BSA and Chick fil A anti-gay

[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.