>I'm afraid you need to read more science.<
This is always the case, and since science constantly changes, it will always be the case; but this has nothing to do with the genetic cause of homosexuality.
>>>[The notion that it is possible that certain behaviors when yielded to repeatedly, can cause biological change is] the old Stalinist science position - Sorry, totally discredited where genetics is concerned.<<
The problem here is that, as is apparently your penchant, you confuse concepts, thinking from the hip (or perhaps from some other part of your anatomy other than your brain). I never claimed behavior can change the fundamental genetic structure of an individual, but that certain biological changes to the individual possibly can be triggered as a result of repeated behavior. We know, for example, that brain structure can be influenced as a result of learning and exposure to stimuli.
>Completely wrong. Your religious history reading seems to be in deficit. Though most of the history of civilisation, from the greek fates to the calvinists, men have held that they were helpless pawns of the gods, and their actions were pre-determined. It is modern science and liberal thought, in fact, that has given us the idea that we might have free will.<
Once again, you confuse concepts. The issue to which I refer concerns the treatment of behavior by civilized society, and not the philosophical nature of human will. While the Calvinist will claim that the universe is in the control of a sovereign God, even claiming we are pre-destined to our final resting place, he will not claim the individual not responsible for his actions, or that societally aberrant behavior must be accepted on the basis of God's sovereignty. While the ancients did see themselves as being in control of their pantheon of gods, they did not believe the individual was not to be held personally accountable for his actions. Otherwise civilized societies would not have insisted that lawbreakers be tried and sentenced, this, on the basis of their actions and in many cases their motives. While no one can be held accountable for the passive things they are, everyone must be held accountable for the non-passive things they do. Homosexuality can by no means be judged on the basis of some passive attribute. We must judge it on the basis of behavior, and behavior is not passive. If we protect those who engage in homosexual behavior on the basis of their behavior (which is not immutable), then we forfeit the logical power to discrimminate against many other behaviors, particularly should they be genetically influenced.
>Again, you are out of date. Too bad for your philosophy, but the determinative research has been done. There are certainly a variety of genes involved, but the general message is clear - brain structure, affected by both hormone levels in the womb and genetic makeup, is a powerful force in sexual behaviour.<
This is quite exasperating. Again, you confuse concepts, and whether there is a genetic cause to homosexuality has not been established. I have always said there are possible genetic influences to sexual behavior that with certain external influences could trigger homosexuality, but that the orientation is purely genetic (as is the case with race and sex) must be rejected. As far as is currently known, there exists no definitive genetic cause to homosexuality, and yet you have already jumped to the conclusion that there is, even stating that the genes for homosexuality are widespread, later claiming you are waiting for the "very interesting genetics" - dear me.
>Ah, now the rabidity comes out...<
Here you misapply terms. There is nothing wrong with noting that it seems a lot of these "studies" are being done by homosexuals.
>Oh, oh, what happened to that closely reasoned tone - out the window I guess.<
Here is one of the rare instances where you are correct. Stupidity produces stupidity. Had you presented your case without attempting to insult those with which I identify (thereby attempting to insult me), we would have had a wonderful hostility-free conversation. But you were stupid, and with each stupidity you utter, you should not be surprised when your own stupidity is reflected back to you. You desire reason, then be reasonable. You desire stupidity, then be stupid. Either way, the thing rests with you.
>Actually, we are descendants from the same line. As you may or may not know, 98.4 percent of our DNA is identical with that of the chimpanzees.<
And that 1.6 percent difference, to the reasonable man, is obviously terribly significant. Even so, the similarities between chimps and men prove common descent about as much as do the similarities between my Steinway and my son's Yamaha. The two instruments are remarkably similar in one regard, but the differences establish them as being worlds apart.
>Real science has determined that this is a completely credible area of research, it is generally agreed that the statistical work is valid, and we await only the further detailing of the very interesting genetics involved.<
(!) You really should consider at least the attempt at holding to the issue, not confusing it with other matters. I have never here claimed that the area of research itself was not credible (I believe it is), but that many of those involved in the research are not disinterested parties, and that much of their research lacks credibility. They are interested in proving what they know to be true when they should be searching to disprove it. They are not objective.
Kinsey, for example, was not objective in much of his work in this area, and we see the almost insurmountable problems this has caused. For example, even here in these forums it has ignorantly been claimed that homosexuals comprise 10 percent of the American population. The figure is quite commonly used today, and comes from the so-called "research" of Alfred Kinsey. The research was flawed from the beginning, and I marvel that people can be so uncritical as to embrace it, particularly considering its source.
In that "research" Kinsey interviewed 5300 men and 5940 women, asking them the most intimate questions about their sexuality. In both the male and female studies, Kinsey interviewed only volunteers, and even a homosexual proponent should be able to understand that this fact brings a tremendous flaw to the "research". After all, what kind of people would willingly volunteer to discuss the most intimate sexual details of their lives with a researcher? Very possibly a large number of people who are not exactly conventional in their sexual views and practices (grin). Kinsey's own writings describes many of them as pimps, bootleggers, thieves, prostitutes, etc.
One in every four of the male volunteers were prison inmates. Indeed, many of them were convicted sex offenders. It is then no small wonder that Kinsey came to conclude such a large number of Americans were homosexuals and that this was normal. Based on this flawed study one might also question whether other sexual aberations, such as pedophilia and bestiality, are normal. In fact, this is precisely what Kinsey suggested.
Kinsey's INAH-3 three studies and many others are just as flawed, and I now seriously question the honesty or at least the clear-headedness of current "research" on this issue. Yet these studies are embraced by homosexual proponents and many on the left as if they were Gospel truth (typical). In fact, the flawed conclusions from Kinsey's work have for decades been allowed into mainstream American society, this, simply because Americans stupidly allow Political Correctness to do much of their thinking. For example a school sex-ed program from my own city (NYC), produced by the National Center for Health Education, claims 'most people fall somewhere on a continuum between homosexual and heterosexual orientation'. This program, according to one of its spokesmen, was used in over 8000 schools in 45 states, for a target audience of kindergarteners through seventh graders. From Kinsey to the nation, we are taught that most people are, more or less, bisexual, and we are taught this on no truly scientific basis at all.
>BTW, so happy to see you come out against science in general. I consider this a complete defeat of your position.<
Well, this would have some sort of power were I to give at least a cockroach's rear-end about it; but surely you are not so dense as to think I do. I view with a healthy dose of skepticism some, again, some of what is being passed off in this country as scientific research.
>Did you know that the Pope recently issued a statement saying "Evolution is not just a theory."<
Yup, and while I do not exactly know what he meant by this, I am prone to agree with it. Evolution is not just a theory-it is a religion, with all its high priests, evangelists and acolytes. I do not claim evolutionists are utterly off-base in their claims, there is perhaps some truth in all religions. But I simply am not convinced of the grand metaphysical claim evolutionists make about the origin of species or of life. It is not apparent to me that sufficient evidence exists to support their claims. Now perhaps I have not studied or understood all the science involved (I have studied and understood a remarkable amount of it, and continue to do so as the thing changes by the minute), but until I come across facts that are as compelling as those that inform me of the existence of gravity, or the existence of the light spectrum, or electron flow, then I cannot hold evolutionary theory in the same regard as I hold real science. It presents us an interesting set of speculations, with some pseudo-evidence, but ultimately it is a religion. (By the way: Because it is a religion, I will not argue it with you. You will present your silly fossil quasi-sequences, and I will shoot them down. You will present your theories to support the theories of your theory's theory, and I will laugh at you, hardly trusting in the powers of paleontology and the like to traverse millions and millions of years in the past to tell me what most certainly happened there (laughable). You will refuse to be critical of the so called "evidence", and I will think you an unreasonable lunatic. It would be a typical religious discussion, and quite frankly, I have no interest in it.)
I recently heard a Nobel Prize winning chemist claim on National Pagan Radio that all the money and resources being spent on HIV research in connection with AIDS is being spent with no scientific evidence that HIV even causes AIDS. And he claims the scientists are resistent to changing direction on this issue because HIV study is the only paradigm they know where AIDS is concerned. Moreover, he claims human nature plays a part in this resistance, that scientists, like everyone else, do not like change, particularly when their publically funded livelihoods are at stake. I was not a bit surprised, and while I do not believe scientists are generally unethical, I do believe them all human, with human frailties, prone to become frozen hopelessly in paradigms. Evolution is but another paradigm, and the scientific establishment is largely trapped within it, attacking with religious zeal anyone who would even question its veracity.
So I hold the pronouncements of the establishment very lightly, and some of them I discard summarily. If this offends you, then make no pronouncements to me, because if I find them stupid, dey be outta heah! (LOL).
>The catholic church is in the process of figuring out how to accept genetics and evolution into their explanation of the universe.<
Well. There is much in the Roman Catholic Church that I respect, and very much that I reject. If that great church now embraces the grand claims of evolution, well, it has merely added to the number of the latter. In any event, when I die and am judged by God, I will cower before His Presence, knowing in my heart that to the best of my ability, I used the brain He gave me to negotiate His world, having trusted Him to enable me to do His will, this, instead of having mindlessly obeyed the edict of some church (whether scientific or religious) that has declared the grand claims of evolution to be objective fact. If that damns me in your eyes, then for me it is a fortunate thing indeed that your eyes do not sit in the head of God.
>But perhaps you are smarter than the Pope?<
Perhaps, though it is of no concern to me either way, and I marvel one can be so stupid as to imply it does.
>More Holy?<
Through Christ, just as. |
