They ALL vote Republican.
[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
Homosexuality can not be genetic since they can’t reproduce among them, therefore can’t pass the “gay gene” and I know that some “closet” homosexuals have husbands/wives and children, but that is a very small percentage of the homosexual population, let’s take the roman empire where homosexuality was rampant about 2000 years ago, in 2000 years the gay gene would have complete been erradicated from the human gene pool. [/quote]
Out of every post in this thread, this one made the least amount of sense. For the record, there is no particular “black”, “white” or “asian” gene either yet there are shitload of all kinds on this planet.
The bible designed to bring us together, creates the most extreme separatism and hate. If you think about it, religion develops the best and the worst in people.
I just saw this thread and I haven’t even read everyone’s reply to it but please, don’t lump all Christians in with these wack jobs. It amazes me that a lot of times Christians are their own worst enemies when it comes to showing people what Christ really intended which was love, understanding, and peace. he didn’t call us to agree with everyone’s lifestyle but he did call us to love everyone.
[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
Homosexuality can not be genetic since they can’t reproduce among them, therefore can’t pass the “gay gene” and I know that some “closet” homosexuals have husbands/wives and children, but that is a very small percentage of the homosexual population, let’s take the roman empire where homosexuality was rampant about 2000 years ago, in 2000 years the gay gene would have complete been erradicated from the human gene pool. [/quote]
This is incorrect. You know very little about biology and genes. There are things called recessive genes and such that can be passed on, as well as the fact that not all children are born with the same recessive genes.
Take blond haired people, if they stopped procreating would we no longer have blond people? No, blond is a recessive trait and would show up eventually in children where that gene is activated, even though all siblings and parents would be dark-haired.
Therefore - a homosexuality gene could easily be passed on. Besides - take a look at animals as others have pointed out - we say gay animals - how would you explain that except through genetics?
It seems to me that there are many in this world who simply enjoy hate. Sometimes they use the Bible or other religious text as an excuse to hate. Others use pseudo-science or the reinforcement of certain groups as a reason to hate. It’s even more sad when they bring impressionable young children into this as well, which I’m sure causes more damage to them than any amount of Janet’s nipples.
It seems that loving your neighbor only applies to a very narrow group of people. Maybe they should ask WWJH? Who Would Jesus Hate?
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.
Endnotes
{1} Mann, C. Genes and behavior. Science 264:1687 (1994).
{2} Billings, P. and Beckwith, J. Technology Review, July, 1993. p. 60.
{3} Mann, C. op. cit. pp. 1686-1689.
{4} “New Evidence of a ‘Gay Gene’,” by Anastasia Toufexis, Time, November 13, 1995, vol. 146, Issue 20, p. 95.
{5} Hamer, D. H., et al. Response to Risch, N., et al., “Male Sexual Orientation and Genetic Evidence,” Science 262 (1993), pp. 2063-65.
{6} The American Psychological Association’s pamphlet, “Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.”
{7} LeVay, Simon (1996). Queer Science, MIT Press.
{8} “Scientists Challenge Notion that Homosexuality’s a Matter of Choice,” The Charlotte Observer, August 9, 1998.
{9} Goldberg, Steven (1994). When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books.
The above article was adapted from two sources: a paper entitled, “The Gay Gene?” by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., in The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1996, available by calling (972) 713-7130; and past issues of the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) Bulletin. For an in-depth discussion of homosexuality and genetics, consult Dr. Satinover’s 1996 book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, published by Hamewith/Baker Books.
[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
Is There a “Gay Gene”?
blah blah blah blah blah blah
[/quote]
This article did nothing but come to the conclusion that there are POSSIBLY several factors that MAY lead to homosexuality of which biology is one. No shit.
The Gay Gene…
Umm, there is more than zero evidence. There is less than 100% proof.
However, keep in mind, that at one point, there was zero known evidence that the world was round. There was also zero known evidence that the earth was not the center of the universe.
The fact that something cannot be proven, at a point in time, does not mean that it is not true or that it will never be proven.
To make those statements also requires proof, which does not exist.
How about a little bit of balance?
I would like to comment on this photo from several different perspectives.
Firstly, I agree with the majority on this thread, the photo is certainly sickening. Christ’s love does not seem to be with the parents of the boy who is holding this sign. Those who would promote such behavior seem not to have the love of God in them.
However, those who would do violence to anyone holding such a sign show even less tolerance than the sign holder!
Moving on:
A few of you may have been following another thread where the scripture on homosexuality has in fact been debated for about the past 30 days, For those of you who have not been following it allow me to bring you up to date regarding several of my posts (condensed version):
From a religious perspective: homosexuality is specifically mentioned in the Bible as wrong! It’s true the word “homosexual” was not yet created (plenty of our current words were not used-no reason to assume the behavior attached to those words is acceptable). However, the Greek had other words and terms which absolutely meant “people having sex with those of the same gender.”
There are so many places that the Bible condemns homosexuality that it is difficult to pick just one. There are at least nine direct negative references to homosexuality. And even more importantly many references to God’s plan relative to one man and one woman. I won’t bore the readers with all of them as we are currently debating them on the “Gay Marriage Latest Salvo” thread.
Suffice it to say that the word “arsenokoitai” which is in the ancient scripture means “homosexual”. “Men lying with men.” They are not talking about guys taking a nap together! “Lying with” in the Bible is always referred to as “having sex with.”
Plenty of other ancient phrarse’s meaning: “Vile affections” “without natural affection” “going after strange flesh” “lying with another man as one would lie with a woman.” It goes on and on, the Bible condemns it as a sin. It’s no different than any other sin relative to how the Bible teaches it.
In fact, every credible version of the Bible states pretty much the same thing: Homosexuality is a sin!
However there are homosexual Internet sites that have popped up over the years which attempt to claim that homosexuality is just fine with God. They have zero credibility with 99% of all Bible scholars and interpreters.
Next point pertains to all sin of every type, not just homosexuality:
Many seem to want to openly embrace sin as if the New Testament condones it: “Hey Christ came to wipe away our sins so we can do what we want…la de da everything is rosy let’s throw a party.”
This could not be further from the truth as there are many passages in the New Testament where Christ is even more strict than the old testament when it comes to sin: Matthew 5:27, 28, & 29:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
“If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.”
Ouch, pretty tough teaching from Jesus Christ. However, Christ was all about repentance. Don’t claim that any particular sin is fine, turn away from sin whichever one you might happen to be vulnerable to.
I read where one poster quoted only part of John 8 and the story of the whore who was about to be stoned by the crowd:
John 8:7 "But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone at her.”
Obviously it is not up to us who are indeed laden with sin to put to death any other sinner. Metaphorically that is what that hate filled sign does. The sign demeans the person. People have souls and hence should be treated with dignity. Words like “fag” are meant to disgrace a human being. Would Jesus act in this fashion? Not hardly! This is no doubt in my mind non-Christian behavior.
However, as we look at the final words of Jesus in John 8:11, even more of the message comes through:
"She said, “No one (has condemned me), Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go, from now and SIN NO MORE.”
The message is clear: DO NOT DO IT AGAIN! He now address’s the sin, not the person. Thus, it is easy to love a human being no matter what sin they might be practicing and also hate the sin. Jesus gives us a fine example of this in the above passage.
Jesus did in fact save the woman from a painful death by stoning that day. However, he also told her to stop sinning! There must be an act of contrition which follows the sin if the true believer is actually attempting to live by the precepts of the Bible. In other words one has to make a serious effort not to sin, but if he does he knows he is forgiven. That is the message of the New Testament.
We see forgiveness predicated upon the woman’s repentance.
Onto “orientation”:
What if the woman stated that she was born that way and simply continued to sin?
Simply put we are all born with the inclination to sin.
Paul sums it up best in Romans 7:15
“I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.”
Here is a man who actually spread Christianity through his part of the world but he is struggling with sin! This pretty much means that you and I will always be tempted. Notice he is not embracing it, but attempting to understand it so that he can move away from it, just as Christ would want all of us to do.
Paul is basically stating in Romans 5 & 7 that innate impulses are not necessarily moral simply because they are innate, or you seem to be “oriented” to one particular behavior. who of us would ever commit a sin unless we were “orientated” to do so?
The overzealous married man might very well have an affair and claim that “God made me to lust after more than just one woman.” Who could argue with that point? He is in fact “orientated” to really, really, want to have sex with many women (most of us T-Men are huh?). However, just like the homosexual we cannot fall on the “orientation” crutch.
In short there is no exemption to sin of any kind. However, the good news is that there is forgiveness for those who repent (turn away from) sin.
The long article above is non-biased and pretty clear that although there may be some biological factors that I’m not denying, it is clear that the science behind the “gay gene” is biased.
[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
The long article above is non-biased and pretty clear that although there may be some biological factors that I’m not denying, it is clear that the science behind the “gay gene” is biased. [/quote]
Was the human genome project finished in 1996?
[quote]vroom wrote:
The Gay Gene…
Umm, there is more than zero evidence. There is less than 100% proof.
However, keep in mind, that at one point, there was zero known evidence that the world was round. There was also zero known evidence that the earth was not the center of the universe.
The fact that something cannot be proven, at a point in time, does not mean that it is not true or that it will never be proven.
To make those statements also requires proof, which does not exist.
How about a little bit of balance?[/quote]
While I agree with you, this is arbitrary. Saying that something could exist simply because we haven’t proved it can’t isn’t going to get us anywhere. It’s like saying that we haven’t disproved a unicorn existing, therefore it may exist. This is what is called “intellectual masturbation”. While it’s true we can’t discount it just because it’s not proven false doesn’t make it true.
However, in regards to this article, the consensus is that homosexuality is at least partially gene-based. You would then have to argue that through environmental and social factors you can “combat” this gene to make the person hetrosexual. Now THAT, would be difficult to prove. Therefore it doesn’t matter what other factors are involved, as long as genes are one of them, then homosexuality can be “natural”. Now obvisouly some homosexuals are probably such by choice, but you can’t psychoanalyze each one to determine that. It becomes a very slippery slope.
But let’s play with the idea that homosexuality is completely genetic. Would it change anything for anyone? I’m guessing these guys holding the signs would expect these gays to kill themselves or something. Besides, for some people faith or religion is stronger than science. So would it really change anything? Because it seems like arguing that “gayism” is genetic is a moot point.
[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
The long article above is non-biased and pretty clear that although there may be some biological factors that I’m not denying, it is clear that the science behind the “gay gene” is biased. [/quote]
Which means the conclusion is, we don’t know. That is what most have been saying in this thread from the beginning.
Jlesk, true science is never biased, though the statements made by those with agendas certainly may be.
Anyhow, if folks have run further than they should have, with the evidence available today, this doesn’t refute the possibility that science may be able to determine this issue once and for all at some point in the future.
For now, the answer may simply be that we do not know for sure. There is some compelling evidence that biology plays a role, but more research is probably needed to provide a level of proof for those that would rather not accept this line of thought.
I don’t know about you, but comparing gay people to unicorns is pretty extreme. There is no question that gay people and homosexuality exist. The fact you don’t like where research is leading us doesn’t mean that you get to claim position X until position Y is proven.
Both position X and position Y are uncertain at this time. What part of that seems unreasonable to you?
[quote]Janoski wrote:
Thank God I live in Jersey. Some of the gay dudes around here are some jacked up motherf’ers…not too mention the religious psychos tend not to come into my true blue Democrat state. They go to places like the Utah and apparently San Diego. You guys can keep’em.[/quote]
Amen Brother gotta love Jersey!
A choice? If you think its a choice then you must feel that you can choose. Because if you feel you cant choose what makes you think others can.
Fuck man I am straight and it aint no choice! I couldnt fuck a dude for Millions of dollars or to save lives. Its hard wired, I loooooove women.
So those of you who think its a choice could you choose to have sex with someone of the same sex?
Lots of folks seem to think there is no proof that being gay is a choice.
I dont mean this to be insulting but as a legitimate question what evidence do we have that God exists?
Faith I understand, you believe without proof, but is there any evidence that christians go on?