BSA and Chick fil A anti-gay

[.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]

... but I don't think David is a Christian ....

You are mistaken.

You can believe being gay is wrong all you want. I don't care.

He believes it is wrong, you believe it is normal. Both of you are entitled to the freedom to believe what you wish, and to voice that opinion.

Again, no one is stopping gays from being gay. They are not legally allowed to marry though, as they are not opposite genders, and the legal definition in GA requires.

[quickdodge®]

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.

I agree, sir. You can't teach what isn't known. And there is no reason to really get into beyond letting people know there are studies on it.

You are mistaken.



He believes it is wrong, you believe it is normal. Both of you are entitled to the freedom to believe what you wish, and to voice that opinion.

Again, no one is stopping gays from being gay. They are not legally allowed to marry though, as they are not opposite genders, and the legal definition in GA requires.

Yeah, David is a Christian. But I can see why he would not be seen as one. And the beliefs each person has is spot on. No one is right or wrong. Normalities I don't care about.

I didn't address the "like black oppression" discussion. blankcd, I can see what you're saying to a point. Gay people are frowned on, looked down on and such. But not nearly to the level that black people were. Gay people have never been subjected to the ridicule and social stresses that black people were. Now I can think of one thing that might have helped this last fact. Gay people can hide their sexuality whereas black folks can't hide their skin color. If gay people couldn't hide their choice, they might have had a rougher time than they do now. Lots of Hollywood and sports celebrities were gay, but they never let it out because they felt (with good reason) that they would have been pushed right out. But gays are not nearly as "unequal" as blacks were. Later, QD.

[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.

[David88vert]

Yep....

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.

I don't read Christian blogs. I read scientific research papers. I also actually research the background of the researchers, and of the studies that researchers base their studies on. You should try it some time.