Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Charles Hughes who wrote (10929)	10/23/1998 3:24:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

That the right chooses to ignore science is right in line with the foolish creationism adhered to by them. If they want to say 'not me', then they should expel these bigots from their midst. Let them form their own political party. I Totally agree.

To: Charles Hughes who wrote (10929)	10/23/1998 5:38:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

>The fact is that both the brain organization and genetics of gender differences, including homosexuality, are being researched in detail right now.< And this mere research gives us nothing upon which to hang the empty-headed conclusion that a genetic partition exists between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Homosexual proponents tend often to point to “studies” that are being done, as if the performance of studies is an argument lending veracity to their position. But this is not thinking, and reasonable men know it, becoming highly skeptical when they discover that a large number of these "studies" are done by homosexuals. Popperian science requires falsifiability. At this juncture homosexuals and their proponents merely know in their hearts that their perversion is caused genetically, and now they are engaged in a mad search to prove it. There is no science here, and so I will be unimpressed by whatever their studies conclude. >A number of genetic correspondences have appeared, and the way those genes work, as well as hormonal influences on development of the brain and other organs in the womb work, is being described in detail.< Correspondences do not prove causality. It is possible that certain behaviors when yielded to repeatedly, can cause biological change. You people are not objective. Indeed, you rush headlong to conclude the genetic nature of homosexuality even without proof from your own half baked pseudo-science. A pity. >What is amply clear is that this is not a decision for most people, although there are some that are born bisexuals.< Behavior is always a decision and we as a society must never forget this, lest we pin ourselves in an unmerciful corner. Even if some of us have a biological predisposition toward certain acts, the human organism yet is responsible for how he acts on these predispositions. This is a maxim upon which humans have depended since the dawn of civilization, and now modern non-thinking liberals aim to nullify it. >Further, as animal farmers and naturists have frequently seen, animals also often provide examples of homosexual behaviour in nature.< Hogwash. The most, and even this is quite debatable, one can conclude from these observations is that bisexuality and not homosexuality occurs in nature. Rutting dogs will mount anything, including female dogs and human legs, and so we humans ought not be so stupid as to take our moral cues from them. Even here, in the case of animals, in nearly all circumstances when a male mounts another male, the male attempting the mount is met with a vicious reaction from the male being mounted. The thing is inconclusive to say the least. >Obviously, there is some long term benefit to this in a number of species. Some individuals are born this way, for the greater good.< The ignorance displayed here would be laughable were not it so pathetic. What you say is NOT obvious, and we do NOT know that the individual is “born this way”. This is the blinking question (!) your people are supposed to be “researching”. >Some possible reasons are obvious. Otherwise genes for this would not be widespread.< Dear me, and you claim others ignore science. You do precisely the same (!) when you conclude the genes for homosexuality are widespread when even pseudo-science has yet to determine such genes exist. >(I suggest subscribing to 'Nature' or 'AAAS Science', for the details. Or at least the weekly digest 'Science News.')< I subscribe to at least one of these, and find reason not to consider the writers of this publication to be at all high priests of knowledge. They are human, and also have their biases. >That the right chooses to ignore science is right in line with the foolish creationism adhered to by them.< That the left chooses to embrace the pseudo-science of Alfred Kinsey and his much discredited IHAH-3 “studies” (and their like) and the determination that 10 percent of the country is homosexual, this, based upon the most extraordinarily shoddy of “studies”, and that the left gives credence to the half-baked efforts of the pretty boys at WHIGGLE, and the homosexual led efforts of the National Institutes of Health, reveals them to be blinded by the rabid desire to justify perversion. Their blind ignorance is right in line with the uncritical thinking of left wingnuts who, though believing in evolution, have not the slightest idea of any of that religion's faults. For them, since the scientific high-priests claim they came from apes, they believe it. If less rabid liberals want to say 'not me', then they should expel these lunatics from their midst. Let them form their own mouth-foaming perversion supporting, empty-headed political party.