Gay Agenda?

[anonym]

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
fruit flys are not people. hetero pedophiles are closer to “normal” then homosexuals. Is pedophelia genetic too?[/quote]

Fruit flies are studied extensively in the field of genetic research. Most of the studies I’ve read in regard to fruit flies (read: not that many) show that genetic manipulation does not make them gay as much as it makes them “gender blind”, or bisexual.

I’ve just been browsing this thread, but I’m sure this has been covered already: from what I’ve read, at least, it seems that, though there is a genetic component to homo/bisexuality, such characteristics oftentimes need to be “turned on” (so to speak) through various environmental factors.

All that being said, sexual appetites as “learned behaviors” is nothing new. People can become attracted to things based upon nothing more than exposure or reinforcement - I am not attracted to Asian women, but how many people who grew up in Beijing can say the same? Is there an Asian gene that needs to be switched on in our genes, as well? I mentioned in another thread never harboring any strong attraction towards black women until I went to a college with a large black population - and, presto chango…jungle fever. Obviously, all of our sexual appetites have the ability to shift and change in accordance with our environment and situations.

Pedophilia, in my opinion, falls in line with bestiality, necrophilia, and the like in that it most likely has a major, or exclusive, “learned” component to it (people, at some point, somehow, and for some reason, learn to associate these things with sexual gratification). While people can choose to act on these urges, the innate desire for them is most likely something acquired (either consciously or unconsciously) as a youth and is not something easily shook (perhaps impossible) as an adult.

I am moving shit back into my dorm in a but, so I’ll have to let this sit for a day or so. But this is a discussion that I find of interest so I’ll be back to elaborate/debate as soon as I can.

[The_Mage]

People do realize that if they are able to prove a biological source for homosexuality, then they will be able to test the fetus, and this will likely result in the abortion of large quantities of gay fetuses.

Just pointing this out.

[makkun]

[quote]The Mage wrote:
People do realize that if they are able to prove a biological source for homosexuality, then they will be able to test the fetus, and this will likely result in the abortion of large quantities of gay fetuses.

Just pointing this out.[/quote]

Yes, I’ve always been aware of that - that’s why I always hoped that there wouldn’t be a biological component, and certainly no ‘gay gene’. But I have to accept that the science seems to be partly pointing this way, so that’s what I’ll have to live with.

I’m also aware that once the question is settled, and the cause (if mostly nature or nurture doesn’t really matter) is known, there will be an even more organised onslaught against this undesirable trait. That’ll be the day when the good fight will have to be shifted against this new situation. Sad but I guess not to be avoided. But perhaps there may be an unusual alliance of traditional pro-lifers and the LGBT community then.

Makkun

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]makkun wrote:

Yes, I’ve always been aware of that - that’s why I always hoped that there wouldn’t be a biological component, and certainly no ‘gay gene’. But I have to accept that the science seems to be partly pointing this way, so that’s what I’ll have to live with.

I’m also aware that once the question is settled, and the cause (if mostly nature or nurture doesn’t really matter) is known, there will be an even more organised onslaught against this undesirable trait. That’ll be the day when the good fight will have to be shifted against this new situation. Sad but I guess not to be avoided. But perhaps there may be an unusual alliance of traditional pro-lifers and the LGBT community then.

Makkun[/quote]

Makkun, we may disagree, but I think you are a voice of reason.

Interestingly, and I have brought this up somewhere before, some years ago, a no-name Maine state legislator introduced a bill that outlawed abortions to terminate a fetus determined to have the gay gene, should science ever locate such a gene and should a parent ever be able to screen such a gene prior to the child being born.

The problem this silly bill addresses becomes - taken to its conclusion - an almost surreal intersection of some of the worst policy instincts we could ever face in domestic public policy.

[Jorlen]

Expecting there to be a single gene for homosexuality is almost like expecting a gene for being a great baseball player.
And the important part of this comparison is that the talent to become a great ball player certainly is in your genes. But there is no single gene for it. There are a lot of different qualities that have to combine just right to really give you a great potential to become a good ball player. And right now science about gay genetics point in that direction. No single gene for homosexuality, but the “talent” to turn out gay is probably hidden in combination of genes.

A test might be possible. My bet is that the test will be right on most people, and some fall between and have a chance to go either way or stay in the middle.

[forlife]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
where is my answer? [/quote]

I have said several times that I am interested in discussing any explanations you may have for a positive correlation between gay marriage and the divorce rate of straight couples.

I think it is very likely that any correlation is a reflection of a third variable, i.e., social liberalization. If a society becomes liberalized, it is more likely that you will see both tolerance for gay marriage and less desire to stay in a bad marriage for its own sake.

What do you think about this possibility? You have ignored it every time I have brought it up.

As for a direct effect of gay marriage on straight marriage, I am still waiting for a detailed response. You have only offered generalities on this point, and when I follow up on them you disappear from the thread.

I’m very willing to debate the logical underpinnings of any explanatory mechanisms you may propose. Bring it on, if you have anything of substance to discuss beyond blanket assertions.

Speaking of which, let’s start drilling down on your responses to my three points. Again, I am looking for a substantive debate on these issues and not for generalities followed by silence.

I don’t think much of surrogacy personally, but I don’t think it undermines traditional marriage because marriage still serves its purpose of keeping the individuals married from going out and having children out of wedlock, even if one happens to be infertile and the couple chooses to go surrogate.

Isn’t surrogacy parenting by definition having children out of wedlock? One of the parents is having a biological child with a person to whom they are not married. How is that not having a child outside of the marriage?

Furthermore, that child is not being raised by its two biological parents, contrary to your mantra that it is paramount that a child be raised by both biological parents.

Where is the logical consistency in your argument here? This is my point: when you drill down and evaluate the essence of your arguments, they lack any substance or logical cohesiveness.

It’s a dumb question - a black man who can marry a white woman definitionally only has “special rights” if a white man can’t marry a black woman. So, who cares?

You’re still dodging the question. Let me rephrase it to make it perfectly clear. I’m looking for a simple yes or no answer: is the following statement logical or not? If not, please explain why not.

Everyone has the right to marry someone of the same race. Therefore, everyone has equal rights. If a person wants to marry someone of a different race, that person is asking for “special rights”.

I don’t have to - the studies show a correlation, nothing more. And I am fine with that: I think correlations are of value. The studies don’t show causation, and no one disputes this: except you, while pleading your desperate case.

I’ve explained twice now why the experimental design in the twin studies allows the scientist to partial out the variance, and identify the specific variance accounted for by genetics. Your only response has been, “Well you’re wrong, it only shows a correlation.”

How about a substantive response instead? If you think the experimental design only allows for correlational conclusions, explain why.

Again, I have to ask if you’ve even taken a course in experimental design. You’re arguing from a position of complete ignorance, as anyone that has done scientific research can confirm.

How else do you think it would be possible for the 2008 Santtila study to conclude that sexual orientation was 37% due to genetics alone, 0% due to shared environment, and 63% due to nonshared environment? If the design only allowed correlational conclusions, allocating the variance in this way would be impossible.

[forlife]

[quote]anonym wrote:
While people can choose to act on these urges, the innate desire for them is most likely something acquired (either consciously or unconsciously) as a youth and is not something easily shook (perhaps impossible) as an adult.[/quote]

This is a good point, and is frequently glossed over by the “other side”. You have to differentiate behavior from orientation. People can behave contrary to their orientation, but that doesn’t mean doing so brings them long term happiness and fulfillment.

Also, the genetic origin of homosexuality is less important than whether people can actually change their sexual orientation. There is a misconception that if you can prove homosexuality is 100% environmental, you will somehow be able to reverse someone’s sexual orientation once it is established. Human characteristics, especially those core to the person’s self-identity, are not always malleable to change.

The medical and mental health organizations have unanimously concluded that sexual orientation can’t be changed and that trying to do so can be damaging to the individual. My personal experience resonates with this. But that won’t stop people who view homosexuality as a sin or perversion from telling gays that if they try hard enough, with the right therapy, they will be able to change.

[forlife]

[quote]makkun wrote:
I’m also aware that once the question is settled, and the cause (if mostly nature or nurture doesn’t really matter) is known, there will be an even more organised onslaught against this undesirable trait.

That’ll be the day when the good fight will have to be shifted against this new situation.[/quote]

I’ve never understood why some gay advocates believe that proving a genetic component to sexual orientation will convince people to support homosexuality. The argument would simply shift to:

“So what if your sexual orientation is genetic and unchangeable? You can still choose your behavior.”

The real issue is not with the origin of homosexuality, but with the antipathy people feel toward it. If they view it as contrary to god’s will, if they are personally repulsed by it, or if they believe it hurts society in some way, they will fight it tooth and nail.

In their mindset, it is better for gays to suffer a lifetime of loneliness and repression than for god’s will to be crossed, or for society at large to be hurt.

There’s nothing that can be done to address the religious argument. If people believe their god opposes homosexuality, no amount of logical reasoning will make any difference.

However, I do think the concerns about the social effects of homosexuality can be addressed and that reasonable people will adjust their views as it becomes clear that gays may actually contribute to society in important ways.

[forlife]

[quote]makkun wrote:
Well, I tend to think that fundamentalist views tend to have a strong socio-political component - and as I don’t believe the bible comes from god, but from humans it will be just as easily eclectically used by whoever tries to push a certain agenda. What worries me is when the inclusive and merciful message especially of the new testament gets turned on its head and is converted into exclusion and persecution. But - that’s what sadly people do.[/quote]

I’ve noticed the same. The more a person’s perspective is rigidly black and white, the less amenable they are to reason and the more driven they are to legislate their beliefs on others.

My story is interesting, because I was a fundamentalist Christian for most of my life. I get how they see the world. I believed that God had revealed “The Truth” to me through His Holy Spirit. I had been born again, and nothing science said would make any difference to my deeply held spiritual convictions.

It’s easy for fundamentalists to point to heathens and say “God just hasn’t spoken to your heart yet, that is why you don’t understand.” They are confused by me, because I’ve walked in their shoes and yet I now see the world very differently. They can’t imagine leaving what they now view as the “Grace of God”, just as I couldn’t imagine it back when I was still in the Matrix.

[forlife]

Hi Mick! Did you miss me?

I have some extra time this week so I’ll reverse my stance and call you out on your trolling instead of just ignoring you. I know the maxim about not feeding the trolls, but here’s a morsel.

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
There have been many who have changed from gay to straight, if it were not possible then how come those people did it?[/quote]

Most of your “studies” come from fundamentalist sites like Narth with an overt self-proclaimed anti-gay agenda. I love to look at the ex-gay poster boys like John Paulk who pontificate about being “changed” and then get caught hitting on men in gay bars. What could possibly motivate someone to claim he has changed when in fact he hasn’t? Hmmmm.

Setting aside the phonies, I think there are some people who are more moderate on the sexual continuum and could potentially swing either way. I don’t really view bisexuals as changing their sexual orientation though, so much as expressing it differently based on who they are with.

If someone like you can change from hetero to homo then why not the opposite

You need to differentiate orientation from behavior. I’ve always been gay, despite kissing 3 girls during my lifetime (my first kiss was on stage in South Pacific).

[forlife]

More objective support for my contention that gay marriage/civil union provides stability to society, thus benefiting the couple, any children they may have, and society in general:

[quote]Gay civil unions may last longer
Published: Sept. 1, 2008 at 7:30 PM

Sept. 1 (UPI) – Five years after Vermont approved gay civil unions, a study indicates legalized same-sex couples may be longer-lasting than those without legal status.

Kimberly F. Balsam and Theodore P. Beauchaine of the University of Washington, Esther D. Rothblum of San Diego State University and Sondra E. Solomon of the University of Vermont followed-up on a 2002 project that focused on legalized relationships of same-sex couples following civil unions in 2000.

Sixty-five male and 138 female couples who entered into civil unions during the first year were available were asked to provide information. They were compared to 23 male and 61 female couples not in civil unions and 55 heterosexual married couples related to the same-sex couples in civil unions.

The study, published in Developmental Psychology, said same-sex couples not in civil unions were more likely to have ended their relationship than same-sex couples in civil unions or heterosexual married couples in the study.

“Legal couple status may support a relationship – more family understanding, acceptance by friends and co-workers, greater commitment from a public declaration and enhanced legal protections like healthcare benefits and community property,” Robert-Jay Green of Alliant International University in San Francisco said in a statement. [/quote]

[forlife]

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
You’ve just described yourself.
[/quote]

I respect the right of people to believe whatever they want. I don’t advocate enshrining my personal biases into laws that unfairly discriminate against others. I see sexuality as existing on a continuum, rather than being black and white. I think people of all minority groups should be treated with dignity and respect, rather than denigrated because they are different.

[forlife]

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
How can promoting sex between two people of the same sex encourage stability in any society? Maybe you should reread…I mean read for the first time, the general facts on homosexuality realitve to mental and physical health. Furthermore, how can exposing children to such a thing be healthy in any way.[/quote]

Red herring.

I said that gay marriage promotes stability in society.

Gays are going to exist regardless of your personal biases against them. The question is whether gay marriage provides stability to gays, their children, and society at large. The answer is a definitive “Yes”. Gay marriage reduces the spread of diseases like syphilus, and it provides longer term relationships which benefit both the couple and any children they may be raising.

[Bigd1970]

Forlife than you won’t have a problem voting yes on Prop 8.

[Bigd1970]

Forlife, forget it, I guess I should have checked to see where you are from. But, you are also wrong about marriage providing stability in Gay Marriages. In Canada where it has been legal for who cares how long the average marriage lasted approximately 1-1.5 years, and most of those who were married were not in a monogamous relationship. Thus it can not be said that marriage creates stability, or more meaningful relationships. Check out www.protectmarriage.org

[Headhunter]

The typical male of today acts just like a typical homosexual — hates commitment, wants absolutely nothing to do with kids, wants to have profligate sex anywhere and everywhere, and probably many other things. The Gay Agenda is to destroy society by making everyone either act like, accept, or become homosexual. This is rooted in a pronounced hatred of Man as a heroic and spiritual being. It is a secret and depraved wish for destruction.

Wallowing around in the muck, sticking your penis into another dude’s ass, is the destruction of the human spirit.