BSA and Chick fil A anti-gay

[David88vert]

blank cd, no gene has been discovered in the mapping of DNA that is related to sexual orientation, and currently, it is not expected to be discovered. Hamer's "discovery" was found to be incorrect and misguided at best. Xq28 is not a "gay" gene.

Being gay is a choice. It is legally allowable, but marriage licenses are regulated by the state, and currently in the state of Georgia, gay marriage is not recognized as a legal union. Those are the facts whether you like them or not.

The issue is that the gay community attempt to push their minority agenda onto the majority of Americans. They want the schools to teach that being gay is normal, when the majority of Americans do not want their kids to be taught that in school. The gay community is not just asking for marriage rights, they are pushing against the beliefs of Americans who do not have the same opinion as them. Don't expect people to just say ok when you go against their beliefs.

[quickdodge®]

Being gay is a choice.

I can't agree or disagree. I agree in a way because I do think that some people do choose to be that way. But I can't affirm or deny that genetics make up any part of a decision because I don't know.

Don't expect people to just say ok when you go against their beliefs.

That's part of the problem, David. If someone doesn't like something, instead of moving past it, they want to confront it. If I don't like something, I tend to move on to something I do like. Not complicate my life with things I don't. If gay people want to get married, let them. Who is it harming? Later, QD.

[David88vert]

I can't agree or disagree. I agree in a way because I do think that some people do choose to be that way. But I can't affirm or deny that genetics make up any part of a decision because I don't know.

That's part of the problem, David. If someone doesn't like something, instead of moving past it, they want to confront it. If I don't like something, I tend to move on to something I do like. Not complicate my life with things I don't. If gay people want to get married, let them. Who is it harming? Later, QD.

It's definitely a choice - as are most things in life. And people should have that choice. Some people choose to be gay, and that's their choice, but let me have my choice as well. Don't push a gay agenda on others and expect them to go along with your choice, when they choose to not to recognize something that disagrees with their beliefs. What makes the beliefs of gays that they should marry legally more important than the majority of Americans who choose to stay with tradition? In other words, a minority group that has special interests wants the majority of America to be deprived of what they have chosen. If you want to change it, put it to a vote in your state, and let the people vote. I can tell you now, it won't pass in GA, and that is why the LGBT groups here want it to be decided in court, rather than put it on the ballot.

[David88vert]

Sorry, the overwhelming scientific opinion would not agree with you on it being a choice. Too much evidence that points in the other direction. If homosexuality was a choice, then it wouldnt be expressed in animals without the cognitive ability for choice and reason, but it is. The xq28 study is not the only study to have been performed, and I dont think you understand what a scientific dispute actually means. Its saying that the answer to the question is not this particular answer, not that the question is dismissed. EVEN IF it was a choice, who are you to say its wrong? I'm pretty sure its your CHOICE to own a gun....

Read your last paragraph again. Change ONE term and listen to how it sounds...
This was EXACTLY what was said back in the 50s when people thought black people were inferior. Intolerance to gays is actually the minority opinion.

1) As others have stated, following an accepted tradition and definition of marriage is not the same as a social injustice. As you have shown, you do not have a grasp of what true social injustice is, nor are you capable of understanding the difference.

2) If you think you have the votes, petition to get a bill written by your state representative, and get the petition put on the state ballot. See if you have enough Georgians (you will need a majority) to vote in favor of changing the definition of marriage. I can tell you already that you will not get enough votes to change it. Go ahead and call your represenative and set an appointment and tell him that you want this bill created. Don't say that it can't be done - California has already put it on the ballot before as Prop. 8.
Now, where is your majority, and who is in the minority?

3) Show me evidence that there is a "gay gene" in humans. You claim there is evidence, yet you have none to show. You claim that it is genetic, and that you have overwhelming scientific opinion? Where are these scientists? Perhaps you are referring to Brian Mustanski's 2005 announcement? You know, the guy who now is director of Northwestern’s IMPACT program, and definitely had an agenda when he made his anouncement of chromosones 7, 8, and 10? Oh yeah, he was a Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and has a degree in Psychology - and did not have the skills needed to conduct genetic research. He is still one of the main sources for ProCon.org, which is the group that promotes "born gay".
When you dig in and see what the sources are, you see there is no basis in fact for their statements.

If you are going to claim something, you'd better come with some facts, or I will tear apart your statements, as I just did. You have shown that you make unfounded statements all the time on multiple subjects. You're ready to run for Congress as a Democrat!

[.blank cd]

1) As others have stated, following an accepted tradition and definition of marriage is not the same as a social injustice. As you have shown, you do not have a grasp of what true social injustice is, nor are you capable of understanding the difference.

Right. Because theres only one degree of social injustice. It's violent racial oppression, or nothing at all. Please grab a dictionary, open it to the word social, then flip back to the word injustice.

3) Show me evidence that there is a "gay gene" in humans. You claim there is evidence, yet you have none to show. You claim that it is genetic, and that you have overwhelming scientific opinion? Where are these scientists? Perhaps you are referring to Brian Mustanski's 2005 announcement? You know, the guy who now is director of Northwestern’s IMPACT program, and definitely had an agenda when he made his anouncement of chromosones 7, 8, and 10? Oh yeah, he was a Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and has a degree in Psychology - and did not have the skills needed to conduct genetic research. He is still one of the main sources for ProCon.org, which is the group that promotes "born gay".
When you dig in and see what the sources are, you see there is no basis in fact for their statements.

If you are going to claim something, you'd better come with some facts, or I will tear apart your statements, as I just did. You have shown that you make unfounded statements all the time on multiple subjects. You're ready to run for Congress as a Democrat!

Tear apart my statements? Hardly. You did however, cleverly, try and twist my statement against me. We'll try this again so maybe you can understand it better.

You keep bringing up, what christian apologists and christian gay opponents usually bring up, one specific gene that hasnt been found, and that probably will never be found. This isnt what Im referencing at all. I'm talking about separate genetic and hormonal factors which increase ones chances of being born gay. Hamers study, back in 1993, was never disproven, some scientists challenged his findings (this is encouraged in the field of scientific research) because someone one else couldnt replicate his results the same way. Researchers after him have used the same study with different parameters and come up with different results. Here is his abstract -- Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females - Nature Genetics

Yes. we can also cite Mustanskis study, in which he was a co-author, with Michael DuPree, which they theorize (not a guess, but a scientific explanation) a group of genes, in particular, 7q36, 8p12 and 10q26, that contain potential information about sexual orientation. Their research yielded a 60% accuracy rate between their test subjects, which is better than the expected 50% random chance. Are you claiming someone with a doctorate in psychology and a researcher in behavioral genetics is not qualified to co-author a study about behavioral genetics? Lol. Here's their abstract -- A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation. [Hum Genet. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI

Then theres UCLA geneticist Sven Bocklandt (What the hell would this guy know, right?) who was inspired by Hamers findings. He studied the activation and inactivation of the X chromosomes and found that it wasnt so random in mothers with gay children. Here's his abstract -- Extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation in mothers of homosexual men [eScholarship]

Ivanka Savic, Hans Berglund, and Per Lindstrom, Swedish scientists, found a reaction in the hypothalamus of gay men that was similar to straight women when exposed to a male pheremone. Here's their abstract -- Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual men

And for good measure, I'll give a nod to a couple more researchers on the topic who concur with these theories: George Rice, George Ebers and Carol Anderson at the University of Western Ontario, Neil Risch at Stanford Medical School in California, and Alan Sanders, a psychiatrist and geneticist at the University of Chicago. All of the abstracts I've presented can be found in their entire publications.

So yes, scientific studies point to genetic and hormonal influences over environmental ones. Nature versus nurture. Do some choose to be gay? Maybe. Is it an across the board choice for every homosexual person? No. The mere fact that its expressed in animals that don't have the capacity for reasoning is proof enough. Other than that, science is overwhelmingly clear on the issue.

Nice try on the unfounded statements thing though! We might need to get you a job at Faux News. Geoff is too easy, at least you gave me a challenge. That was fun. I think we're done here.

[geoff]

Do you honestly believe that anyone that disagrees with you is a primitive, ancient outdated textbook following, closed minded Christian? I may be wrong and if I am I apologize, but I don't think David is a Christian and I know for sure that Sinfix is not. It must be that only far left, gay supporting, big government, God hating, fag loving, black, Obama supporting , ant gun extreme leftists like you are correct in every statement, every thought, and every belief. Every one else are bigots, close minded, hateful, stupid, blind and irrational people. Is that about right? For one that is enlightened, you sure are a dumb ass.

[quickdodge®]

Lolol. That was too easy. More people should be like you. Just back away when they know they've been bested. Later, QD.

[.blank cd]

Do you honestly believe that anyone that disagrees with you is a primitive, ancient outdated textbook following, closed minded Christian? I may be wrong and if I am I apologize, but I don't think David is a Christian and I know for sure that Sinfix is not. It must be that only far left, gay supporting, big government, God hating, fag loving, black, Obama supporting , ant gun extreme leftists like you are correct in every statement, every thought, and every belief. Every one else are bigots, close minded, hateful, stupid, blind and irrational people. Is that about right? For one that is enlightened, you sure are a dumb ass.

You can believe being gay is wrong all you want. I don't care. Its when you disagree with facts that makes you look like a moron. Throughout this thread, all you've done is disagree with facts. You can argue against facts all you want, but facts will still be facts. Sorry

[David88vert]

Right. Because theres only one degree of social injustice. It's violent racial oppression, or nothing at all. Please grab a dictionary, open it to the word social, then flip back to the word injustice.

Tear apart my statements? Hardly. You did however, cleverly, try and twist my statement against me. We'll try this again so maybe you can understand it better.

You keep bringing up, what christian apologists and christian gay opponents usually bring up, one specific gene that hasnt been found, and that probably will never be found. This isnt what Im referencing at all. I'm talking about separate genetic and hormonal factors which increase ones chances of being born gay. Hamers study, back in 1993, was never disproven, some scientists challenged his findings (this is encouraged in the field of scientific research) because someone one else couldnt replicate his results the same way. Researchers after him have used the same study with different parameters and come up with different results. Here is his abstract -- Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females - Nature Genetics

Yes. we can also cite Mustanskis study, in which he was a co-author, with Michael DuPree, which they theorize (not a guess, but a scientific explanation) a group of genes, in particular, 7q36, 8p12 and 10q26, that contain potential information about sexual orientation. Their research yielded a 60% accuracy rate between their test subjects, which is better than the expected 50% random chance. Are you claiming someone with a doctorate in psychology and a researcher in behavioral genetics is not qualified to co-author a study about behavioral genetics? Lol. Here's their abstract -- A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation. [Hum Genet. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI

Then theres UCLA geneticist Sven Bocklandt (What the hell would this guy know, right?) who was inspired by Hamers findings. He studied the activation and inactivation of the X chromosomes and found that it wasnt so random in mothers with gay children. Here's his abstract -- Extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation in mothers of homosexual men [eScholarship]

Ivanka Savic, Hans Berglund, and Per Lindstrom, Swedish scientists, found a reaction in the hypothalamus of gay men that was similar to straight women when exposed to a male pheremone. Here's their abstract -- Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual men

And for good measure, I'll give a nod to a couple more researchers on the topic who concur with these theories: George Rice, George Ebers and Carol Anderson at the University of Western Ontario, Neil Risch at Stanford Medical School in California, and Alan Sanders, a psychiatrist and geneticist at the University of Chicago. All of the abstracts I've presented can be found in their entire publications.

So yes, scientific studies point to genetic and hormonal influences over environmental ones. Nature versus nurture. Do some choose to be gay? Maybe. Is it an across the board choice for every homosexual person? No. The mere fact that its expressed in animals that don't have the capacity for reasoning is proof enough. Other than that, science is overwhelmingly clear on the issue.

Nice try on the unfounded statements thing though! We might need to get you a job at Faux News. Geoff is too easy, at least you gave me a challenge. That was fun. I think we're done here.

1) Again, comparing gays to black in their struggles is not appropriate, and really a poor card to try to play. You really need to drop that one. Its not even close to the same. If you don't understand that by now, then you probably never will.

2) Yes, I agree that science test and retest and compares results. Yes, this is common in the field of genetics. These studies are not conclusive until confirmed, and the fact is that no one has been able to reproduce and confirm anything in regards to a gay gene. You cannot take something as conclusive evidence when others contradict it, and there is no confirmation from separate, unrelated sources. The fact is that many researchers (in multiple fields) start with an agenda funded to find a specific result, and they are quick to reject any results that do not agree with what they are looking to find. Mustanskis specifically was looking to reject data that did not fall in line with his goal, and that is why no one has been able to confirm his work. And no, he was not qualified to be an author on that paper anymore than you or I would be.

3) I have not read the papers of the links that you have posted - yet. I will read them when I have a chance to. This is the best post that you have produced in any thread so far though. At least you have something to finally base some statements on. Please continue to do this in the future on other topics.
Here is a question for you though. If evolution is to be believed, why on earth would a gay gene even come into existence? In other word, since survival of the fittest is the rule of the day in genetics, how would a gene not be weeded out that pushes away from biological reproduction? If you believe in a gay gene, then you are saying that evolution is failing, as it has not led to a reduction inthe numnber of people who will not reproduce. Just something to think about.
On the other hand, if you look at it as a choice only, then it makes perfect sense, and fits the world that we see today. Again, let me state that everyone has the freedom to make their choice as long as it does impact others in a negative way. Pushing an agenda from a minority group over the majority, and changing the majority's definition is not a freedom though.

Now, as to genetic or choice - neither makes any difference in regards to the legality of marriage licensing, or to how society defines marriage, so this tangent has no bearing on the initial situation of this thread.

[.blank cd]

2) Yes, I agree that science test and retest and compares results. Yes, this is common in the field of genetics. These studies are not conclusive until confirmed, and the fact is that no one has been able to reproduce and confirm anything in regards to a gay gene. You cannot take something as conclusive evidence when others contradict it, and there is no confirmation from separate, unrelated sources. The fact is that many researchers (in multiple fields) start with an agenda funded to find a specific result, and they are quick to reject any results that do not agree with what they are looking to find. Mustanskis specifically was looking to reject data that did not fall in line with his goal, and that is why no one has been able to confirm his work. And no, he was not qualified to be an author on that paper anymore than you or I would be.

Yep....

3) I have not read the papers of the links that you have posted - yet. I will read them when I have a chance to. This is the best post that you have produced in any thread so far though. At least you have something to finally base some statements on. Please continue to do this in the future on other topics.
Here is a question for you though. If evolution is to be believed, why on earth would a gay gene even come into existence? In other word, since survival of the fittest is the rule of the day in genetics, how would a gene not be weeded out that pushes away from biological reproduction? If you believe in a gay gene, then you are saying that evolution is failing, as it has not led to a reduction in the numnber of people who will not reproduce. Just something to think about.

I've based everything Ive ever said on that same information. I don't like doing christian apologetics research work for them because thats what keeps them in the intellectual hole they're in in the first place. Read more, and stay away from anti-science-christian-blogs for scientific answers.

[quickdodge®]

It's definitely a choice - as are most things in life.

Yes I agree that it can be a choice. But to say there is no way it is genetic is not correct. That has been proven or not, so we don't know. Later, QD.

[David88vert]

Yes I agree that it can be a choice. But to say there is no way it is genetic is not correct. That has been proven or not, so we don't know. Later, QD.

Correct. I am saying that you cannot assume and teach that it is genetic without proof. If they can prove it, then by all means, teach it. Until then, it is pure choice, as we know people can choose to be gay.

[BanginJimmy]

Correct. I am saying that you cannot assume and teach that it is genetic without proof. If they can prove it, then by all means, teach it. Until then, it is pure choice, as we know people can choose to be gay.

If you believe it is simply a choice, do you know when you chose to be straight? What were your influences in making that decision?


I cannot think of when I made that decision, I just know I am attracted to women. I am absolutely positive it was the same for you.

[David88vert]

If you believe it is simply a choice, do you know when you chose to be straight? What were your influences in making that decision?
I cannot think of when I made that decision, I just know I am attracted to women. I am absolutely positive it was the same for you.

Yes, I know exactly when - when I hit puberty. :-p

The society that I grew up in (here in the south) teaches that male-female relationships are normal. It is something that has been taught, and you choose to follow your teachings.
If I had been born in some "fantasy" land where people are taught to have relationships with their own gender, then I probably would have been influenced to think that was correct, and would have been inclinded to follow that path - and probably would have incorrectly said that I was born that way also. The truth is that a society like that would have only made it one generation though, as reproduction would have been impossible - and yes, I said impossible intentionally. You cannot find a case where one male human impregnated another male human, and that had a successful birth to propetuate the species. That makes it pretty clear that it is not "normal".

[.blank cd]

Blank: I will dismiss that article not because a gay biast opinion, I will dismiss it because you seriously tried to use Wikipedia as a legitimate source.

Wikipedia cites all of its sources, especially when it comes to case studies. It is a legitimate source of information. Wheres the bibliography on the bible? I'd really like to see its sources...

You are using the same approach to the "gay gene" as most Christians use for the existence of God. You can't disprove it therefore it must exist. You can not use an argument that your kind automatically dismisses as insufficient to bring to the debate table.

Disproving the existence of something that doesnt exist is a logical fallacy.

You see, you stated the current laws of physics show no evidence for a God. One, my God is not bound by our laws of physics as He alone established them. Two, I don't expect you to just believe or argue that since it can't be proven it must be real. I can give you clear examples of the scientific kind that suggest intent and design, that point to the existence of an almighty being that put forth all that we know. Yet you simply dismiss it because you choose not to believe.

Even if there were evidence for some kind of divine creator, it doesnt mean its the Abrahamic God of the bible.

As far as the causes of homosexuality, I believe, and so do many students of science that sexual orientation is dependent on many factors, I.e. environment, choice, ect... The human mind is very influential and much more so a child's mind. Look at nazi Germany. One man some how managed to convince an entire nation of peopl and military that the Jews were to be wiped off the face of this earth, and that they were some how inferior.

Now you're getting it! Environmental influences lead up to choice, but there are other factors such as genetics and hormones that have been studied which lead up to it not being a choice.

This is what your next paragraph would sound like had this been before it was accepted and made legal....

Further, I don't hate BLACKS. Dont agree with their lifestyle, I don't agree with their over exaggerated plea, I don't agree with them forcing those with opposing views to agree with them, condone their behavior, and applaud them for just taking a shot in the mouth. Their BLACK life disgusts me. They wanna be BLACK, by all means go ahead and do so in the privacy of your own home. They have every human right that an individual in America is given. They want benefits, ok, every BLACK, BLACK/WHITE couple that has been together more than 5 years and has had a civil ceremony should recieve the same tax, insurance, ect benefits as a straight couple. But don't tarnish the tradition of marriage. Don't pollute our Tvs, schools, and society with your choice of COLOR. Don't parade down the street EATING FRIED CHICKEN. Don't wear a DASHIKI as you parade around in a BLACK pride parade and promote an agenda(which is illegal). Stop indoctrinating the youth that BLACK is the norm.

You change one term and immediately you sound like an ignorant racist.

This group breaks the values and laws we are all to follow. Freedom of speech, not for those that disagree with GLBT or else it's bigotry and hatred. Freedom to assemble and protest, unless against the gays cuz that's discrimination. Dressing in uniform while supporting the GLBT community when it is prohibited for any member of the military to be in uniform during any public support of any agenda. There are no heterosexual pride parades where straights all but f@ck eachother while walking down the street. They are perverse, they are forceful of their agenda, and they are corrupting traditional American values.

Corrupting traditional American values huh? LOL. You pick homosexuality as the bane of traditional American values? Your worldview is as narrow as the pages of the book you base it on.

If you disagree with being gay, thats fine. Thats what you have selectively picked out of the bible out of context to crusade against. Guess what, no one is forcing you to be gay, and no one will ever force you to be gay. Ever. Pushing their agenda would be trying to make you be gay. If you want to hate gays, thats fine, do it within your own home, within your own church. Dont push your hateful agenda and indoctrinate the youth that hating gays is the norm.

So answer me, if you have a set of gay sons/daughters and they ask for your blessing to be together; what say you? What about trans gender, where is this genetically caused?

The reason I didnt answer this question the first time is because you lack the cognitive ability to separate fact from beliefs.

Also, you ever hear of NAMBLA? The GLBT community was once a big supporter of this but has recently rejected them so they are not politically damaged. After all, having a group of pedophile lovers is not good for the GLBT image. Funny how the NAMBLA now cries discrimination because they have been dropped from the "movement".

Why do evangelicals always use unhealthy sexual relationships between adults and children as their reason to hate gay lifestyle? Older men have sex with underage girls all the time, do we ban heterosexual relationships? While we're on the subject, historically the age of consent has been all over the place. What was once a normal relationship/marriage would be considered pedophilia today. Where do you draw the line and why?

blank cd, no gene has been discovered in the mapping of DNA that is related to sexual orientation, and currently, it is not expected to be discovered. Hamer's "discovery" was found to be incorrect and misguided at best. Xq28 is not a "gay" gene.

Being gay is a choice. It is legally allowable, but marriage licenses are regulated by the state, and currently in the state of Georgia, gay marriage is not recognized as a legal union. Those are the facts whether you like them or not.

The issue is that the gay community attempt to push their minority agenda onto the majority of Americans. They want the schools to teach that being gay is normal, when the majority of Americans do not want their kids to be taught that in school. The gay community is not just asking for marriage rights, they are pushing against the beliefs of Americans who do not have the same opinion as them. Don't expect people to just say ok when you go against their beliefs.

Sorry, the overwhelming scientific opinion would not agree with you on it being a choice. Too much evidence that points in the other direction. If homosexuality was a choice, then it wouldnt be expressed in animals without the cognitive ability for choice and reason, but it is. The xq28 study is not the only study to have been performed, and I dont think you understand what a scientific dispute actually means. Its saying that the answer to the question is not this particular answer, not that the question is dismissed. EVEN IF it was a choice, who are you to say its wrong? I'm pretty sure its your CHOICE to own a gun....

Read your last paragraph again. Change ONE term and listen to how it sounds...

The issue is that the BLACK community attempt to push their minority agenda onto the majority of Americans. They want the schools to teach that being BLACK is normal, when the majority of Americans do not want their kids to be taught that in school. The BLACK community is not just asking for marriage rights, they are pushing against the beliefs of Americans who do not have the same opinion as them. Don't expect people to just say ok when you go against their beliefs.

This was EXACTLY what was said back in the 50s when people thought black people were inferior. Intolerance to gays is actually the minority opinion.