Focus on the Family Will Keep your Kid from Being Gay

quote:

---

jar asked:
Sorry, most of what you've posted has nothing to do with the question.
Can a same-sex couple get married? If they can't they are being oppressed.

---

to which Tal replied: Tal, that's once again a typical wrong answer.Until the Christian Right pushed through the Defense of Mariage Act there was nothing in the definition of marriage that precluded people of the same sex getting married.It is the Christian Right that is changing the definition of marriage, not the homosexuals.Does the Defense of Marriage Act define marriage as between a man and a woman?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yeah, I wasn't meaning to suggest I thought he rejected it for proper reasons. I just have never seen any research myself which pointed to a "gay gene" despite seeing people mention it as if it were part of the "scientific knowledge" base.As it turns out this is along the lines of what I have read before and it definitely is not evidence for a gay gene... even in flies.The importance of these studies is that they have shown that in fruit flies, who have known built in mating mechanisms, genetic manipulation can affect those mechanisms, including complex behavior like the mating dance and ability to detect females. As far as orientation goes... and... That isn't even close to what we are talking about with homosexuality, and here we are talking about flies with rather rigid psych mechanisms.What implications does this have for the topic of human "gay genes"?... This message has been edited by holmes, 08-22-2005 12:21 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'm not attempting to defend Tal's general approach to this topic, but I think in this case his quote (which I myself cited, belatedly) is absolute refutation of the position taken.If it is not sole determiner then it is not really a "gay gene" and certainly not a switch of some kind, which does seem to be how it was characterized.In this case the study was suggesting that so far no connection like this has been found at all in humans, and even if so other factors could be much more dominant.That's pretty strong evidence that we do not have any evidence at this point in time for a gay gene, and to my mind that we are likely to run into it in the future.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I've agreed with holmes twice is as many days. What is the world coming to.Asgara, I'm tossing out my sarcasm regarding the the gay gene. I'm being serious now, as opposed to flipant.I am open to scientific evidence that supports geneticly passed homosexuality. If it ever comes to light, I would adjust my argument.But you are reaching even if you think the gay gene in fly's has anything to do with homosexuality? It has zero to do with it. When the fly was zapped, it didn't turn homosexual. It couldn't recognize males from females. They all looked the same to the fly.Now, onto fetuses. Of course if you mess with hormones of the mothers the fetuses are going to be "screwed up." If a human is born with both sets of genetals the doctors do tests to see if it has more male/female hormones, then they determine what sex the baby will be.Maybe I'm not sure what you are saying. Can you give some examples from the book?

---

Tired of the opposite sex? Want to turn your favorite football player into a raging homsexual? Then purchase your Gay-Gene Cattle Prod! One Zap from the GGCP will turn the Gay Gene off or on at your whim. So if you want your wife to get some hot girl on girl action, the Gay-Gene Cattle Prod is for you! *not intended for use on children*

First of all, let me make it clear that you are part of the reason why I have such a negative attitude toward christians.Anyway, this article gives an alternative explanation on the issue at hand. It's pretty interesting.Also, if you are so anti-choice, it would interest you to know that I CHOSE to go fishing the other day. Didn't have to be born with the fisherman gene.

I'm here for you. You are making my case for me.As far as your link, identical twins taking different sexual courses strengthens my argument that genetics has nothing to do with homosexuality. If you want to point out the X28 argument, I'll counter with this.and I would like to conclude this post with the following: This message has been edited by Tal, 08-22-2005 02:11 PM

---

Tired of the opposite sex? Want to turn your favorite football player into a raging homsexual? Then purchase your Gay-Gene Cattle Prod! One Zap from the GGCP will turn the Gay Gene off or on at your whim. So if you want your wife to get some hot girl on girl action, the Gay-Gene Cattle Prod is for you! *not intended for use on children*

What we are forgetting is that it does not matter if gayness is genetic or not. Who cares if it is genetic? All that would change in the conservative stance is their treatment. Instead of it being a choice they could make the case that it is a genetic disorder worthy of returning it to the medical and psychology texts.Dobson, instead of talking about how to treat your kids would be funding genetic replacement and other pharmacutical research.All this talk about gay rights is, once again, off topic on a thread on homosexuality anyway. What does it matter if gayness is genetic? Does that change how we should view gay rights on either side of the issue?

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

If homosexuality is purely genetic, gay rights activists can use that to strengthen their gay marriage plight. It would put being gay on par with being white, when it is more on par with being fat.

---

Tired of the opposite sex? Want to turn your favorite football player into a raging homsexual? Then purchase your Gay-Gene Cattle Prod! One Zap from the GGCP will turn the Gay Gene off or on at your whim. So if you want your wife to get some hot girl on girl action, the Gay-Gene Cattle Prod is for you! *not intended for use on children*

Yes, I should have stated my case a little better. I wasn't necessarily referring to the fly-gene. I meant it probably wouldn't be just one particular gene that would give rise to a homosexual organism, but probably a gene or set of genes in combination with maternal hormones.As far as examples from the book. I haven't read it in a couple of years and it is currently packed up and in storage. So, from the top of my head...The examples I remember are not just those of ambiguous gender or hermaphrodites. I'm probably going to take a hit for using a spectrum type analogy but if you take an extremely male male and an extremely female female and every possible combination in between.

---

Asgara
"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now"select * from USERS where CLUE > 0http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

It's times like this that makes me wish there really is a god and there is a hell. That's right, I'll just say it out now. If I'm going to hell, I'll be seeing you there, also. Your hatred for your fellow human beings, which according to you are also god's children, disgust the hell out of me. That's it, go ahead and try to bring back slavery and all the other treacherous things you christians have been doing for centuries while justifying it with the bible.We now return to our regular broadcast.

double postThis message has been edited by Asgara, 08-22-2005 01:33 PM

Where have I ever stated I have homosexuals? Where did I ever say let us bring back slavery?I can understand if you don't have a valid argument to support your point, but don't put words in my mouth.This is about a political/social issue, nothing to do with the individuals. I don't think most gays hate straight people, and the same is true of most straight people.

---

Tired of the opposite sex? Want to turn your favorite football player into a raging homsexual? Then purchase your Gay-Gene Cattle Prod! One Zap from the GGCP will turn the Gay Gene off or on at your whim. So if you want your wife to get some hot girl on girl action, the Gay-Gene Cattle Prod is for you! *not intended for use on children*

Oh, sure you haven't. (1) Why try to make a valid argument if you're just going to ignore me?
(2) I've given up on being the understanding/tolerant liberal. In other words, screw you.
(3) I'll take what I said in 2 back. Actually, screw you again.
(4) I'm ashamed to be the same species as you.
(5) You're pretty dense, you know that? What a BS thing to say. It's like saying, "the fact that black people shouldn't be allowed to drink out of the same drinking fountain as white people has nothing to do with the individuals. It's more about political and social issue..." Well, hate to break it to you, but social and political issues have direct consequences on the individuals. It's probably true, but I'm the select few who don't like straight people. Gay power!Oh, and screw you again.

Get ready for a third surprise. This analysis is in part correct, and indeed was actually made in the paper GAW cited to Tal. Thus Tal has a legitimate position, with support.Okay, well you won't get support from me on this as a legal argument. Rights and freedoms are not based on genetic disposition. Even if being gay is like being fat instead of like being fat (which is arguable), isn't being fat a right?If the Xian right wants to start arguing that being fat is not something people have a right to be if they choose to, well then there are going to be a lot of upset Xians.The closer a trait or behavior gets to genetically inherent, does not make it more worthy of protection or beyond question. Same goes for the opposite direction.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

From the surface, it seems to me that actually, this ISN'T true (in the US at least). Things that we did, but we did "without choice" are punished less harshly, and focused more on treatment, than things which we do by choice. For example, premeditated murder vs. heat-of-the moment vs. temporary insanity vs. personality disorder leading to murder.Seems to me we generally "blame" people less for what "happens to them" (i.e. things they couldn't "help" due to genetic predisposition or unavoidable catastrophe). People who do things because they're dumb, uneducated, weak-willed--the things we find that make up a "person"--are not punished.I'm not saying it's wrong or right (and my abandoned post that I promised to write on free-will was centered on the right/wrong issue here), but I'm saying that, at least in American culture, it seems that people think this way.Ben(disclaimer: I actually "know" nothing about the legal system. I'm completely a lay person with no personal experience in law. So I'm willing to listen and learn if I'm way off the mark.)