The "gay Gene"

[SirRiff]

Hugo, Hugo ,Hugo, instead of answering my genuinely asked questions, you try to resort to insulting my intelligence. which is funny, since you pretended to want to raise the level of discussion in your previous post.

should i go back and ridicule your first post and misuse of some of the most basic scientific terms? no, i dont think i will, since maybe you know alot about other things and cant be expected to know everything. or maybe you just explained yourself badly, that happens some time. or maybe you just made a mistake and want to move on. fine.

now you are trying to say that i'm and idiot and cant speak right? instead of responding to some very well thought out questions i posed.

well i think this really shows to everyone on this threat really your level of interest in the scientific or philosophical aspect of this thread that you started..

but just for fun i will show how pathetic your attempt to attack my intelligence is again.

i said

in fact i would say by far [homosexuality] is biological, especially when you compare it to examples in nature and in clinical examples of gender intermediate people.

thats my opinion, i happen to think genetics is very powerful and alot of our sexual identity can be traced back to genetics.

but the field taken as a whole does not agree that genetics plays a secondary role. they know its a strong component but they don’t know to what degree. simple as that.

this is what the field of genetics says as far as my readings on developmental biology would tell me. that taken together many scientists would not outright agree with me that genetics may be the overwhelming factor in sexual behavior.

so the question is, do you have a problem reading? because i specifically said "i would say" and then "but the field taken as a whole".

ther is nothign contradictory about stating my opinion and then stating there is no consensus among the complete field. its fairly pathetic then when given serious questions, you would choose to once again make some "petty" insults as you said, and then fail so badly when its obvious i just stated my opinion and seperated it from others.

So first you say that "faulty science" for want of a better term has led to the oppression of blacks, women and gays, and then you claim that science has nothing to do with it and can give no answers?

well yes obviously eugenics and the early science of society claimed all sorts of things that could never be supported, and let to alot of suffering. but what i also said that you refer to is

there is nothing in the primary science that would allow anybody to make any conclusions about who deserves to be oppressed and who doesnt.

once again you seem not to be able to read. that does not say science has nothing to do with it, that says science does not provide a conclusion as to who can be oppressed and who cant. genetic linkage will just give you a number, like 0.8, or 0.112. it cannot conclude who is worthy or who isnt, just a relative spectrum of significance. this is another example of where, if you understood linkage studies, or the results that experimental science produces, that often it doesnt tell you anything in genetics, that it has to be interpreted by men. i think its pretty plainly written that no experimental result can tell you who to oppress.

Once again, Riff, you succeed in making a fool of yourself. You've blasted your own opinions out of the water, as you did about cloning and abortion. I'm sure you'll desert this thread pretty soon once your position becomes completely untenable, if it already hasn't, as you did in the many threads about Gulf II.

un huh...

so i ask you some questions respectfully, you ignore them and try desperately to show that i cant think. and i'm the fool?

anybody with a grade 12 education could read what i said and see there was no contradiction because i was speaking of my opinion and others opinion, and then of the misuse of science historically and the inconclusiveness of science is some modern disciplines.

i'm not sure what you are trying to prove, since you really ignored some very good questions to attempt to insult me.

i know what i said was spefiic and a little scientifically worded, but maybe you should try to read and understand them instead of just misreading them and claiming that since you dont understand it that it must be my problem.

i assure you, in all my academics and work i talk about much more complex stuff and nobody misreads me like you. so you can really just give it up and just say you dont agree or dont understand rather then looking silly and saying it doesnt make sense. it indeed does make sense if you can read and follow scientific thinking.

if you cant even understand and respond to what i say here, then you really should get out of the genetics/biology/development discussion and just hold your views without trying to justify them scientifically. because then you would have to actually answer questions like the ones i possessed, instead of pretending other people are at fault because you dont understand.

[Hugo]

Here is my basic point:

You initally compared being homosexual to being black or female, as I quoted you so doing. You have now joined me in refuting that idea. Therefore, it's invalid to compare being homosexual to being black or a woman, as you have conceded. That's all.

Your questions were not relevant to that. As to your repeated self-contradiction, well, now you say it was merely your opinion, but firstly, you never stated that at the time, and secondly, how are we to take you seriously when your opinion apparently changes with the tides?

now you are trying to say that i'm and idiot and cant speak right?

Can't speak WELL, Riff, can't speak WELL.

[SirRiff]

You initally compared being homosexual to being black or female, as I quoted you so doing. You have now joined me in refuting that idea.

HUGO, really read what you are saying.

i compared the oppression of gays to the oppression of blacks and women, not just thier genes. thier genetics are not identical, although certainly philosophical comparisons can be made between them i think.

why dont you just read what i said as i posted it so i dont have to correct you so much.

Can't speak WELL, Riff, can't speak WELL.

no, it was a question man, the 'right' does not = 'well', its the slang grammatical end of the question. like;

I should get gas at the next stop right?

just another misread? its getting to be a habit for you man.

funny, i just read on the web scientists think dyslexia maybe be caused by a single faulty gene. you could probably sign up for a study right?

oh, and if you like funny quotes.

Here's how it works. A heritable characteristic is one that tends to run in families but has no grounding in genetics

We should call you professor HUGO for that one.

so once again, you dont read what i posted as simply as i can. you claim that i didnt make sense. i correct you again and again and if you read at a proficient level, you will find everything i said is very plain and normal. and you continue to spin your wheels grasping for mistakes i made that only exist in your imagination.

i have to wonder why you keep trying to find imaginary problems with my grammer instead of just answering simple questions or reading my posts acruately.

do you actually have any opinions backed by basic science or do you just like misreading others?

SirRiff

[Hugo]

Alright, now we are getting somewhere (once we skip past your atrocious slew of personal insults). You agree with me, then, that homosexuality is not innate like being black or a woman, and is due in large part to environment, which neither negroidism nor womanhood are.

It's a behaviour, like substance abuse.

Tell Scotch on your way out, he's having a really hard time with it.

[Ronda]

I won't continue with the genetic/race discussion other than to point out that Hugo and Ronda are completely clueless about genetics other than quotes gleened from publications put out by religious groups.

Right. Well, Scotch, I'm trying to tell you that whatever lofty ideas you have about there being no such thing as "race" in the first place, the fact is that the colour of one's skin is genetically determined. If you want to talk about shades of black and white and suntans, knock yourself out - you're missing the point. There's a gene for skin colour and eye colour, hair colour, etc. (unless of course colour contacts and hair dye confuse this issue for someone with your obvious mastery of genetic code). There is NOT a GENE for homosexuality. There may be a genetic SEQUENCE which would make some more susceptable than others given certain environments. Does this make sense or should I try yet again?

[SirRiff]

Alright, now we are getting somewhere (once we skip past your atrocious slew of personal insults).

its funny how you bring up petty grammer mistakes and claims about bad logic then pretend it didnt happen when someone corrects you and points out your misstating of simple language. you should run for political office.

You agree with me, then, that homosexuality is not innate like being black or a woman, and is due in large part to environment, which neither negroidism nor womanhood are.

homosexuality isnt innate? thats not what i have been saying. in fact i specifically said many times there is a strong genetic componant to all aspects of sexual behaviors, including homosexuality. so no, you dont have anything right. i guess this is proof you dont bother to read all those pesky big words i write about 'strong genetic componant' such.

whats more funny is when you say its due in large part to environment. whats the leftover cause after the large part? aliens? the only additional reason other then environment would have to be genetics. so you contradict yourself in two statements.

homosexuality cannot be "not innate" like you say in line 1 and "due in large part" like you say in line 2. if its due in large part by environment, it must be due in small part at least to genetics, and thus is innate to some degree.

maybe scotch should take over if you cant/refuse to read what i am saying. its just with your first post defining heredity and inheritance, i thought you could use some help brushing on your genetics. i didnt realize you just wanted to misstate posts over and over again.

[Ronda]

Please read my post. What Hugo and I are saying is that there may be susceptibility, ie. one being genetically predisposed to obesity or alcoholism or cancer, etc. etc. etc. but this is NOT the same as there being a GENE for an INNATE trait. Hair colour, eye colour, gender, etc. are good examples of things that are innate and unchangeable. If I am predisposed to being obese, under the right circumstances, I will become obese. However, there is no guarantee. And even still, since to my knowledge no one has proven that gays beget gays, even that type of link is a stretch. In any event, you cannot say that sexuality is something innate (ie. possessed at birth and unchangeable) such as hair or skin colour would be. The likelihood of one person being homosexual over another may be greater but the environment and that person's attitudes will certainly play a much larger role than genetics.

[Scotchneat]

This is getting seriously tedious. Just to show how narrowed minded Hugo and Ronda are and in case anyone with an open mind is reading this thread, I will explain how race is a social construct again.

People have different physical characteristics and people in certain populations groups can be identified by DNA markers. However, "race" is not quantifiable, it is a social construct. A good analogy is being tall. Can you quantify what is to be tall? No. Tall is subjective. A person with the height of 175 cm will be short in some populations and tall in others.

The same with "black", there is no quantitive definition of "black". Once again take Tiger Woods, is he black or asian or Indian? Depending on your experiences and background, your answer will be different.

Another interesting case is a tribe in South Africa that claimed to be Jewish. There was a lot of doubt about this claim, until a genetist identified that they shared markers particular to a certain group of Jews.

So if a scientist identifies someone's population from DNA and says the person is white, it's just a convenient but culturally based shorthand. What the scientist really means is that based on certian markers, the person can be grouped with a population from Europe.

The populations of the world cannot be divided into races in any meaningful way. There is only one race: the human race. It's a fact, not a "lofty idea".

I checked the Center for Disease Control website and there is no study about the life expectancy of homosexuals conducted by the Center for Disease Control. I don't know how such study could be conducted, in fact unless we legalize gay marriage we'll never know the life expectancy of homosexuals.

[FastNed]

Scotch, I believe we have discussed this one to an end point and anything more is redundant.

Two small points, attempting to find a CDC Study a few months after its release is difficult if not impossible, or at least that is my experience. I have attempted to retrieve such a few months after I have read them and have found it impossible to navigate through a zillion references. It may be that I'm not too good at it or perhaps their site and reference system is just too complex.

One other point, you mention:

I don't know how such study could be conducted, in fact unless we legalize gay marriage we'll never know the life expectancy of homosexuals. 

I am not nit picking but this would only provide data on "married" homosexuals and would have no statistical validity for non-married ones.

All statistics concerning homosexuals are based upon incomplete studies as we have no idea of the true population. Some are out and some undisclosed. The best estimates are a population subset of between three to ten percent - that's nine to thirty million and with that variation in numbers, all statistics are suspect. AIDS figures are fairly well set in cement, either you got it or you don't and I believe life expectancy figures for male homosexuals are a derivative of these numbers. I doubt their validity or applicability to women, that is to lesbians and I have no idea of how anyone could claim validity for any data base where they are concerned.

[Hugo]

its funny how you bring up petty grammer mistakes and claims about bad logic then pretend it didnt happen when someone corrects you and points out your misstating of simple language. you should run for political office.

I really didn't want to start a spelling-flame war, but since you insist on it, you might want to look at comma usage. Then your "explanation" might have some validity. As it stands, there are two interpretations of the sentence in question, and both would mean that that sentence was grammatically incorrect. I'm not about to take spelling lessons from somebody whose writing skills are as poor as yours. I also never heard of a geneticist who couldn't write at a high school level, by the way. Just look at the quote above. Missing capitalization, missing commas, misspelled words, missing apostrophes - are you sure you graduated?

homosexuality isnt innate?

HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT INNATE IN THE SAME WAY AS SKIN COLOUR OR GENDER.

That should be loud and clear enough that you can't misquote it again - at least not without making an even bigger fool of yourself.

Scotch,

I'll try this one more time. Maybe I should put some emphasis on it for you, too.

IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW BLACK YOU ARE OR WHAT TIGER WOODS LOOKS LIKE. YOUR SKIN COLOUR IS SET BEFORE BIRTH BY GENES AND IS INVULNERABLE TO ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCE, BARRING THE MOST SUPERFLUOUS AND TRANSIENT OF CHANGES.

Tiger Woods might be hard to pigeonhole, but environment will never, ever make Tiger Woods look like Chris Rock or Yao Ming.

It's not my fault you can't do your research, by the way. I got my figures from the CDC, like it or not, and a quick search of CDC's website under the keyword "homosexuality" listed a ton of information - and none of it was positive about the health aspects of the behaviour. Go look at the "Beyond Satire" thread where you'll find a mass of sources from myself and Neal that prove the grave health risks of being homosexual.

[Scotchneat]

You should try to get out more often and have look at people and you might start to understand what I mean. Yes, there are very pale population groups and extremely dark populations and many in between, but the idea you can place all the populations and people into negroid , caucasian and asian races is a social construct without an objective scientific basis.

I grant you that Tiger Woods won't be mistaken for a Scot or Eskimo, but he puts a big hole in the three races dogma.

The CDC is, as the name would suggest, a place to study disease, therefore, healthy homosexuals are not its concern. Yes, homosexuals are a high risk group, but it is due to the unsafe practices of a certain segment.

IV drug users are also a high risk group, but that doesn't mean putting a needle in your arm will give you HIV.

I suggest you go back over your posts, because homosexuality has a strange effect on you for some reason.

This thread is getting very tired. We all agree that homosexuality has a genetic and environmental component and at this stage we can't know which is more important. So what? For whatever reason, a person's sexual identity is set in early childhood.

However, you believe that with enough treatment Scott Thompson will be having a great time at Hooters, but I rather doubt it.

Fair enough assessment?

[SirRiff]

I really didn't want to start a spelling-flame war, but since you insist on it, you might want to look at comma usage.

uh nobody cares man. I dont really care about my periods nor does anybody care about your commas. or rondas or scotchs or whoevers. as long as its understandable, the content is what people are interested. this isnt an english grammar board. but if you feel that my missing a comma makes me less informed about genetics and increases the strength of your argument, by all means, enjoy it. but i think you know that the surest sign of insecurity would be to avoid debating the ideas of another and focus on unrelated pretty insults.

if i misstate the definitions of genes, heritability, or evolution, by all means correct me. if the best you can do is a comma, that should tell you a lot.

HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT INNATE IN THE SAME WAY AS SKIN COLOUR OR GENDER.

see this a perfect example of punctuation not mattering.

a little basic knowledge of what you are talking about would prevent you from repeatedly misusing biological words.

do you even know what innate means? (we have already covered heredity and inheritance)

i will even look it up for you while you critique my punctuation, so you dont even have to trust my definition

Cambridge Dictionary Online

-An innate quality or ability is one that you were born with, not one you have learned

Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc

existing in, belonging to, or determined by factors present in an individual from birth

so you see, its incorrect to say homosexuality is not innate like being black for two reasons,

1. because innateness is the same regardless of what specific feature we are talking about

2. innateness is the same regardless of the complexity of the genetic inheritance mechanism

thus there is no reason to differentiate between two different types of innateness. they dont exist. either something is innate or it isnt.

can you prove something is more innate then another? i dont know, maybe by linkage studies in a lab you can get a number, but to use differing levels of what is natural to discriminate? I don’t think there is any philosophy or science that would support that arbitrary agenda.

really what you are saying is that while both homosexuality and race are innate, they are predisposed to different levels. actually, ronda made a very good post discussing that, i should quote it and respond i think.

Please read my post. What Hugo and I are saying is that there may be susceptibility, ie. one being genetically predisposed to obesity or alcoholism or cancer, etc. etc. etc. but this is NOT the same as there being a GENE for an INNATE trait. Hair colour, eye colour, gender, etc. are good examples of things that are innate and unchangeable. If I am predisposed to being obese, under the right circumstances, I will become obese. However, there is no guarantee. And even still, since to my knowledge no one has proven that gays beget gays, even that type of link is a stretch. In any event, you cannot say that sexuality is something innate (ie. possessed at birth and unchangeable) such as hair or skin colour would be. The likelihood of one person being homosexual over another may be greater but the environment and that person's attitudes will certainly play a much larger role than genetics.

that is a very insightful post i must admit. factually correct, concise, and correct usage of definitions too. have you been reading up ronda?? penatrance and expressivity are two other terms that describe the number of individuals in a population phenotypically affected by the same mutation and the absolute range of the mutant phenotypic respectively.

let me just say,

when you say cancer or alcoholism or whatever, those are generally single genes or simple mutation cases. the major breast cancer gene, BRCA1, is traced in families like that too. if your mom gave you a faulty gene, you are much more likely to get cancer over your life if you loose the second one for any reason. same with retinoblastoma, RB1, cancer of the eye, a preexisting mutation is almost always inherited before a second spontaneous mutation occurs.

this cannot possibly be the case with sexual behavior.

since nobody has found as 50-50 spread in families of gays, it cannot be one gene mutation or something like that. in fact, normal healthy sexual behavior is known to be developed by thousands of genes all interacting. and i mean sexual gender, sexual identity, and sexual preference may all be independent to some degree.

so what does this mean?

you cannot compare one gene characteristics like skin color with multi gene complex behaviors like sexual preference. and then say, well color is innate but preference isnt because it isnt a white or black outcome.

there could exist many genes that produce in the right combination the exact same predictable patterns of sexual preference. so although more complex, it would be entirely predictable liek skin color, just more complex and with more intermediate possibilities.

so what i am saying, is that i think its inaccurate to use a simple trait like skin color to say that because the genetic mechanisms of homosexuality dont match it in simplicity and predictability, gayness cant be as innate. i dont agree adn i don think that argument holds water genetically.

skin color is predictable (if the gene is know) and binary.

gayness is not yet predicable without much further study (and its so complex it may never be predicted) and is not binary, since there is no easy way to classify everyone into gay and non-gay. additionally when you consider the huge social pressures brought by modern organized religion, there are undoubtedly many many would be gays who live normal hetero lives when constrained by society in the recent past. as society grows more accepting, i'm sure the relative number of gays will go up as well.

for these reasons i dont think its accurate to compare the innateness of homosexuality to simple one gene characteristics like color pigments.

because in teh end, the 'innateness' of one genetic characteristic cannot even be reduced because of the innateness of another. can it? i dont see how.

so even if i agreed that you could compare two, what does it prove? that because you cant predict sexual behavior completely its not natural? that even though we will probably find genes with a strong linkage to homosexuality because skin color genes are absolutely linked they are more innate?

i think, the oppression of blacks and women does not need to rely on the vindication by genetic explanation. human society decided on its own without genetic proof that accept blacks and women because we evolved to accept basic human rights,

similarly i dont think gays need to wait on a complete genetic explanation to seek vindication of their behavior. its obviously due to some unknown extent by genetics. but considering neither being black or a women would morally need to be genetically vindicated, why should gays?

when Jesus helped the sick, did he demand a genetic explanation for their malady? did he refuse to help those who acted differently?

the genetic basis of homosexual behavior is one absolute undeniable similarity to all our human behavior and thus cannot be characterized in any unnatural way. no comparison to the differences between skin color genes and sex genes can reduce the innateness or naturalness of this inherited behavior.

but even without this proof, there is every ethical reason to treat it just like any previous discriminatory criteria, like blacks and women, and accept them as part of the diversity of all humanity, because there is no genetic criteria that can be used in a civil society to determine who can be oppressed and who cant. Comparisons to skin color don’t further a case against gays in any way shape or form in my opinion. Regardless of what you draw from it, because in a broad genetic view, the genetic differences are so meaningless when trying to extract moral implications or what is ‘natural’ or ‘innate’.

[Hugo]

Riff,

There could exist many genes that produce in the right combination the exact same predictable patterns of sexual preference... it would be entirely predictable liek skin color, just more complex and with more intermediate possibilities.

i have been trying to tell you all along, genetics and environment both play major roles but it is unknown the relative quantities.

You see what I mean about self-contradiction? Just now, in the topmost quote above, you state that it's entirely possible that sexuality is completely genetic and pre-determined. In the second quote from a couple of pages back, you state that "all along" you believed that both genes and environments have a major part to play.

Either you believe the environment has a role to play (in which case, why would you say the former) or you don't (in which case, why would you say the latter)?

so what i am saying, is that i think its inaccurate to use a simple trait like skin color to say that because the genetic mechanisms of homosexuality dont match it in simplicity and predictability, gayness cant be as innate. i dont agree adn i don think that argument holds water genetically.

The same thing can be said of any human behaviour, but as in all behaviours, as you've said, you cannot discount environmental influence. That's the key difference. Sexuality, like any other behaviour, is open to environmental influence, but innate traits like skin colour are absolutely not.

Now, you can say that it could be entirely genetic, but there is no evidence so far to prove that, whereas there is considerable evidence to prove that sexuality can result from environmental influence. That sexuality is at least in large part environmentally determined is the theory that best fits the facts available, and ultimately, that's the best one can come up with for anything.

I think that we have established, based on all the facts available, that homosexuality is a behaviour, like alcoholism, and not an innate trait, like skin or eye colour. It's open to the influence of the environment. To what degree, we do not know, however, it's differentiated from skin or eye colour or gender because these latter things are set before birth and are immune to environmental influence.

What this means is not that we have an excuse to discriminate against gays, but a reason why they should not compare themselves to blacks and women, and I'll give an example to show you what I mean:

Maybe they're discriminated against in marriage, unable to be blood donors, and so on. Smokers are discriminated against in restaurants and other public places in a very similar way. While gays can marry, just not to someone of the same sex, smokers can go to a restaurant, they just can't smoke while they're there.

Smoking is a behaviour (but you probably have to be genetically vulnerable). Homosexuality is a behaviour (but you probably have to be genetically vulnerable).

You see where I am going with this? "We are born that way" is not viable as a justification for homosexual endorsement, any more than smokers could claim the same thing and demand the right to smoke anywhere, anytime.

Similarly, gay people cannot claim that "blacks were discriminated against just because of how they were born, and so are we." They are not being discriminated against because of how they were born but because of how they act. Being black is not a behaviour, nor can you stop being black. But many homosexuals and heterosexuals have crossed the line in either direction or even straddled it, as have alcoholics, smokers and so forth. You might argue that the homosexual who sleeps with an opposite sex partner is still a homosexual at heart, but a black man cannot become white and yet remain black at heart.

[Ronda]

when Jesus helped the sick, did he demand a genetic explanation for their malady? did he refuse to help those who acted differently?

No, and he didn't tell them that they weren't actually sick, just different, either.

This is where the discussion of tolerance vs. endorsement comes in. It's utterly unnacceptable to abuse ANYONE or lecture them about their sexual practices, unless you are their friend and concerned about their health, naturally. As mentioned, I have friends who are gay or who have had experiences and it really does not factor in at all. I simply don't feel that society should be endorsing homosexuality on such a broad scale and more to the point, I don't feel marriage should be redefined since gays can and do marry under the same rules as everyone else (one person, opposite sex, no relation, over 18 etc.).

Being that the topic deals with the "gay gene", I'll simply say that I just do not feel that it is as clear cut as a gene or even genetic sequence that will absolutely determine one's sexuality or sexual preferences.

[SirRiff]

RONDA

No, and he didn't tell them that they weren't actually sick, just different, either.

what about people who were just different? did they call them sick without cause? i doubt it.

HUGO

You see what I mean about self-contradiction? Just now, in the topmost quote above, you state that it's entirely possible that sexuality is completely genetic and pre-determined. In the second quote from a couple of pages back, you state that "all along" you believed that both genes and environments have a major part to play.

That first one is just musing man, just pondering the consequences IF it was true.

OK, tomorrow morning the paper says scientists have found 7 genes that together account for nearly all observable gay sexual behavior. so it was all genetic after all.

does it mean that society must accept homosexuals?

does it mean that any behavior with a genetic component must be tolerated?

of course not, society does not have to tolerate violent just because we have biological instincts programming violence.

so how did we come to outlaw murder and rape?

through the evolution of society. simple as that.

and just like that society evolved to accept women, then blacks, and now gays. their acceptance does rest on genetic proof and thier denial doesnt rest on its absence.

its a usefull tool for enlightenment, however the behavior that society accepts must be judged by the rules of society, not nature. we should never accept violence no matter what genetic links we find.

homosexuality is benign to a society in terms of its capability to continue to be stable with the basic family unit.

ANY suggestion that homosexuality is dangerous can easily be counted with many many other accepted behaviors that are just as dangerous. thus there is no reason society should not tolerate it just as it tolerates many other former oppressed behaviors.

as i said, a genetic link does not vindicate a behavior, and no genetic link does not condemn a behavior. society can judge for itself what it will accept and what it wont. THAT is why i must about finding a complete or nonexistent genetic link. because it really does not preclude society from making judgment decisions either way.

gays are harmless to society, we damage each other far more effectively in other ways. society is decling because of social stress, overpopulation, mass media, violent and hypersexualized images, and so on and so on. too many people doing to many things slipping to the lowest common denominator.

SirRiff

[Craig Read]

Toleration does not mean:

-Destroying the family unit

-Teaching that perversion is okay

-Stating that genetics cause homosexuality when there is zero proof of that

-Eroding the division of powers between state and church

-Using the Charter to buy minority votes

Gay marriage is inimcal to all values that flow from the orthodox Western Tradition. It denies facts, it elevates pyschologically disturbed behaviour, it enshrines relativity, and exalts in immorality.

It hides behind the Charter to strike another blow against society and the structures that allow prosperity to take root.

Put it to a referendum. It would be crushed in such a process once people started debating its base iniquity.

[Hugo]

You miss my point again, Riff. I specifically stated that genetics was not a basis for discrimination. I stated that it was factually incorrect for homosexuals to compare themselves to blacks or women, and more correct to compare themselves to smokers. Please read over my post.

[Craig Read]

Hugo, your post and in particular your list of studies to support the fact that homosexuality is socio-psychological is grand.

You are correct, no one has presented evidence to the contrary. Just the usual sappy soupy mixture of emotionalism and lie-beralism.

[SirRiff]

You miss my point again, Riff. I specifically stated that genetics was not a basis for discrimination.

yeah but what you are saying is that a LACK of genetics IS a basis for discrimination. becaues by comparing gays to blacks and women who have won equality, and saying that gays are not like them in terms of thier obvious genetic trait, you really imply that your case against them is strengthened. so really you are using genetics as a case for discrimination, or else you wouldnt have brought it up in the first place right?

but what i am saying is, that EVEN IF we found that gays were 100% genetic, would you accept them without hesitation?

no, i dont think you would.

thus even an argument that they are not the same as blacks is pointless, because no matter what genetic proof comes out either way, the argument against gays that you adn many others make would not be swayed by biology either way.

thus even though i think the truth about genetics is important, i think that the argument you are making is a purely social one, and had little basis on genetics of any sort.

like i said before, the acceptance of blacks and women were made by the evolution of society. and similiarly i think gays under the same criteria need to be accepted too. there is nothing genetic about civil rights and tolerance and humanity.

so you cant bring up blacks and women, who you accept, compare them to gay genetics, and say you are not trying to link genetics to discrimination. if your not, then there is no reason to ever dicuss gay genetics in the first place.

but my opinion is that genetics cannot vindicate a bad behavior or condemn and innocent one.

but i just dont see a threat by gays to society at all. look at all the everyday normal threats caused by everyday heterosexuals and you see gays are not the problem. just a scapegoat for human nature.

SirRiff

[Hugo]

Riff,

What are you arguing now? That homosexuality should be endorsed by society for compassionate reasons? I just don't agree.

All the evidence shows that homosexuality is a mental illness and a deviancy because it defeats the intended purpose of sexual attraction and sexual intercourse and because it so often stems from other problems. The most compassionate thing would be to recognise this, and while respecting the afflicted, to help them get the help they need.

Simply endorsing them because their lobby groups are the most vocal is ridiculous. As Ronda said to you, I can't wait until the pedarasts and pedophiles are shouting (louder) for their rights and decrying their oppression - will you join with them too?

Despite my warnings, you still insist on comparing gays to blacks and women - it's not valid and you can't do that. Valid comparisons can be made with smokers and alcoholics, but I don't see you asking that we endorse smoking and alcoholism as equal choices.

It's not about the threat that homosexuals pose to society (apart from the moral fatigue and so on), it's about the threat that homosexuals pose to themselves, and the fact that the truth about such behaviour - which could save many lives if told widely - is hushed up and kept out of sight. It would be the same if the government outlawed all anti-smoking campaigns, advertising and so forth, and started teaching the "equality" of smoking in schools. What do you think would happen? Life expectancy would increase or decrease? Cancer rates would increase or decrease? And whose fault would it be - the smokers, who know nothing about the health risks, or the people who lied to them?

For instance, all the statistics that I posted about gay death and disease rates came as a great shock to many on this forum. Some still don't believe them, but they are all true, all independently gathered, and people on this forum tend to be more intelligent than most. It comes as no surprise to anybody that smoking is bad for you, and homosexuality should be the same way.

[Craig Read]

Hugo, you are right. The genetic myth comes from the fraud Kinsey who interpreted Hamer's test on gay men to produce unscientific polemics extolling the gay gene.

Standard, Univ. of Boston and Univ. of Western Ontario studies have all disproved the gay gene theory.

The only defence might rest in the fact that the genome is not entirely mapped or known.

However, more plausibly sexual orientation is caused by a great number of genes interacting and deviancy is caused by the environment and social factors.

This makes more sense, then stating that a Single gene causes certain behaviour.

This would be akin to saying that someone who is ugly, suffers from the Ugly gene.

This would be akin to saying that stupid people [like Liberals and Democrats for eg.] suffer from the stupid gene.

Nonsense. They suffer from gene combinations, social factors, environmental factors and parental influences.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo and Mr. Read,

It is bizzare that you could compare male homosexuals to pederasts and not heterosexuals to pedophiles.

While I do not believe in 'gay genes' and the like, sexual preference does not explicitly imply deviancy, hetero or homosexual. That two men or two women could choose to be sexual partners does not include 'forcing that preference' on another, especially that of a child. Consentual sex between adults 'of age' is just that. perhaps the age of consent should be raised, but that is another topic.

Incidentally, abberations regarding promiscuity among homosexuals is built upon the foundation of discrimination, not upon deviancy.

[SirRiff]

Standard, Univ. of Boston and Univ. of Western Ontario studies have all disproved the gay gene theory.

thats funny, i got a genetics degree from UWO and worked with all the genetics professors, read thier published studies, and researched hundreds of other experiements.

never came across anything that "disproved" anything about gays.

maybe the experimental data is in teh bible?

SirRiff

[Hugo]

It is bizzare that you could compare male homosexuals to pederasts and not heterosexuals to pedophiles.

Homosexuals are actually greatly over-represented in the ranks of pedophiles. We've been over this. I wouldn't compare heterosexuality to pedophilia, since pedophilia is a deviancy and heterosexuality isn't.

never came across anything that "disproved" anything about gays.

If you read back through your previous posts you'll discover that you don't seem to know anything about this issue. As I pointed out before, you change your opinion with the tides.

[nova_satori]

Question: have you mentioned at data from very respectable, party-neutral labs?