NOT fair and balanced -it is a conservative site and pro-homosexual advocacy is not welcomed by me, others and apparently the founder of FR.
Like all those stoned researchers proving that drugs are harmless. We could save the money.
Yes, maybe going up the chain of command will yield a positive effect one way or the other?
Or I can post to you in the same open forum where you let Christians have it right between the eyes.
I didn't follow you to another thread -- I frequent American Civil War threads, current-events and terrorism threads, and some others ...... and I found you on another thread, making similar assertions about Christians to those I called you on above, in the post you were slow to reply to. So I called your attention to the crickets, and called the other posters' attention on that thread to the fact that you were making ad hominem attacks on people you disagree with about the estate of humanity.
Nope. I said no such thing. There are plenty of religious folk who don't meet the description I made in the post above.
And some who do, by operation of your statement, whom you are making stand in for all the rest. And yes, you did say that. Anyone who doubts that need only scroll up and read it.
There is no evidence for God's existence (scientific evidence, at least), but I don't think it's a sign of mental illness to believe in God, and I never said such a thing.
I'm glad you cleared that up -- because you sure left the strong impression that that was the case.
The problem I have is not with taking a stance, but with failing to admit evidence contrary to the stance.
Then you'd better have a talk with your buds in the gay mafia.....like the ones who started up StopDrLaura.com, to try to shut down her TV show (it worked), and who go around mobbing ex-gay speakers with "negative advance".
As for the evidence, five years ago when it looked like cellular biologists were about to identify objectively "gay" histology, conservatives grumped about all the money being spent on it, but science is science, and nobody put hands over their ears and called out LALALALALALA to shut out what the gay essentialists were doing. They got their shot -- in contradistinction to the psychologists and psychiatrists who've wanted to do more research on the "nurture" end of the gay equation, who've been maltreated and denounced for trying to drag the science back to the dark days of the 1950's, when Irving Bieber was researching the effectiveness of "reparative therapy" in long-term psychotherapy of homosexual patients. (I have a copy of his findings, by the way. Interested? Careful about your reply.)
If their anti-gay views lead them to seriously mistreat gays, then they have done something with negative consequences for society.
Big "if". Do you regard it as "mistreatment", when society corrals pyromaniacs, or requires dipsomaniacs to give up their drivers' licenses? Sure sounds like discrimination to me! How about society's treatment of pederasts and pedophiles? Necrophiliac and other paraphiliac persons? Handedness isn't a crime, but society doesn't rush to compensate for handedness -- should they? Or is our failure to do so, "mistreatment" of southpaws? Careful -- I am one, and I'm not too torqued about having had to learn how to write and shoot a shotgun right-handed, just to get along. Maybe there was a time when I felt oppressed.....but I forget.
I don't consider the average homosexual or Christian to be like any of those. You're talking about seriously deranged and perverted people.
The real question is: what is your justification for putting homosexuals in general into that group? Because they aren't completely normal? That's not good enough. Because some of them are sluts? That's not good enough (there are plenty of slutty straights). Because a small percentage are child molesters? The same is true of heterosexual men. What is it that makes gays so different from straights, aside from being attracted to members of the same sex?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.