Pick a side on gay issue!

[pnewton]

Digger71:

The gene in question, Q28rT

I just tried to search for information on this gay gene and there is no information on the internet about it. Do you know where else I might look?

 

[trustmc]

rlg94086:

No offense to y’all, but I ain’t movin’ to Texas!

No offense? You would prefer Paris, France over Paris, Texas? Don’t Mess With Texas!

 

[Digger71]

Overpopulation Myths :bigyikes:

No, ‘survival of the species’ myth, if you are going to go down that route.

 

[rlg94086]

Is anybody here concerned about survival of the species? Who is going down that route? It’s a great straw man, but I don’t think it will play.

Again, I mentioned “propagation of the species”, which is an on-going reality. I didn’t complain or show any concern about species survival, and trustmc’s post was in response to your alarmist claim of overpopulation, so he also didn’t display any concern of species survival.

Digger71:

No, ‘survival of the species’ myth, if you are going to go down that route.

Additional EDIT: I have made it quite clear that Texas is out of the question…I would like to add France. I’ve heard it is quite beautiful, but it is full of French people.

 

[Digger71]

pnewton:

I just tried to search for information on this gay gene and there is no information on the internet about it. Do you know where else I might look?

I was tryig to remember the gene name, so it was probably wrong, but searching google for ‘gay gene 1/100,00’ produced 344 results. The very first one noted Xq28…a fairly close match.

 

[Digger71]

setter:

Let’s connect the dots here: Remove homosexuality as a mental health diagnosis from the APA DSM which is the mental health field “bible” for diagnosis of mental disorders; then debunk the efficacy of reparative therapy; make diagnosis of “homophobia”; normalize and mainstream gay lifestyle/partnership; prove the “gay gene” to rule out environmental and personal choice variables, hence reparative therapy is really a cruel misnomer. What agenda you ask?

Conspiracy theory Activated…domino effect advancing…last bastion religion…deploy empirical evidence…outline tautological arguments…identify translation errors…PRESS THE RED BUTTON!!!

Of course, is a grand conspiracy more likely to be true than the accumulation of empirical data, that is the fruits of science and observation?

Occams razor slices down…

 

[Digger71]

rlg94086:

Again, I mentioned “propagation of the species”, which is an on-going reality.

Sorry…even so, there is no risk of dying out even is 90% turn gay or 90% die out from a virus. 6.4 billion people is a lot of people. Actually, lets be frank, if just the UK was left (60million adults) we would still be vast in numbers. So if you are really using this as any sort of excuse… then you need a sense of proportion transfusion.

But do use it in public debates, anyone witha hint of understanding the vastness of 6.4 billion people will look at you in wonder, as if you’re dragged up like cruella De Vil. If they can control their sniggers it will be because they are choking.

(note to self, dont raise the ‘my society, not theirs’ analysis unless you really have to’)

 

[rlg94086]

Now, I’m worried about your command of the english language. Just to be clear, I’m talking about propagation:

Main Entry: prop·a·ga·tion [webster.com/images/audio.gif](javascriptopWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?propag11.wav=propagation’))
Pronunciation: "prä-p&-'gA-sh&n
Function: noun
: the act or action of propagating : as a : increase (as of a kind of organism) in numbers b : the spreading of something (as a belief) abroad or into new regions c : enlargement or extension (as of a crack) in a solid body

Are you arguing that propagation is unnecessary? Are you saying that the mention that we propagate and the importance of the family unit to propagation somehow denotes some irrational fear of the species disappearing? Why do you keep bringing this up? Did I say I was worried about gay people causing a decrease in the species? I really don’t know where you are getting this.

Digger71:

Sorry…even so, there is no risk of dying out even is 90% turn gay or 90% die out from a virus. 6.4 billion people is a lot of people. Actually, lets be frank, if just the UK was left (60million adults) we would still be vast in numbers. So if you are really using this as any sort of excuse… then you need a sense of proportion transfusion.

But do use it in public debates, anyone witha hint of understanding the vastness of 6.4 billion people will look at you in wonder, as if you’re dragged up like cruella De Vil. If they can control their sniggers it will be because they are choking.

(note to self, dont raise the ‘my society, not theirs’ analysis unless you really have to’)

 

[Digger71]

setter:

Just because this entirely trustworthy organization is in the political minority in the mental health profession is no basis to “go beyond” their sound and valid scientific study and critique. Supplement, augment with other reliable sources, yes; discard because of political incorrectness, no.

In the article you posted we found two serious misreprentations of the science. Firstly regarding penetrance of genes ( that is chance of expression) where the author was wrong when he said <100% proves genes are not causative.

And second when he said identical twins are always identical.

Either he is ignorant. And so not reliable.

Or he LIED so is not reliable.

Your anti-gay emotional bias is filtering out empirical evidence of the unreliability of this man, and by associaton NARTH, and is leading you down the road of conspiracy theories.

This neatly demonstrates how emotions define reality.

Nice of you to bring it all together for me

 

[Digger71]

rlg94086:

Now, I’m worried about your command of the english language. Just to be clear, I’m talking about propagation:

Main Entry: prop·a·ga·tion [webster.com/images/audio.gif](javascriptopWin(’/cgi-bin/audio.pl?propag11.wav=propagation’))
Pronunciation: "prä-p&-'gA-sh&n
Function: noun
: the act or action of propagating : as a : increase (as of a kind of organism) in numbers b : the spreading of something (as a belief) abroad or into new regions c : enlargement or extension (as of a crack) in a solid body

No, I’m saying the propogation argument is completely, utterly, mind bogglingly irrelevent to the gay rights issue.

1. There a lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots…, and lots
   of people and there is no risk to the species if 2%, 20% or even 90% decide not to propogate.
2. And most people with any sense of proportion would understand this.

Gay people having civil partnerships or equal rights, or protection from discrimination in NO WAY stops you from getting on with the important business of rasing a family, and may help.

It seems to me you have fallen in to the false dichotomy of thinking gay rights and raising a family are in opposition. That is simple, paranoid fear, it is not rational, it is not reasoned, it certainly is not charitable…

sheesh!!

 

[rlg94086]

Thank you for clarifying. Had you said what you meant, we wouldn’t have needed all of this back-and-forth.

I agree the “propagation argument” is irrelevant to the gay rights issue. I was explaining the purpose of marriage, which has existed for a few thousand years.

1. Irrelevant, but I agree with you that there is no risk to the species, as I already stated.
2. See 1. Obviously, your insinuation that I have no proportion is therefore incorrect.

I don’t see how gay partnerships would help anyone raise their children.

Don’t accuse people of irrational fear without having some empirical evidence. That would be uncharitable. Pot, meet kettle.

As gay right activists are trying to either change the definition of marriage or add a new institution called civil unions, the onus is on them to explain the benefit to society. I’ve heard your argument…

I would say because committed relationships improve the health of both partners, they stabalise, they reduce excesses (such as alcohol consumption), they reduce casual sex. Economically speaking ‘married’ couples are cheaper needing less health care and taking fewer days off work. In terms of communities a stable committed relationship is a great example to set kids, gay or straight.

As I have said before, those who oppose same-sex unions are deliberately creating an unstable sub-class and denying the known benefits of a stable relationship to the same-sex couples, and to society as a whole.

…and I disagree. I also think it’s comical that you believe that not changing something would create an unstable sub-class. Apparently, you admit that the gay community is an unstable sub-class, which is something many argue against.

Fundamentally, as a Catholic, I believe what the Church teaches - that sex between two men or two women is a sin. I don’t believe we should encourage sin.* I also believe that common sense and a basic understanding of biology leads most reasonable people to conclude that homosexuality is contrary to the natural purpose of reproductive organs.

We live in a democracy, so we are all allowed to expree our views. I hope and believe that my argument will win out where it counts - at the polls. Meanwhile, I pray for those who are struggling with SSA to find peace.

Digger71:

No, I’m saying the propogation argument is completely, utterly, mind bogglingly irrelevent to the gay rights issue.

1. There a lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots…, and lots
   of people and there is no risk to the species if 2%, 20% or even 90% decide not to propogate.
2. And most people with any sense of proportion would understand this.

Gay people having civil partnerships or equal rights, or protection from discrimination in NO WAY stops you from getting on with the important business of rasing a family, and may help.

It seems to me you have fallen in to the false dichotomy of thinking gay rights and raising a family are in opposition. That is simple, paranoid fear, it is not rational, it is not reasoned, it certainly is not charitable…

sheesh!!

• Please note that “encourage” is not the same word as “allow”. You may want to look them up at www.webster.com before responding with another tirade about homophobia.

 

[MikeinSD]

“Except that they aren’t “their” kids. The sexual relationship between them has nothing to do with the existance of the kids. The kids are only “theirs” by contract, and in either case are being deprived of a father, a mother, or both.
Concerning whether benefits should be applied to childless heterosexual couples: they are part of the same system of the foundation of a family consisting of one male and one female. Procreation affirms this natural arrangement, but it is not the only feature of it. It is in the nature of heterosexual relationships to be fertile, if nothing interferes - however, that potential is not part of a homosexual relationship, no matter what. No matter how young or healthy Carol and Marie are, they cannot have any children together, because it is not in the nature of a pair of women to procreate”

The children of gay men and lesbian women ARE their children. Legally, children by adoption are the same as children by birth. Many lesbian couples give birth to their children. The second parent adopts. Gay men adopt children. Both parents adopt in these cases. Sorry, that’s the law in the US. I think you are arguing from a religious point of view. Natural law, I think. Great. But that is not codified as US law. Heterosexuals might have the potential to have children. But now, so do gay couples. Women can use sperm donors or sperm bank to concieve. You may not like it but women can. Men can pay for a surrogate mother. Or adopt in the US or overseas. Again, you may not like it but it is legal. Gay men and women may not be able to impregnate their partners. Nonetheless, gay and lesbian couples can and do have children. They are considered parents. Don’t like it, talk to yr congressman or woman and get the laws changed.

Again, if marriage is about having children, then gay parents with kids meet the qualifications. If marriage is about potential to have children, then both str8 and gay couples qualifiy.

I’m not talking about marriage in any particular faith perspective. Civil marriage.

 

[pnewton]

Digger71:

I was tryig to remember the gene name, so it was probably wrong, but searching google for ‘gay gene 1/100,00’ produced 344 results. The very first one noted Xq28…a fairly close match.

And that brings up many controversial and contradictory sites. Al the ones I looked at that should be impartial (not pro-gay or anti-gay) seem to suggest that this is far from scientific fact.

 

[Digger71]

rlg94086:

Thank you for clarifying. Had you said what you meant, we wouldn’t have needed all of this back-and-forth.

I agree the “propagation argument” is irrelevant to the gay rights issue. I was explaining the purpose of marriage, which has existed for a few thousand years.

Your purpose for marriage. Of course marriage isnt needed for that. That is an additional structure overlaid on the activity. It’s been pointed out that marriage to seal treatise has existed (political reasons), to retain ‘family honour’, and marriages to 12 year olds in biblical times can hardly be pointed to as for procreation as the girls would not even have been in puberty.

Marriage has existed, but it was not always for propagation in the sense that you mean? I think Catholic marriage originally reflected the stoic take on marriage, that children where needed for continuation. Love was not part of that set-up (Stoics).

 

[Digger71]

rlg94086:

I don’t see how gay partnerships would help anyone raise their children.

Well gay people have always been involved in helping through th e extended family, and stable gay relationships (which marriage would support) bring extra resources to the family.

These resources include money, experience, knowledge, time…not just of the gay family member, but of the partner. The danger of course, is break up, and it can be traumatic for the children if favourite uncles/aunts break up and one is not seen. Marriage is a stabalising influence for not just those in the marriage, but for those around them.

In a specific case one of my friends, MIchelle, is bringing up an autistic child. It’s very difficult, he is deeply autistic. Her brother and his BF have helped out a lot both financially, and because the BF has Aspergers Syndrome, there the BF has a lot of experience with autism. While most parents wont look after the child that couple have no problem, ths couple seem designed for it.

rlg94086:

As gay right activists are trying to either change the definition of marriage or add a new institution called civil unions, the onus is on them to explain the benefit to society.

First of all marriaage changes all the time. And the current state of marriage is not down to gay people. quickie divorces, adultery, illegitimate children and abortion are all our work, straight peoples work. Given what we have done I think we should be a bit more flexible towards people who are positive about an institution we have damaged so much.

And the benefits have already been spelt out.

rlg94086:

I’ve heard your argument…and I disagree.

Then the onus is on you to demonstrate logical errors.

rlg94086:

I also think it’s comical that you believe that not changing something would create an unstable sub-class. Apparently, you admit that the gay community is an unstable sub-class, which is something many argue against.

The current situation has created the sub-class through exclusion. We have a chance to make things better and stabalise a part of society that we have deliberately rejected.

Most of the complaints about the ‘gay lifestyle’ are actually complaints against cultural artifacts generated as a result of social exclusion. That is we complain about the results of our forfathers actions, yet insist on doing the same thing and whine when we get the same outcomes.

Of course, the people who adults in that subculture 50 years ago are gone, but the sub-culture regenerates itself every generation as gay family members are rejected, and find a harsh legal and social environment, become ghettoised, and pick up the alternatives that always grow in such situations. As society rejects them, they reject society.

By normalising the situation and creating instiutions that support and protect and nurture, as well as integrating, we create situations where mutual rejection is lowered, dangerous cultural artifacts can be dealt with humanely and stabalise things.

In rejecting gay marriage and gay rights, you simpy tell us you want bad things to happen to gay people because they are not heterosexual.

And even if that is not what we mean to say, it IS the message we send out.

rlg94086:

I don’t believe we should encourage sin.

In case you havent noticed, they dont need encouragement. Homosexuality appears all by itself. And in case you havent noticed the other part, the stonewall riots and the gay liberation movement started because of oppression and discrimination.

In the funniest irony of this whole debate it is the ‘anti-gays’ who made the gay movement, it is the ‘homophobes’ (note the inverted commas) who created gay lib, it is the intolerent who made them fight back.

Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot!

I also believe that common sense and a basic understanding of biology leads most reasonable people to conclude that homosexuality is contrary to the natural purpose of reproductive organs.

The natural purpose of reprodictive organs is to have sex. Marriage and heterosexuality are versions of that, as is homosexuality.

**I pray for those who are struggling with SSA to find peace.
**

What is SSA?

 

[setter]

Digger71:

Conspiracy theory Activated…domino effect advancing…last bastion religion…deploy empirical evidence…outline tautological arguments…identify translation errors…PRESS THE RED BUTTON!!!

Of course, **is a grand conspiracy ** more likely to be true than the accumulation of empirical data, that is the fruits of science and observation?

Occams razor slices down…

No grand conspiracy …I am simply applying common sense pragmatism.

 

[Digger71]

setter:

No grand conspiracy …I am simply applying common sense pragmatism.

OK, what are you saying?

 

[setter]

In the article you posted we

found two serious misreprentations of the science.
I notice that you refer to “we”.

Firstly regarding penetrance of genes ( that is chance of expression) where the author was wrong when he said <100% proves genes are not causative.

And second when he said identical twins are always identical.

Either he is ignorant. And so not reliable.

Or he LIED so is not reliable.

I will have to check my old biology text and compare with the article before I accept your presumptions.

Your anti-gay emotional bias is filtering out empirical evidence of the unreliability of this man, and by associaton NARTH, and is leading you down the road of conspiracy theories.

This neatly demonstrates how emotions define reality.

Nice of you to bring it all together for me

I was hoping that you could give a more thoughtful and serious response than this. I continue to challenge you on this because: The advancement of your argument, that SSA based relationships deserve parity with natural law santioned heterosexual marriage, rests solely on the proposed premise/foundation that emotional experience enjoys primacy for the basis of defining (i.e., redefining) reality, in order to fit your self-construed paradigm of reality and substantiate acting against revealed moral and natural law.

Originally Posted by setter

BTW – I am wondering if you are going to respond to my #243 post to you in which I challenged your presupposition of the proper ordering and preeminence of subjective emotional experience in defining one’s reality independent of absolute norms.

Originally Posted by Digger71

In reverse order. Dont wonder, I am simply considering my answers.

 

[Digger71]

setter:

I notice that you refer to “we”.

I will have to check my old biology text and compare with the article before I accept your presumptions.

I was hoping that you could give a more thoughtful and serious response than this. I continue to challenge you on this because: The advancement of your argument, that SSA based relationships deserve parity with natural law santioned heterosexual marriage, rests solely on the proposed premise/foundation that emotional experience enjoys primacy for the basis of defining (i.e., redefining) reality, in order to fit your self-construed paradigm of reality and substantiate acting against revealed moral and natural law.

1. As long as my meaning is clear so what.
2. Try using a NEW biology book, or pubmed, and also look at other twin studies which do offend certain socio-political groups.
3. What is SSA?
4. Natural Law? Naturalistic fallacy.
5. Evidentialy, from your posts, you demonstrate this.
6. Civil unions do not impinge on your ability to practice your religion, ditto me.

In seeking to establish primacy for you form of marriage you prefer to live in a less order society than is possible. In keeping ‘marriage’ to your self you are actively seeking to continue the disadvantage others…in my opinion.

No substantive arguments have been presented to show same-sex unions cause harm.

 

[trustmc]

Digger71:

What is SSA?

SSA=same sex attraction

What is NARTH?