Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 62

Thread: Obama Chooses Pastor Rick Warren for Invocation

  1. #41
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    15,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2919292]The scientific basis for evolution is vastly more than that of genetic-based-homosexuallity. Not even in the same ballpark.

    If I went by "anecdotal" evidence, well.......well, I couldn't. Not on big science issues. Hell, anecdotal evidence would have us fearing global freezing right now (Argh, snow in Las Vegas! What must Grissom think!).

    Sorry Nuu, there is very very little evidence that I'e heard of thus far proving that homosexuality is "natural", i.e. genetic. I.e. NOT a choice.

    When it does get proved (and I tend to think it will), the Gay community is going to be in for one heck of an internal argument. But then, and only then, will holosexuallity stand equal with race on issues of descrimination.

    But like I said, I DO persoanlly support gay rights, so meh.[/QUOTE]

    What's the difference? Government has as much of a right to deny civil rights to gays as they do to minorities:

    NONE

    In that sense, they are equal.

  2. #42
    Waterboy
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2919292]The scientific basis for evolution is vastly more than that of genetic-based-homosexuallity. Not even in the same ballpark.

    If I went by "anecdotal" evidence, well.......well, I couldn't. Not on big science issues. Hell, anecdotal evidence would have us fearing global freezing right now [B](Argh, snow in Las Vegas! What must Grissom think![/B][B])[/B].

    Sorry Nuu, there is very very little evidence that I'e heard of thus far proving that homosexuality is "natural", i.e. genetic. I.e. NOT a choice.

    When it does get proved (and I tend to think it will), the Gay community is going to be in for one heck of an internal argument. But then, and only then, will holosexuallity stand equal with race on issues of descrimination.

    But like I said, I DO persoanlly support gay rights, so meh.[/QUOTE]

    I LOLed

    I also agree with nuu in this thread that the anti-gay movement will literally die out sooner rather than later. It's the older generation that is mostly hanging on to old school ways, and even they are starting to become more tolerant to it. Pop culture is all about the gays, it's very en vogue. Look at all those queer guys telling us straight guys how to dress on the televizzle.
    Last edited by JetsFan2012; 12-18-2008 at 08:06 PM.

  3. #43
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,703
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=sackdance99;2919192]Warfish, have I ever let you down? Ok, here we go buddy:[/quote]

    Nope, you never do.

    [QUOTE=sackdance99;2919192]"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination." Leviticus 18:22.[/quote]

    So the definition of "lie" in biblical terms is ****? Ok, thats a start.

    [QUOTE=sackdance99;2919192]"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them...And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them." Leviticus 20:13, 23.[/quote]

    Interesting. So if you believe part A. ("lie"ing with man if a man is bad) you must also agree then with part B ("put to death").

    So tell me Bernie, do you support the Death Penalty for Homosexuality?

    [QUOTE=sackdance99;2919192]"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are an abomination unto the LORD thy God." Deuteronomy 23:17,18.[/quote]

    So no buttsex at all. What if I buttsex my wife? This passage does not seem to leave any wiggleroom there either does it? So buttsex of any kind is out, but suking cock does not seem to be covered.

    [QUOTE=sackdance99;2919192]"And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel." I Kings 14:24.[/quote]

    So God hates Buttsex. Got it, but it does still leave alot of room for other gay-non-buttsex.

    [QUOTE=sackdance99;2919192]"Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was met. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:24-32.[/quote]

    Well that one is a tough read, but seems more focussed on lust than gayness.

    [QUOTE=sackdance99;2919192]"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." I Corinthians 6:9,10.[/quote]

    "Fornicators" eh? So ANYONE who fornicates then? So not Gays, but ANY non-married sex partners then? I guess "abusers of themselves with mankind" could mean gay too I suppose.....but only on the same level as drunkards it would seem.

    Uh oh, I may be screwed here, being both a fornicator and (in my youth) a drunkard. I wonder, should I be put to death like the gays?

    [QUOTE=sackdance99;2919192]"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." Jude 7.[/quote]

    Does the bible define "strange flesh" elsewhere? Seems an odd term, since they use "lie with mankind" so often elsewhere. Seems "strange flesh" could mean beatiality more than homosexuallity IMO.

    [QUOTE=sackdance99;2919192]Sodomites: are wicked & sinners before the Lord exceedingly (Gen. 13:13), doom nations (Gen. 19), are abomination (Lev. 18:22), are worthy of death (Rom. 1:32), are likened unto dogs as filthy, impudent and libidinous (Deut. 23:18), usurp the house of God (2 Kgs. 23:7), have been given up by God (Rom. 1 :24-28), are filthy, lawless brute beasts (2 Pet. 2:7,8,12,22), have no hope of Heaven (Rev 22:15), have no shame and cannot blush (Jer. 6:15), testify their sin and doom on their countenance (Isa. 3:9).[/quote]

    Ah, more death penalty, great! So let me ask, do you support the Death Penalty for the act of Sodomy with a normal man/women couple? The bibles clearly says death is the penalty for sodomy, so do you agree with teh Bible there?

    [QUOTE=sackdance99;2919192]Every time the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, Jesus is saying that homosexuality is a sin. God inspired the Scriptures, and Jesus is God. When He was on earth, Jesus taught us what the only acceptable union between two people is: one man, one woman, for one lifetime. "[B][U]Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female[/U][/B], and said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?" Matthew 19:4,5. Gays can't be one flesh; gays can only be strange flesh (Jude 7).[/quote]

    Did God also "make" Hemaphrodites? Just curious on your positio on that, as clearly hemaprodites are born that way, with both sexual gener equipment.

    [QUOTE=sackdance99;2919192]Furthermore, God specifically says that He ABHORS people who engage in sodomy (as well as other forms of sexual perversion): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them...And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them." Leviticus 20:13,23. Understand? GOD ABHORS THE GAY LIFESTYLE.[/QUOTE]

    God seems to do alot of Abhoring. Seems odd to me, simpleton that I am, that the All-Powerful would care much for sexuality. More, in fact, than good deeds. So much so, in fact, that he (Loving forgiving God) would demand his followers kill the gays.

    But no question, you certainly brought the Biblical texts to the debate Bernie, thanks for the response.

  4. #44
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,703
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2919298]What's the difference? Government has as much of a right to deny civil rights to gays as they do to minorities:

    NONE

    In that sense, they are equal.[/QUOTE]

    Govt. - Yes.

    Individuals? No sir, individuals have EVERY right to descriminate against Gays IMO.

    My position is intellectually consitent here, the State does not have a right to descriminate outside enforcement of the Law. Individuals, based on choice of those being descriminated against, do have the right IMO.

  5. #45
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    15,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2919310]Govt. - Yes.

    Individuals? No sir, individuals have EVERY right to descriminate against Gays IMO.

    My position is intellectually consitent here, the State does not have a right to descriminate outside enforcement of the Law. Individuals, based on choice of those being descriminated against, do have the right IMO.[/QUOTE]

    Of course I'm talking about government. I could care less what anyone's personal beliefs about gays are.

    I was responding to your post that said gay civil rights are not on the same level as racial civil rights. Since the government has no real authority to restrict civil rights to either, they are on the same level.

  6. #46
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,703
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2919316]Of course I'm talking about government. I could care less what anyone's personal beliefs about gays are.

    I was responding to your post that said gay civil rights are not on the same level as racial civil rights. Since the government has no real authority to restrict civil rights to either, they are on the same level.[/QUOTE]

    Sorry, I still find it a bit offensive to equate the two.

    One is a choice, one isn't. They are not equal.

  7. #47
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    15,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2919347]Sorry, I still find it a bit offensive to equate the two.

    One is a choice, one isn't. They are not equal.[/QUOTE]

    Since the government has no right to discriminate against either, their right to civil and legal equality is the same. It has nothing to do with whether it's a choice and everything to do with the government's real authority.

    If the government discriminated against those who play badminton, it would be just as wrong. Playing badminton is a choice, sure, but it still doesn't mean the government has the authority to deny them equal rights.

  8. #48
    Practice Squad
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    347
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2919347]Sorry, I still find it a bit offensive to equate the two.

    One is a choice, one isn't. They are not equal.[/QUOTE]

    You know that it's a choice? You know that for a fact? That's great - you can make a lot of money for publishing definitive studies like that.

    Don't know what to say about those Iranians, though. Besides "morons," of course.

  9. #49
    Bewildered Beast
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    30,079
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=sackdance99;2918667]No, God will send him to hell.

    Good works cannot save you, or your friends son. He will die in his sin. May not be what you want to hear but it's the truth. Anyone who disagrees is bible illiterate. It's written so plain, over and over.[/QUOTE]

    God called me to tell you that you should relax. Those guys have it all wrong; Let the gays have their way, it doesn't really matter, because, in Heaven, all sex is awesome. So, God loves all kinds of sex. He even likes toys.

  10. #50
    Bewildered Beast
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    30,079
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=sackdance99;2919275]Hush up.

    “For the word of God is [B]quack[/B], and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Hebrews 4:12

    Deal with that.[/QUOTE]I will deal with this with one letter, sir.

  11. #51
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,128
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2919347]Sorry, I still find it a bit offensive to equate the two.

    One is a choice, one isn't. They are not equal.[/QUOTE]

    If you offered the alternative of saying that being gay is biologically determined, but acting on it is a choice, that would carry some weight in the argument. Do you really think that people choose what they're attracted to, whether gay or straight? Our sexual preferences our usually quite nuanced and it would be a real bit of work to make someone who is, for example, really turned on by dark haired thin women be compelled to only sleep with fat women who were blond. And then there are all the other cues -- the way somebody carries themselves, the timbre of their voice, the shape of their eye, or the tone of their skin, etc.

    You seem to be suggesting that same-sex attraction is somehow merely a decision, which would imply you think all sex is just a matter of learned behavior. I personally don't think that's true at all. I think there's room for some marginal adjustment, but each of has limits in what works for us.

  12. #52
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,128
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=sackdance99;2919275]Hush up.

    “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Hebrews 4:12

    Deal with that.[/QUOTE]

    I was speaking of YOUR small-minded idea of god, which doesn't even deserve a capital letter. That god is an empty, primitive dead letter. I don't worry for one nano-second about your foolish Bible-threats, which are the absolute nadir of superstition. Just plain stupidity. Whatever the true God may be, that God is not a copy of some vengeful mortal with a big beard chopping spirits from souls.

    The Zen masters used to say: "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!" I love those Zen-guys. They understood that true enlightenment has nothing to do with superstition, worshiping empty idols, or being a moral drone. That takes absolutely no spiritual effort at all. Zero.

  13. #53
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,710
    Post Thanks / Like
    So lesbians are ok unless they buttsex with a strapon? Great!

  14. #54
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,703
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Ciaran;2919382]You know that it's a choice? You know that for a fact? That's great - you can make a lot of money for publishing definitive studies like that.

    Don't know what to say about those Iranians, though. Besides "morons," of course.[/QUOTE]

    In some cases, yes, I absolutely know it's a choice. In many others, no, of course I don't know (cannot prove) it's a choice.

    But I know it also has not been proven to be biological either. And I default to science, the second they prove it is a genetic issue, I would mentally consider their plight the same as that of Black Americans in the Civil Rights Movement. Till then, sorry, I'll just have to support them without giving them equal martyrdom in my own viewpoint.

    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;2919505]If you offered the alternative of saying that being gay is biologically determined, but acting on it is a choice, that would carry some weight in the argument. Do you really think that people choose what they're attracted to, whether gay or straight? Our sexual preferences our usually quite nuanced and it would be a real bit of work to make someone who is, for example, really turned on by dark haired thin women be compelled to only sleep with fat women who were blond. And then there are all the other cues -- the way somebody carries themselves, the timbre of their voice, the shape of their eye, or the tone of their skin, etc.[/quote]

    With all due respect, you're starting to sound like a creationist......"it's just too complex to be choice, it's just too hard to be gay, it's bla blah blah". None of what you've brought forward is science, it's the same kind of argument-by-complexity that creationists use.

    [quote]You seem to be suggesting that same-sex attraction is somehow merely a decision, which would imply you think all sex is just a matter of learned behavior. I personally don't think that's true at all. I think there's room for some marginal adjustment, but each of has limits in what works for us.[/QUOTE]

    Of course in some cases sexual attraction is a choice.

    But frankly, what you or I "think" is irrelevant. What science can prove is all that matters, and in this case, they cannot and have not proven homosexuality to be genetic. For me, that makes their cause one of freedom of choice, not one of civil rights a la Blacks.

    And I hate to keep reminding folks, but it's not like I don't support gay rights. I just don;t see it in the same light as being black, where there is no question (in science) that there is no choice involved.

  15. #55
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2919292]The scientific basis for evolution is vastly more than that of genetic-based-homosexuallity. Not even in the same ballpark.

    If I went by "anecdotal" evidence, well.......well, I couldn't. Not on big science issues. Hell, anecdotal evidence would have us fearing global freezing right now (Argh, snow in Las Vegas! What must Grissom think!).

    Sorry Nuu, there is very very little evidence that I'e heard of thus far proving that homosexuality is "natural", i.e. genetic. I.e. NOT a choice.

    When it does get proved (and I tend to think it will), the Gay community is going to be in for one heck of an internal argument. But then, and only then, will holosexuallity stand equal with race on issues of descrimination.

    But like I said, I DO persoanlly support gay rights, so meh.[/QUOTE]

    So, tell us. What is the evidence that you have to support the notion that homosexuality is a choice? And please no anecttodal evidence, since as you say, that is not acceptable.

    Also, at what point in your life did you choose to be straight (or gay, if you are) and how did you go about making that decision? Did you spend a lot of time debating the pros and cons of being stright or gay?

  16. #56
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    BTW, there is more than just anectodal evidence to support that homosexuality is not a "choice" but rather biologic:

    1. Dr. Swaab's post-mortem examination of homosexual males' brains showed that a portion of the hypothalamus of the brain was structurally different than a heterosexual brain. The hypothalamus is the portion of the human brain directly related to sexual drive and function. In the homosexual brains examined, a small portion of the hypothalamus, termed the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), was found to be twice the size of its heterosexual counterpart. Work is still being done to determine the significance of this.

    2. Similar types of studies found the anterior commissure of the hypothalamus was also significantly larger in the homosexual subjects than that of the heterosexuals..more work is being done

    3. Simon Levay also did studies on the hypothalamus in homosexuals showing that the 3rd interstitial notch of the anterior hypothalamus was two to three times smaller in homosexual men then in heterosexual men. His study concluded that "homosexual and heterosexual men differ in the central neuronal mechanisms that control sexual behavior". These differences in the hypothalamus are not a product of the environment or upbringing but rather prenatal cerebral development and structural differentiation.

    4. Neuroendocrine studies on rats showed that prenatal early high exosures to androgens female rats become masculanized and attracted to other female rats. Male rats who received deficient levels of androgen became submissive in matters of sexual drive and reproduction and were willing to receive the sexual act of the other male rats.

    5. Twin studies have shown that the more closely genetically linked a pair is, the more likely they both are to exhibit gay or straight tendencies.

    6. Dean Hamers studies on human DNA of gay men found a remarkable concordance for 5 genetic markers on section of the X-Chromosome called Xq28. This is the first "gay gene" study to have been validated by outside scientists.


    So this is some pretty strong evidence to suggest homosexuality is mmore biological thhan "choice" . I await to see the evidence you present to support the notion that its "choice"

  17. #57
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,128
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2919741]In some cases, yes, I absolutely know it's a choice. In many others, no, of course I don't know (cannot prove) it's a choice.

    But I know it also has not been proven to be biological either. And I default to science, the second they prove it is a genetic issue, I would mentally consider their plight the same as that of Black Americans in the Civil Rights Movement. Till then, sorry, I'll just have to support them without giving them equal martyrdom in my own viewpoint.



    With all due respect, you're starting to sound like a creationist......"it's just too complex to be choice, it's just too hard to be gay, it's bla blah blah". None of what you've brought forward is science, it's the same kind of argument-by-complexity that creationists use.



    Of course in some cases sexual attraction is a choice.

    But frankly, what you or I "think" is irrelevant. What science can prove is all that matters, and in this case, they cannot and have not proven homosexuality to be genetic. For me, that makes their cause one of freedom of choice, not one of civil rights a la Blacks.

    And I hate to keep reminding folks, but it's not like I don't support gay rights. I just don;t see it in the same light as being black, where there is no question (in science) that there is no choice involved.[/QUOTE]

    Well, here's a start. And it is complex, as much as it would make it easier for all of us to debate if it was a simple one-variable issue....



    Homosexual Behavior Largely Shaped By Genetics And Random Environmental Factors

    ScienceDaily (June 30, 2008) — Homosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors, according to findings from the world's largest study of twins.


    Writing in the scientific journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, researchers from Queen Mary's School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, and Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm report that genetics and environmental factors (which are specific to an individual, and may include biological processes such as different hormone exposure in the womb), are important determinants of homosexual behaviour.

    Dr Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, explains: "This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single 'gay gene' or a single environmental variable which could be used to 'select out' homosexuality - the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here - heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.

    The team led by Dr Niklas Långström at Karolinska Institutet conducted the first truly population-based survey of all adult (20-47 years old) twins in Sweden. Studies of identical twins and non-identical, or fraternal, twins are often used to untangle the genetic and environmental factors responsible for a trait. While identical twins share all of their genes and their entire environment, fraternal twins share only half of their genes and their entire environment. Therefore, greater similarity in a trait between identical twins compared to fraternal twins shows that genetic factors are partly responsible for the trait.

    This study looked at 3,826 same-gender twin pairs (7,652 individuals), who were asked about the total numbers of opposite sex and same sex partners they had ever had. The findings showed that 35 per cent of the differences between men in same-sex behaviour (that is, that some men have no same sex partners, and some have one or more) is accounted for by genetics.

    Rahman explains: "Overall, genetics accounted for around 35 per cent of the differences between men in homosexual behaviour and other individual-specific environmental factors (that is, not societal attitudes, family or parenting which are shared by twins) accounted for around 64 per cent. In other words, men become gay or straight because of different developmental pathways, not just one pathway."

    For women, genetics explained roughly 18 per cent of the variation in same-sex behaviour, non-shared environment roughly 64 per cent and shared factors, or the family environment, explained 16 per cent.

    The study shows that genetic influences are important but modest, and that non-shared environmental factors, which may include factors operating during foetal development, dominate. Importantly, heredity had roughly the same influence as shared environmental factors in women, whereas the latter had no impact on sexual behaviour in men.

    Dr Rahman adds: "The study is not without its limitations - we used a behavioural measure of sexual orientation which might be ok to use for men (men's psychological orientation, sexual behaviour, and sexual responses are highly related) but less so for women (who show a clearer separation between these elements of sexuality). Despite this, our study provides the most unbiased estimates presented so far of genetic and non-genetic contributions to sexual orientation."


    Adapted from materials provided by Queen Mary, University of London, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

  18. #58
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,703
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kennyo7;2919783]BTW, there is more than just anectodal evidence to support that homosexuality is not a "choice" but rather biologic:

    1. Dr. Swaab's post-mortem examination of homosexual males' brains showed that a portion of the hypothalamus of the brain was structurally different than a heterosexual brain. The hypothalamus is the portion of the human brain directly related to sexual drive and function. In the homosexual brains examined, a small portion of the hypothalamus, termed the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), was found to be twice the size of its heterosexual counterpart. Work is still being done to determine the significance of this.

    2. Similar types of studies found the anterior commissure of the hypothalamus was also significantly larger in the homosexual subjects than that of the heterosexuals..more work is being done

    3. Simon Levay also did studies on the hypothalamus in homosexuals showing that the 3rd interstitial notch of the anterior hypothalamus was two to three times smaller in homosexual men then in heterosexual men. His study concluded that "homosexual and heterosexual men differ in the central neuronal mechanisms that control sexual behavior". These differences in the hypothalamus are not a product of the environment or upbringing but rather prenatal cerebral development and structural differentiation.

    4. Neuroendocrine studies on rats showed that prenatal early high exosures to androgens female rats become masculanized and attracted to other female rats. Male rats who received deficient levels of androgen became submissive in matters of sexual drive and reproduction and were willing to receive the sexual act of the other male rats.

    5. Twin studies have shown that the more closely genetically linked a pair is, the more likely they both are to exhibit gay or straight tendencies.

    6. Dean Hamers studies on human DNA of gay men found a remarkable concordance for 5 genetic markers on section of the X-Chromosome called Xq28. This is the first "gay gene" study to have been validated by outside scientists.


    So this is some pretty strong evidence to suggest homosexuality is mmore biological thhan "choice" . I await to see the evidence you present to support the notion that its "choice"[/QUOTE]

    I would not make a fool of myself by trying to debate an expert (a medical doctor) in an issue of his speciality, but I will simply say that what you've listed here is not even close to proof. It's very much in the "still very early theory" stage of scienctific investigation and postulation.

    I have quite the faith in science, and I am sure if the cause of Homosexuality IS genetic, then they will find it. and I am sure they will find a cure for it as well (and won't THAT be a big issue when it happens, eh?)

    Till science finds it, as I said, I will continue to support gay rights, but I will not insult (as I see it) African Americans by claiming the plight of gays is anything similar to the plight of blacks in America.

    I also will laugh at anyone who claims "all" homsexuals are geentic without any proof of that fact, when I think it's pretty apparent that choice IS involved in plenty of cases (even in the relatively limited group I know there are "gays" who engage in that activity by choice, which they are happy to state).

    But if you all think they are the same, good for you. I'm not black, nor gay, so I won't be insulted either way.

  19. #59
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,128
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2920069]I would not make a fool of myself by trying to debate an expert (a medical doctor) in an issue of his speciality, but I will simply say that what you've listed here is not even close to proof. It's very much in the "still very early theory" stage of scienctific investigation and postulation.

    I have quite the faith in science, and I am sure if the cause of Homosexuality IS genetic, then they will find it. and I am sure they will find a cure for it as well (and won't THAT be a big issue when it happens, eh?)

    Till science finds it, as I said, I will continue to support gay rights, but I will not insult (as I see it) African Americans by claiming the plight of gays is anything similar to the plight of blacks in America.

    I also will laugh at anyone who claims "all" homsexuals are geentic without any proof of that fact, when I think it's pretty apparent that choice IS involved in plenty of cases (even in the relatively limited group I know there are "gays" who engage in that activity by choice, which they are happy to state).

    But if you all think they are the same, good for you. I'm not black, nor gay, so I won't be insulted either way.[/QUOTE]

    But, Warfish, you are setting up a straw man here by stating that the conditions of "proof" that it's not a choice is that it must be entirely genetic. As the largest study of its kind (the one I posted above) made clear, genetics is very unlikely to be able to explain MALE homosexuality (it's pretty clear that female homosexuality is far more psychological than male, interestingly), but in combination with early developmental exposure to triggers (including in the womb) the biological argument gets pretty strong. The question is: how much choice is really operating for a young male once he reaches puberty concerning his sexual attractions? (the same question could be posed for heterosexuals as well). If this is largely determined by genes and neurological changes in early development, then the issue becomes what does the individual do with something that is pretty well wired in? I will certainly grant that environment and culture may shape the response to that wiring and even force complete suppression of its expression (early Judaic culture), or encourage expression (see ancient Greek and Spartan culture).

    Now I agree with you completely that the issue is not equivalent to race, since homosexuality can be suppressed or closeted and race cannot. But when both conditions are presented to a society, the key issue is how that society deals with the issue. There are parallels between anti-semitism and gay-bigotry. In both cases, there is a witch-hunt to find the "corrupters" and stamp them out, much as Sackdance has so "eloquently" outlined. So I'm not so sure it really matters whether some is gay by biology or choice. The question is what harm is it inflicting on society? Rabid prosyletizing Christians will inevitably see anything that is not consistent with their religion as "evil" or "an abomination." Thank god we have a society that keeps those people at bay. Pogroms are not pretty.

  20. #60
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,446
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2920069]I also will laugh at anyone who claims "all" homsexuals are geentic without any proof of that fact, when I think it's pretty apparent that choice IS involved in plenty of cases [/QUOTE]

    Like when girls do it. That's awesome...speaking of which, that reminds me of the devolvement of our x-mas party this year. I'll never look at the girl next to me the same way...:yes:

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us