Stephanie Slade:
According to the Pew Research Center, half of Americans think business owners should be required to provide their services for same-sex weddings even if doing so violates their religious beliefs. In a September poll from the group, respondents split down the middle on the following question:
If a business provides wedding services, such as catering or flowers, should it be allowed to refuse those services to a same-sex couple for religious reasons, or required to provide those services as it would to all other customers?
The number saying businesses should be required to provide such services included a majority of Catholics, noteworthy given Rome’s stance on “traditional” marriage. This all seems to suggest a large segment of the population is fine with the idea that people can be compelled to do a job even if they feel it goes against their beliefs.
Not so fast—issues like this are tricky to poll on. Even small, seemingly inconsequential tweaks to wording can completely upend the results of a question. Take for example the contraception mandate issue decided earlier this year by the Supreme Court in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell. In February 2012, a CBS News/New York Times poll asked the following question:
And what about for religiously affiliated employers, such as a hospital or university—do you support or oppose a recent federal requirement that their health insurance plans cover the full cost of birth control for their female employees?
The response was overwhelming—by a 2–1 margin, respondents supported the requirement. But when the same two outlets tweaked the question a month later, they got the opposite result. Worded as follows, a full majority—57 percent—said the employer should not have to cover contraception:
What about for religiously affiliated employers, such as a hospital or university? Do you think their health insurance plans should have to cover the full costs of birth control for their female employees, or should they be allowed to opt out of covering that based on religious or moral objections?
By explicitly noting that the employers have religious or moral grounds for objecting to the mandate, the question elicits a radically different response.
@George+Wells:
How about smart asses that you know will be impossible to please?
How about catering a Mosque? (especially one full of Al Qaeda?
how about a felon pedophile? Recently released from prison?
Are they all in the same category? In some minds.
@Redteam #51:
Kindly reference the post you are directing your question to.
Thanks.
@Redteam:
If someone wants to deny another person a service, based on First Amendment objections, that right should be sacrosanct. But to people like George, it’s not. That is why you see a baker, who employees homosexuals, but doesn’t want to add their name to a homosexual “wedding” being sued. That is why you see a farm family, who built a three story barn to be used for birthday parties, family gatherings, and yes, weddings, and actually lived on the third story, but were open about their religious beliefs, sued by a lesbian couple who went to the trouble to record the very first call made to the farm family about renting their barn for their same-sex “wedding.” Or a t-shirt printer, who had “Christian Outfitter” on their website, sued because they didn’t want to print t-shirts for a gay “pride” festival.
It is never enough. Never. People who object on a religious basis to catering to these prima donnas will be sued. The GLBT crowd want homosexuality introduced into elementary schools a “normal” behavior. Yet, these same people would be apoplectic if any Christian material was introduced into an elementary, or secondary for that matter, school
George has spent 13 months here at FA picking up where his buddy left off after the buddy was outed for saying he wanted to “kill all the breeders (heterosexuals) on his own website. Pushing his agenda; that’s George’s goal.
@Pete #50:
Nicely written, Pete.
Funny, though, that you bring up MY lumping things together that you don’t like arranged that way, while I find the same objection to YOUR one-size-fits-all advice to gays. I wonder how many straights engage in anal sex? I hear a lot do. Do you advise them against anal sex? When counseling gays, do you bother to ask first if THEY engage in anal sex? (Many don’t. I don’t.) Do you give the same advice regardless of whether or not they are monogamous? Why? And do you bother to point out that the risks you associate (correctly) with unprotected anal intercourse (regardless of orientation) are mitigated by condom use? Perhaps I have been reading the abridged version of your advice speech, but I got the distinct impression that you were doing some of your own “lumping together” here. Your advice could be considerably more accurate.
You made a bit of a terminology error here: “…homosexual acts are unnatural…”
We are both in agreement that homosexuality – and homosexual acts – are abnormal. But homosexuality and homosexual “acts” are observed in other species besides man. For that matter, man is just as much a part of “nature” as are any other species. Calling homosexual acts “unnatural” is nothing more than a thinly veiled statement of your personal disapproval and has nothing to do with “nature.” You might as well call them “disgusting acts” like Retire05.
Finally, and I direct this to retire05 as well: Your attempts to color homosexuality as a “disease” or an “affliction” demonstrate to me how negatively you view the condition. I have diabetes. It will shorten my life by 12 years, according to the people who count the beans. I take my drugs and watch my diet and exercise religiously to counter some of the inevitable effects of that disease, but it will prematurely end my life all the same. Diabetes is a disease. It is an affliction. My homosexuality is not. My husband is my life, my pride and joy. I am supremely happy. Aggravated by those who would take from me, yes. But my homosexuality, if you care to call it a “disease” or an “affliction,” does not rise in my mind to anything that those words mean to me. But call it what you will. By the time the next generation comes of age, you’ll be talking to yourself.
@George+Wells:
Basically, George, I think you’re wrong. While I buy your numbers that 2-3% are homosexual in actions, that doesn’t mean they have to be that way.
Accept that 3% are born with the bad wiring of neurons, accept that the same number are born with the bad wiring that cause them to be pedophiles, and another 3% that are born with the bad wiring that causes them to be serial killers. (I’m sure you can think of other examples) but, why is it okay for the one 3% group be allowed to practice their malfunction (homosexuality) but the other malfunctions not be allowed to practice theirs. Now I know you’re going to say that at least 2 of those things are crimes. Need I point out that until very recently, all 3 of those things were crimes. Are we now gonna have to grant the pedophiles the right to practice their (born that way) deficiencies so as not to interfere with their “constitutional rights’?
@retire05 #53 ref. Redteam:
If either of you bothered to read my #48, you’d have noticed that I am advocating for the protection of YOUR religious freedom. Did you miss that? Let me be blunt: Gays do not need to pursue opponents of gay marriage. Not in the courts, and not in the court of public opinion. It is unnecessary to force acceptance any further than it has already been gained. Read #48 again. You are arguing with yourself. You are not arguing with me.
@Redteam #55:
You are right, of course, that until recently, homosexuality was treated as a crime. People got smarter, and changed it. Women weren’t allowed to vote, and then we changed it. People were allowed to own slaves, and then we changed it. Just because we already did something doesn’t mean that we have to continue doing it. And in each of those other cases, when the change was made, the sky didn’t fall. We didn’t slide down a “slippery slope.”
And regarding your “slippery slope” question about what other “crimes” might need to be “allowed,” the Supreme Court has answered that question a thousand times. The answer is that each case is considered on its own merits. That answer is good enough for the Supreme Court, and it should be good enough for you.
Finally, it might be useful for you to think about what harms are being done by pedophiles, and then compare those harms with the harms done by heterosexuals and by homosexuals. The vast majority of sexual acts involving both homosexuals and heterosexuals are between consenting adults. These liaisons are “victimless.” We do not punish ALL heterosexuals for the acts of a few heterosexual pedophiles or rapists any more than we punish ALL homosexuals for the same crimes of a few. However, a sex act with a child is not “victimless.” ALL sex acts with children are crimes. I think that this is where the difference might be.
@George+Wells: 48
No one ever thought polio disappeared, just that it was ‘under control’ same as Smallpox and TB.
Talk about imaginary diseases, Fibromyalgia, ADD(ADHD) two I can think of right now. Fibromyalgia is defined as ‘if it is a combination of symptons that don’t fit any other disease, then it must be fibromyalgia’.
@Redteam #58:
Yes, Redteam, agreed. I suspect that if one was to dig deeply enough, a number of examples could be found where things that were thought to be extinct turned out not to be. Whether it’s a disease or a speckled tree frog, our current understand of our surroundings doesn’t guarantee that we will hold those opinions indefinitely.
Have you noticed how many kids are breathing with inhalers? When I was a kid, nobody used the things. I wonder about that…
@Redteam:
Sorry, Redteam, but ADD/ADHD is real. My son suffered from it as a kid. He was constantly like the hamster on a wheel, and slept very little. Luckily, I was friends with an allergist (my son also had severe allergies) and we modified his diet instead of putting him on drugs. No red food dye, limited sugar and all the coffee, with milk and honey, he could handle. After months, my flunking out son was getting straight A’s. Even as an adult, he still has to work at staying concentrated, like at work, and still drinks a lot of coffee.
ADHD is prominent in boys, and generally they do manage to outgrow it somewhat. But when a kid knows they’re not stupid, but can’t seem to concentrate, it’s really hard on them, and the parents who have to fight stupid teachers who are not experienced in handling ADHD kids. Most of these kids are highly intelligent and generally gifted (my son plays 27 different instruments).
@retire05 #60:
And is ADHD a “choice”?
@George+Wells:
It’s a mental disorder; like homosexuality is.
Thanks for showing the similarities.
@retire05 #62:
Here’s ANOTHER similarity between ADHD and homosexuality:
“These studies have produced strong evidence that genes play a role in susceptibility to ADHD.”
And:
“Michael Bailey, a psychologist at Northwestern University in Illinois, set out the findings at a discussion event held in conjunction with the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago on Thursday (in 2014). “The study shows that there are genes involved in male sexual orientation,” he said. The work has yet to be published, but confirms the findings of a smaller study that sparked widespread controversy in 1993, when Dean Hamer, a scientist at the US National Cancer Institute, investigated the family histories of more than 100 gay men and found homosexuality tended to be inherited.
A study of gay men in the US has found fresh evidence that male sexual orientation is influenced by genes. Scientists tested the DNA of 400 gay men and found that genes on at least two chromosomes affected whether a man was gay or straight.
A region of the X chromosome called Xq28 had some impact on men’s sexual behaviour – though scientists have no idea which of the many genes in the region are involved, nor how many lie elsewhere in the genome.
Another stretch of DNA on chromosome 8 also played a role in male sexual orientation – though again the precise mechanism is unclear.
The link with the mother’s side of the family led Hamer to look more closely at the X chromosome. In follow-up work, he found that 33 out of 40 gay brothers inherited similar genetic markers on the Xq28 region of the X chromosome, suggesting key genes resided there.
Qazi Rahman, a psychologist at King’s College London, said the results were valuable for further understanding the biology of sexual orientation. “This is not controversial or surprising and is nothing people should worry about. All human psychological traits are heritable, that is, they have a genetic component,” he said. “Genetic factors explain 30 to 40% of the variation between people’s sexual orientation.
What might be the origin of biological differences underlying male sexual preference? In 1993 Dean Hamer and his colleagues at the National Cancer Institute discovered a preliminary but nevertheless tantalizing clue.[9] Hamer began his painstaking search for a genetic contribution to sexual behavior by studying the rates of homosexuality among male relatives of seventy-six known gay men. He found that the incidence of homosexual preference in these family members was strikingly higher (13.5 percent) than the rate of homosexuality among the whole sample (2 percent). When he looked at the patterns of sexual orientation among these families, he discovered more gay relatives on the maternal side. Homosexuality seemed, at least, to be passed from generation to generation through women.
Maternal inheritance could be explained if there was a gene influencing sexual orientation on the X chromosome, one of the two human sex chromosomes that bear genes determining the sex of offspring.[10] Men have both X and Y chromosomes, while women have two X chromosomes. A male sex-determining gene, called SRY, is found on the Y chromosome. Indeed, the Y chromosome is the most obvious site for defining male sexuality since it is the only one of the forty-six human chromosomes to be found in men alone. The SRY gene is the most likely candidate both to turn on a gene that prevents female development and to trigger testosterone production. Since the female has no Y chromosome, she lacks this masculinizing gene. In forty pairs of homosexual brothers, Hamer and his team looked for associations between the DNA on the X chromosome and the homosexual trait. They found that thirty-three pairs of brothers shared the same five X chromosomal DNA “markers,” or genetic signatures, at a region near the end of the long arm of the X chromosome designated Xq28.[11] The possibility that this observation could have occurred by chance was only 1 in 10,000.”
The causes of homosexuality are many and complex. There is no single gene and no single cause, making a determination of a specific cause in a specific case virtually impossible. But it is clear that in at least SOME cases, the cause is genetic.
Just like ADHD.
Both Michael Bailey and Dean Hamer were soundly rebuked by their fellow research scientists. Bailey was demoted from Department head at Northwestern to a simple professorship. He was also sued by those he used as control studies. Hamer’s research has never been able to be recreated, not even by him. He is pretty much persona non gratis in the world of research now.
But grasp at any straw you can find, George.
@Redteam: Why would ANYONE compare any sex act between two consenting ADULTS with a sex act between an adult and a child?
Stupidity.
@retire05 #64:
I uncovered perhaps twenty different articles discussing the validity of the association between homosexuality and the Xq28 genetic marker on X chromosome #8.
I failed to find any scientific literature that refuted this genetic association with homosexuality.
I DID find a heap of rhetoric coming from a few evangelicals who insisted that homosexuality was nothing but a choice, but none of their noise had anything to do with research.
Hamer’s original research and published conclusions were dated 1993. The results he reported in 1993 were confirmed in 2014. Corroborating results are strong, if not conclusive. The absence of corroborating results do not prove that something does not exist, or that a conclusion is wrong, but instead only means that the conclusion is not conclusively proven. I will graciously remind you that it is logically impossible to prove that something does not exist.
If you have found results of a scientific study that attempted to replicate Hamer’s work but failed, I’d be interested in a link. Otherwise, you’re just making stuff up again. Right?
@George+Wells:
Of course you didn’t. But then, I doubt that you looked really, REALLY hard for those refutes.
Recent studies, conducted between Australia, the U.S. and Scandinavia on identical twin boys, who share exactly the same identical DNA markers, all concluded that there was no gay “gene”.
Here is an interesting back and forth from Loyola:
http://www.loyno.edu/~dorn/GSinterviews/Gay.htm
Keep hanging on to that straw, George.
@George+Wells:
George, pointing out the irony of you lumping people you disagree with while complaining about what you characterized as my lumping people – then recomplaining about me lumping is a circular argument.
I advise against anal intercourse – both homo and heterosexual – for the reasons I laid out in my previous post. But only when asked for my medical opinion.
It is a very tiresome canard to suggest that because some animals have been observed to engage in anal intercourse that it is “natural”. Animals have also been observed to eat placentas and even their own stool. Just because something occurs does not necessarily make it “natural”, and certainly not a recommended practice.
I am not trying to take anything away from you and your partner. I am not trying to be your dad, or prevent you from doing whatever you want with him. I don’t care what you do, unless you start demanding that I give sanction or approval or the slightest bit of attention to what you are doing in the privacy of your own home. It isn’t my business, and I have no interest in being forced against my will to make it so.
Bottom line, we disagree on the characterization of homosexuality as a mental illness. I do not see our positions changing.
@Pete:
Therein lies the problem. As gays shouted to us “breeders” that all they wanted was the right to be themselves in the privacy of their own home, and were given that privacy in Lawrence, it wasn’t enough. Truth be told, it was never intended to be enough. It’s not tolerance they want, it’s forced acceptance. And if they don’t get their forced acceptance, they will harass, cause the loss of jobs and the ability to earn a living, destroy reputations, and sue for unlimited damages.
And George will blather “Don’t blame me. I’m not like that.” yet day after day, he’s here pushing the very same agenda.
@Pete #68:
“George, pointing out the irony of you lumping people you disagree with while complaining about what you characterized as my lumping people – then recomplaining about me lumping is a circular argument.”
Sorry to have confused you. I certainly did not intend any circular reasoning. Let me be succinct:
You err when you imply that all homosexuals engage in the same dangerous behaviors. They do not. The implication that they do is offensive. If your intention is to offend, you have succeeded.
It is commendable that you hold to your minority opinion (concerning your out-dated psychiatric evaluation of homosexuality). As a member of a long-oppressed minority, I understand that your view will not always be appreciated. But it has value in the perspective that it brings to the arena of enlightenment, and I hope that you do not allow the pressures of political correctness to silence you.
@George+Wells:
George, just for information, “Xq28” refers to gene locus 28 on the long arm of the X chromosome, and has nothing to do with chromosome number 8.
Furthermore, even if a discovery of a genetic mutation at a specific gene locus is ever proven as a cause for homosexuality, that does not make it “normal” or natural or anything other than a genetic error, just like the proven abnormal genetic code of the delta F508 gene locus on chromosome 7 causes the abnormal mutation of the CFTR protein channel that prevents normal chloride ion channel function at the cellular membrane in cystic fibrosis patients. It has always puzzled me why the homosexual lobby seems to hold the position that if a genetic cause for homosexual attraction is ever found, it somehow invalidates the characterization of homosexuality being unnatural. I find such a possibility somewhat scary, because people already have excuses for aborting babies – some as banal as not wanting a fetus of a particular gender – and it sickens me to think that if such a genetic cause is ever proven, there will be people who upon learning of their child possessing such genetic traits, will abort them.
@retire05 #69:
“As gays shouted to us “breeders” that all they wanted was the right to be themselves in the privacy of their own home, and were given that privacy in Lawrence, it wasn’t enough. Truth be told, it was never intended to be enough. It’s not tolerance they want, it’s forced acceptance. And if they don’t get their forced acceptance, they will harass, cause the loss of jobs and the ability to earn a living, destroy reputations, and sue for unlimited damages.”
I never heard that all gays wanted was to be left alone in their closets. Never heard that in the media, and never from another gay. I suppose that it makes your fantasy conspiracy more plausible if gays DID say that all they wanted was to be left alone in their closets, but that’s nothing like what happened. I was there when police were arresting patrons of gay bars. When we had our Stonewall Riot, it wasn’t closet freedom that we were after.
What we ARE getting is what we wanted all along: LEGAL acceptance. EQUALITY.
You can sue anybody you like, and so can I. If you break the law, I win. I’d advise you not to break the law.
@George+Wells:
I am not trying to offend you, or anyone else, George. I am simply commenting based on my medical opinion, and anyone has the right to accept or disagree with my opinion. I have never claimed to be omnipotent and to be fair, I have never said “all” homosexually oriented people engage in dangerous activities.
And don’t worry about me giving in to political correctness. Honestly, being popular is not very high on my list of priorities.
@Pete #71:
The whole fuss centers around the insistence coming from the “right” that homosexuality is a “choice”. It is based upon the Biblical “story” that homosexuality is a “sin” of choice. The assumption is that if homosexuality is NOT a “choice”, then people who ARE homosexual are NOT guilty of making a sinful choice. And if a “cause” of homosexuality is definitively characterized, whether you want to call it “natural” or “unnatural” or “normal” or “abnormal”, then homosexuality isn’t a “sin”.
Much like the Galileo case, it will likely take the Catholic Church another 400 years to admit that they are wrong on homosexuality.
@Pete #73:
“Honestly, being popular is not very high on my list of priorities.”
Good thing, that.
@Pete #71:
“and it sickens me to think that if such a genetic cause is ever proven, there will be people who upon learning of their child possessing such genetic traits, will abort them.”
Yes, this puts us both in a predicament, doesn’t it. Gays need the genetic proof that homosexuality isn’t a voluntary choice to sin. That proof will be had. But EVERYONE fears that when a genetic proof is found, it will be used to kill gay babies. Ethicists are roiling over this one. But gays will never retreat back to the closet, not even for the sake of saving gay babies. That’s not our battle. We are convinced that the truth will set us ALL free. Eventually, most people will learn not to fight it, and when the stigma of homosexuality fades TOWARD normalcy, gay babies won’t be killed.
The Arc Of The Moral Universe Is Long But It Bends Towards Justice MLK
Human Rights, Women’s Rights, Civil Rights, Gay Rights. Animal Rights. It continues to Bend.
@Rich Wheeler #77:
I hope that the SCOTUS steps in soon and clears up all of the legal warfare that is currently being pursued. I’m getting dizzy following all of the skirmishes. Care to speculate on a date?
“When you’re very different, and people hate you for it, this is what you do: first get your foot in the door, by being as similar as possible; then, and only, then – when your one difference little is finally accepted – you can start dragging in your other peculiarities one by one.” (Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay’s in the 90s, p.146)
“In short, the gay lifestyle – if such a chaos can, after all, legitimately be called a lifestyle – it just doesn’t work: it doesn’t serve the two functions for which all social framework evolve: to constrain people’s natural impulses to behave badly and to meet their natural needs. While it’s impulse to provide an exhaustive analytic list of all the root causes and aggravants of this failure, we can asservative at least some of the major causes. Many have been dissected, above, as elements of the Ten Misbehaviors; it only remains to discuss the failure of the gay community to provide a viable alternative to the heterosexual family.” (Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay’s in the 90s, p.363)
“The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes throughly tiresome.
And we say talk about homosexuality, we mean just that. In the early stages of the campaign, the public should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex per se should be downplayed, and the issue of gay rights reduced, as far as possible, to an abstract social question. As it happens, the AIDS epidemic – ever a curse and boon for the gay movement – provides ample opportunity to emphasize the civil rights/discrimination side of things, but unfortunately it also permits our enemies to draw attention to gay sex habits that provoke public revulsion.” (Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay’s in the 90s, p.178)
“In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector.” (Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gay’s in the 90s, p.183)
“The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable; that is, to jam with shame the self-righteous pride that would ordinarily accompany and reward their antigay belligerence, and to lay groundwork for the process of conversion by helping straights identify with gays and sympathize with their underdog status.” (Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay;s in the 90s, p.183)
“Now, two different messages about the Gay Victim are worth communicating. First, the public should be persuaded that gays are victims of circumstance, that they no more chose their sexual orientation than they did, say, their height, skin color, talents, or limitations. (We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay – even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence.)” (Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay;s in the 90s, p.184)
“Second, gays should be portrayed as victims of prejudice. Straights don’t fully realize the suffering they bring upon gays, and must be shown: graphic pictures of brutalized gays, dramatizations of job and housing insecurity, loss of child custody, public humiliation, etc.” (Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gay’s in the 90s, p.184)
@#79:
Huh?
@George+Wells:
Choice. So one could argue that because heterosexual drives are preconditioned in most people, that there is no “choice” involved in whether one engages in heterosexual acts with children, or in an incestuous heterosexual pairings, with prostitutes, or with work colleagues, right? Everyone ultimately chooses whether or not to engage in sexual activity, regardless of which type one prefers. Each of the aforementioned activities is classified – at least in the Christian context outside of the state of matrimony – as a “sin”.
And Gallileo? Really? When you review the actual history of his case, he was attacked for the insulting manner in which he presented his findings, as a review of his written exchanges discussing his erroneous theory about the cause of tides will show. But it is easier to attack the Church by grossly oversimplfying that history of his case by pushing that the Church attacked him for claiming the earth revolved around the sun.
@Pete:Christians calling homosexuals sinners for consensual sex between two adults. Priests molesting young boys–that’s what I’d call sinning.
@retire05 #80:
If you bought that book, you wasted good money.
If the book was a gift, it was a joke. If the book was a joke, it should not be taken seriously.
@Pete #82:
“(… right?)”
I beg your forgiveness. I tried, but I cannot decipher this question sufficiently to answer it.
“Everyone ultimately chooses whether or not to engage in sexual activity, regardless of which type one prefers.”
I have no argument with this correct statement.
“Each of the aforementioned activities is classified – at least in the Christian context outside of the state of matrimony – as a “sin”.”
I do not recognize the word “sin” as having relevance to the discussion at hand. We have been discussing the causes of homosexuality and the medical advice that might rightly be offered to practicing homosexuals. If your position is otherwise supported by evidence, it should not be necessary to evoke “sin” to make your point, and as many people do not share your view on “sin”, making it a centerpiece of your argument would be unwise. For those who would discuss “sin,” I suggest that they pursue that line of inquiry with their clergy, as the matter of “sin” pertains to one’s beliefs rather than science.
“And Gallileo? Really?”
Yes, Galileo. The case is germane because it took the Church 400 years to admit that they had erred in his case. For 400 years they protected the sanctity of their dogma, as they will undoubtedly do again in the case of the scriptural condemnation of homosexuality. It will be a difficult knot for the church to wiggle out of.
Regarding the causes of homosexuality:
The expression of red hair appears in approximately 2% of the human population. It is both a “naturally occurring” and an “abnormal” condition. The cause of red hair is genetic.
The expression of homosexuality appears in approximately 3% of the human population. It is both a “naturally occurring” and an “abnormal” condition. There is evidence that the cause of homosexuality is genetic.
The persistent incidence of homosexuality in the population cannot be explained by “choice”.
The persistent incidence of homosexuality in the population can be explained by “genetics”.
You, a man of science (medicine IS a science) have failed to offer any explanation other than genetics for the incidence of homosexuality in the population. In spite of that failure, you continue to maintain that homosexuality is a “choice”.
That is illogical.
Your failure to concede this point suggests that your perspective on the subject is political or spiritual rather than scientific, and that your conclusions are tainted by this bias.
@retire05 #79 and #80:
For the longest time, I could not grasp why you had posted several pages of material from “Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gay’s in the 90s.”
Were you as astonished as I was that this material is so deliriously outdated, so obviously wrong-headed as to be worth nothing save in its historical context as an example of unabashed bigotry? Surely it’s that, isn’t it?
Or were you attempting to show me that this heap of trash ANTICIPATED current events by 25 years? That your side saw gay rights and marriage equality coming all the way back in 1989 and was STILL unable to stop it? How totally, unforgivably wrong does your side have to be for it to lay so powerlessly by, mired down on the wrong side of history, as America takes command of its destiny and makes good on its constitutional guarantees of equality for all citizens?
Either way, I’m still wondering why you brought it up. In your shoes, I’d have swept this embarrassing dirt back under the rug from whence it came.
@retire05:60
I have no idea what your son actually had, I just know that there is no such illness as ADHD.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/adhd.asp#ZQL1AF03gV2b66TB.99
I don’t even credit Snopes with being correct about ADHD, but it is commonly accepted that ADD was originally invented by lazy teachers that didn’t want to deal with very active young boys. (why is it that girls are almost never diagnosed with it? ) I don’t really care to argue the case, I’m just thankful that the illness wasn’t real back when I was in grammar school or I would have spent my life addicted to methamphetamine, I guess, because that is the most common drug being used to treat it. I can’t believe that the daily use of methamphetamines is the answer to anything.
I think the only people that claim fibromyalghia is real is persons that are diagnosed with it. If you have symptoms that don’t fit anything else, then it’s fibromyalghia.
@Redteam #87 :
Don’t be too hard on Retire05. She has fallen into the bad habit of arguing in favor of the wrong side of issues. Recently she has failed to rebut proof that homosexuality is not a choice and is now reduced to bickering over ADD/ADHD on a thread that has nothing to do this that subject.
(George Wells #48)
To which Retire05 offered only this sour-grapes rebuttal:
(Retire05 #49)
So wrong.
Here is an account of just how wrong Retire05 is on these counts:
Regarding the 10th Amendment:
From this account, you can see that the framers of the Constitution failed to expressly forbid the assumption of “Implied Powers” by the Federal Government. Over the years, this failure has taken much of the bite out of the 10th amendment.
Regarding the US Constitution:
The Declaration of Independence:
14th Amendment: Section 1.
The first part of 14: Section 1 is the part that forbids states from taking away freedoms that the Constitution grants, and the second part essentially guarantees the equal rights of all citizens that the Declaration of Independence promised.
The conflict between the 10th Amendment and the 14th Amendment is vanishingly trivial, since the 10th failed to carve out for the states any escape from the supremacy of the Constitution’s guarantees.
The 10th Amendment did not “lose,” (as Retire05 says it did) because it never had such supremacy in the first place.
The Constitution did not “lose,” (as Retire05 said it did) because all of its guarantees are preserved.
Retire05 “lost,” because she supported an argument that placed a Biblical proscription against homosexuality ABOVE the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
Retire05 “lost,” because she wrongly believed that “The will of the people to determine their own social norms” trumped the Constitution. It doesn’t.
Retire also claimed:
(Retire05 #53)
She is right on one count: George doesn’t believe that ANY right is “sacrosanct.” They are ALL subject to expansion, modification or nullification by the processes enumerated in the Constitution.
A reading of the text of the First Amendment reveals no suggestion that its protections trump guarantees found in other amendments. The “number” of the amendment is “1” only because it was the first amendment, not the most important, or “sacrosanct”. And the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of the free “exercise of religion” does not extend to the abridgement of other citizens’ rights. For example, a Muslim citizen isn’t free to kill Christians simply because his religion says that he should.
@Redteam:
Regarding your question about what percentage of gays will marry:
“Christy Mallory, Williams Institute senior counsel, told me Wednesday: “There is so much benefit because there’s a pent-up demand for marriage among same-sex couples.” For that reason, she said, 32 percent of all same-sex couples in states where marriage is allowed will tie the knot within the first year of legalization.”
This is an estimate based on figures that are in coming from states that already have gay marriage. The number of gay “couples” is taken from the 2010 census statistics that reported the numbers of self-declaring gay couples by state, and those numbers were compared with the number of gay marriages performed in the first year in states where gay marriage was legalized. I suspect that the 32% figure is inflated, as many gay couples probably did not report themselves as such on their census forms.
Accurate statistics will eventually become available. A driving force for that will be the growing markets for gay wedding services that will have a very real financial interest in accurate, non-politically motivated numbers. We will all have to wait and see.
@George+Wells: 85
George, using statistics for this discussion is meaningless. You should be discussing the actions of the individuals and whether they are ‘right’ or logical. So 2% are red headed. Does the fact that a person has red hair cause harm to anyone? Some percentage is pedophiles. Is that harmful? Some percentage is serial killers, is that harmful? Society has to decided whether an act that someone wants to do is harmful and either allow it or ban it. Most societies still consider pedophilia to be harmful. Most societies still consider homosexuality to be harmful. Just because the Dimocrats in this country see a political reason to support them, they are willing to cave to their demands, just as they cave to the demands of illegals flooding the country. It could be argued that illegals entering the country illegally and living off the handouts of the government is not ‘harmful’ and should be allowed. I disagree. So the question is not if homosexuality is ‘normal’, everyone has basically agreed that it’s not. So the only question left is, is it harmful to society. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I certainly have one . I don’t agree that it is ‘genetic’ as in normally occuring, I think it is an abnormality that could likely be successfully treated, or at least ‘controlled’ as pedophilia is, or serial killers.
@Redteam #90:
“George, using statistics for this discussion is meaningless.”
B.S.
The cause or causes of homosexuality ARE important, because if even SOME homosexuals ARE born that way (and you have admitted that some are) then the people who want to persecute homosexuals for CHOOSING to be homosexual are wrong. You can’t tell who was “born that way” and who wasn’t, so you must give them all the benefit of the doubt until you can tell the two apart. (Hint: That will never happen.)
And the genetic cause of homosexuality is proven statistically.
Sure, teach everyone – straight AND gay – the importance of monogamy. Reducing promiscuity (straight AND gay) will reduce the harm caused by sexually transmitted diseases. Particularly, promote marriage equality, as until quite recently gays were NOT taught to get “hitched.” For the longest time, they were ONLY told to abstain – absurdly unrealistic advice. Then, finally, they were told that if they HAD to have sex, “use protection.” No bother to suggest monogamy, however, as that might put “marriage” into their heads.
“Most societies still consider homosexuality to be harmful.”
Really ? Which societies might those be? Let’s see… Iran, North Korea, Russia, Uganda, many African countries and MOST Islamic countries. And Texas. You want us to lay down with those dogs? You might do better in re-evaluating the company you wish to keep.
@George+Wells: George, you are obviously trying to inject a little humor into your otherwise non-informative writing.
how about providing a link to this data. While I would agree that you might can link homosexuality to physical reasons (brain wired wrong, etc), that’s not ‘genetic’. And that’s also the context I put ‘born homosexual’. Not that they were genetically matched to be homosexual, only that, just as pedophiles and serial killers are ‘born that way’. And being born that way does not put it into the category, that it’s okay. That’s still debatable. while some ‘born that way’ conditions are absolutely known to be harmful and wrong and ultimately illegal, the book is still open on homosexuality. Just because some people want it to be ‘ok’ or ‘legal’ to serve their political objectives, the final answer won’t be known for a while. This sentence makes no sense at all, George:
that is equivalent to saying that since pedophiles are born that way then the people that want to persecute pedophiles for choosing to be pedophiles are wrong. You can’t simply take an unnatural situation and cram it down a few peoples throats and then ‘proclaim’ it to be acceptable.
for starters. China, Most of the US, etc. Certainly a much longer list (most, as I said) than the list of countries which accept it as Normal.
Just because the people in neighboring countries think that murder is not acceptable does not mean they have to ‘lie down together’, does it? Use a heavier application of logic.
@Redteam: You say “The book is still open on homosexuality.” Please clarify
@Redteam #92:
A hypothesis and associated conclusion are assumed to be proven correct when they successfully predict the results of future experiments that are conducted with the purpose of confirming the results obtained. This replication of results has occurred. The conclusion is proven correct.
It should be noted that the conclusion was not that there is one, single cause of homosexuality, but rather that there are a number of different causes, and one of them is undeniably genetic.
Below are quotes concerning a number of these studies:
“A number of twin studies have attempted to compare the relative importance of genetics and environment in the determination of sexual orientation. In a 1991 study, Bailey and Pillard found that 52% of monozygotic (MZ) brothers and 22% of the dizygotic (DZ) twins were concordant for homosexuality.[4] ‘MZ’ indicates identical twins with the same sets of genes and ‘DZ’ indicates fraternal twins where genes are mixed to an extent similar to that of non-twin siblings. In 2000 Bailey, Dunne and Martin studied a larger sample of 4,901 Australian twins but reported less than half the level of concordance.[5] They found 20% concordance in the male identical or MZ twins and 24% concordance for the female identical or MZ twins. Self reported zygosity, sexual attraction, fantasy and behaviours were assessed by questionnaire and zygosity was serologically checked when in doubt. A meta-study by Hershberger (2001)[6] compares the results of eight different twin studies: among those, all but two showed MZ twins having much higher concordance of sexual orientation than DZ twins, suggesting a non-negligible genetic component.”
“A 2010 study of all adult twins in Sweden (more than 7,600 twins)[9] found that same-sex behavior was explained by both heritable factors and individual-specific environmental sources (such as prenatal environment, experience with illness and trauma, as well as peer groups, and sexual experiences), while influences of shared-environment variables such as familial environment and societal attitudes had a weaker, but significant effect. Women showed a statistically non-significant trend to weaker influence of hereditary effects, while men showed no effect of shared environmental effects. The use of all adult twins in Sweden was designed to address the criticism of volunteer studies, in which a potential bias towards participation by gay twins may influence the results.”
“Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance [of sexual orientation], the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and .64–.66 for unique environmental factors. Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior.[9]”
“Chromosome linkage studies of sexual orientation have indicated the presence of multiple contributing genetic factors throughout the genome. In 1993 Dean Hamer and colleagues published findings from a linkage analysis of a sample of 76 gay brothers and their families.[13] Hamer et al. found that the gay men had more gay male uncles and cousins on the maternal side of the family than on the paternal side. Gay brothers who showed this maternal pedigree were then tested for X chromosome linkage, using twenty-two markers on the X chromosome to test for similar alleles. In another finding, thirty-three of the forty sibling pairs tested were found to have similar alleles in the distal region of Xq28, which was significantly higher than the expected rates of 50% for fraternal brothers. This was popularly dubbed the “gay gene” in the media, causing significant controversy. Sanders et al. in 1998 reported on their similar study, in which they found that 13% of uncles of gay brothers on the maternal side were homosexual, compared with 6% on the paternal side.[14]”
“A later analysis by Hu et al. replicated and refined the earlier findings. This study revealed that 67% of gay brothers in a new saturated sample shared a marker on the X chromosome at Xq28.[15]”
“Mustanski et al. (2005) performed a full-genome scan (instead of just an X chromosome scan) on individuals and families previously reported on in Hamer et al. (1993) and Hu et al. (1995), as well as additional new subjects.[17] With the larger sample set and complete genome scan, the study found somewhat reduced linkage for Xq28 than reported by Hamer et al. However, they did find other markers with a likelihood score falling just short of significance at 7q36 and likelihood scores approaching significance at 8p12 and 10q26. Interestingly, 10q26 showed highly significant maternal loading, thus further supporting the previous family studies.”
“Results from the first large, comprehensive multi-center genetic linkage study of male sexual orientation were reported by an independent group of researchers at the American Society of Human Genetics in 2012.[18] The study population included 409 independent pairs of gay brothers, who were analyzed with over 300,000 single-nucleotide polymorphism markers. The data strongly replicated Hamerʻs Xq28 findings as determined by both two-point and multipoint (MERLIN) LOD score mapping. Significant linkage was also detected in the pericentromeric region of chromosome 8, overlapping with one of the regions detected in the Hamer labʻs previous genomewide study. The authors concluded that “our findings, taken in context with previous work, suggest that genetic variation in each of these regions contributes to development of the important psychological trait of male sexual orientation.”
@George+Wells: 94
kinda destroying your own argument, aren’t you George? By definition, if identical twins have identical genes and one is gay and one is not, then it can’t be because of genes. Right? Has to be some other reason. This seems to say:
that it is all the other environmental issues that contribute to the sexuality of the child, not the genetic factors.
this information:
seems to clearly show that gayness has nothing to do with genes. I find it interesting that when two gay brothers have identical markers on an X Chromosome it can be taken as the genetic reason for homosexuality, but in the case of identical brothers, one gay one not, that neither have the marker on the X Chromosome. My conclusion would be that the marker on the X chromosome has nothing to do with homosexuality.
@Rich Wheeler:
It was said in this context:
If being ‘born homosexual’ causes a predisposition for a homosexual to do things that are not helpful or legal in society then it would not be a good thing for society. On the other hand, if a ‘homosexual’ does the same thing, but it’s not a ‘born’ homosexual, then is it because of the other reason he’s homosexual and not because he was ‘born’ homosexual, then a different conclusion might be drawn. Here’s what I mean: when I was 12 years old, a homosexual propositioned me. He would let me drive his car if I would let him do xxxxxxx. When I was 15 years old, I was propositioned by a homosexual, he offered me money. When I was 22 I was propositioned, he only offered me a good ‘time’. I turned all 3 of them down. These events did not harm me in any way (that I know of), but suppose either of them, especially the first two times when I was a minor, I had felt that I had no alternative and everything turned out differently. Would either of these 3 event be a ‘good thing’ for society? The one thing I don’t know is: were either or all 3 of these people ‘born’ homosexual? I don’t know. If they were and that is what prompted them to take the actions they did, then I can see where society might not look upon ‘born gay’ as a good thing. What do you thing Rich? Book still open?
@Redteam #95:
I’ve given you the science that a preponderance of geneticists agree constitutes proof that there is a genetic component to homosexuality. If you really WERE a scientist, you’d be able to understand it. I cannot teach you intelligence.
Over the past year I’ve given you and Retire05 predictions that are coming true daily, proving that I was right. I’ve offered you honest personal accounts, and you’ve accused me of lying. I’ve given you good science, with copious corroboration, and you’ve mocked it. When asked to support your OWN positions, you’ve refused. When I have erred, I’ve apologized. In the same situation, you remain silent. Your conduct deserves no respect.
I’ve brought you and Retire05 to the water, but I cannot make you drink. Believe whatever you want, because that’s all it is to you. BELIEF. I have a happy life to live in this increasingly gay world of ours, and I don’t need to bother with your pathetic attempts to rain on my parade. Maybe if you bury your head deeply enough in your fantasy world of denial, you won’t notice how far from reality you’ve drifted. But don’t hold your breath waiting for my parade to pass, because it’s here to stay.
@Pete:
Pete, I’ve followed this debate and I think George has raised something more than once that you’ve yet to adequately contend with. If homosexuality is a choice and not genetic, how can one explain it’s consistent prevalence through time regardless of any particular societies tolerance for it? If it were entirely a choice, one could reasonably assume the incidence of homosexuality would fluctuate noticeably depending on local law and cultural acceptance. But there is no data to my knowledge suggesting that more homosexuals are born in San Francisco than in Riyadh. I’m sure as someone who knows and interacts with homosexuals, you are aware of gays who come from conservative backgrounds where the idea of being recruited or influenced to be homosexual is highly unlikely. I personally know multiple people who fit that description, people who knew they were gay before they’d even met another gay person.
@George+Wells:
Then show me that segment of the proof that shows that identical twins, identical genes, one homo, one not. If it is genetic and genes are exact and only genes are involved how is it possible to have two outcomes? Science depends on repeatable results. If you mix H and O in the same proportion at the same temperature you will always get water as a result. If you mix genes in exactly the same manner and that is the determining factor, the results will be consistent, not one gay, one not gay. Can’t happen.
I’m sure if we combined our intelligence pool, you would benefit. I don’t need you to teach it.
@Redteam:
One other point. Science doesn’t depend on ‘preponderance of evidence’ that is law you’re thinking of. The word science is not dependent on ‘opinion’.