The Madness Continues--Canada Loses Its Bearings

[Brad]

Mac6yver:

Here is a couple links to some evidence that homosexuality is genetic:

msnbc.msn.com/id/6233719/

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2266135.stm

cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/10/13/homosexuality.study.reut/

1. broken link
2. This is a story about flies not humans. Even so, the scientist used human intervention to modify the genetic makeup of the fly and then startle and confuse the fly by heating it up and he said he “thinks” this turns off the male-advance-inhibitor but provides no scientific data for his conclusions, even for abused flies. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the flies turned off more than their male-advance-inhibitor but probably also their life-giving gene and croaked during the experiment.
3. The researcher here, in an attempt to refute the notion that “it is impossible to have a gene that influences homosexuality” (implying many scientists do think it is impossible), discovered that a group of homosexuals that he studied had more children and more homosexuals on the maternal line than the paternal line and the maternal and paternal lines of a group of heterosexuals he studied. He claims it might be genetic because there were more homosexuals on the maternal line. I hate to tell the researcher but there had to be more homosexuals on either the maternal or the paternal side (math rules demand it) and the fact that there also were more children on the maternal side means homosexuality is not even favored here. Essentially, the study tells us nothing.

I’m looking for real science here, not opinion and subjective media headlines.

 

[Mac6yver]

1) broken link

1. This is a story about flies not humans. Even so, the scientist used human intervention to modify the genetic makeup of the fly and then startle and confuse the fly by heating it up and he said he “thinks” this turns off the male-advance-inhibitor but provides no scientific data for his conclusions, even for abused flies. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the flies turned off more than their male-advance-inhibitor but probably also their life-giving gene and croaked during the experiment.
2. The researcher here, in an attempt to refute the notion that “it is impossible to have a gene that influences homosexuality” (implying many scientists do think it is impossible), discovered that a group of homosexuals that he studied had more children and more homosexuals on the maternal line than the paternal line and the maternal and paternal lines of a group of heterosexuals he studied. He claims it might be genetic because there were more homosexuals on the maternal line. I hate to tell the researcher but there had to be more homosexuals on either the maternal or the paternal side (math rules demand it) and the fact that there also were more children on the maternal side means homosexuality is not even favored here. Essentially, the study tells us nothing.

I’m looking for real science here, not opinion and subjective media headlines.

I fixed the first link. Oh, and please provide solid evidence that Homosexuality not genetic. I am looking for solid evidence, not opinion.

 

[Brad]

Mac6yver:

So are you saying you had no choice in being attracted to females?

Not much no. I did however have a choice on how I reacted to that attraction. Fortunately for me, I did not experience any negative devlopmental experiences that would mentally blind me to my true nature.

 

[jlw]

Mac6yver:

Total Abdominal Hysterectomy=TAH

Of course. Sorry! Duh.

Oh, by the way, plenty of instances where the “snip, snip” or the “bow tie” didn’t stop a pregnancy!! The creative power of sex (oh, meant God! ) is pretty amazing, isn’t it??

So to finish the thought, the reproductive capabilities are still there, NO MATTER WHAT.

Now, for the infertile couple, or the man or woman who loses their reproductive organs to an accident or cancer, etc…

DIVERSITY.

Can you follow??

 

[Brad]

Mac6yver:

There, I fixed the broken link. Anyways, it is clear that no matter what evidence I post you will ignore it.

I didn’t ignore your evidence. I gave it careful consideration. The science is bad. It does not show that there is a homosexual gene - even the scientists in the articles don’t say that.

We are not ignoring science. We are examining the science. It is many in the media that are ignoring the science and projecting onto it what they want to believe.

If you give me something with good scholarship and scientific data that points to a homosexual gene - I will stand corrected.

 

[Brad]

Mac6yver:

There, I fixed the broken link. Anyways, it is clear that no matter what evidence I post you will ignore it.

How did you fix the link? Working for MSNBC?

 

[Brad]

Mac6yver:

No, I am not saying that. I believe that you must reach a certain level of maturity to make an informed decision. Our society has chosen the age of 18 as that age. Now, we all know that some people are capable of making an informed decision prior to being 18, and some are not capable until they are much older then 18. but we have to set a limit, so we choose 18.

Why do we have to set a limit of age with respect to informed decisions (such as marriage) but we don’t have to set a limit of biology with respect to marriage?

Perhaps the people over 18 that want to get married to someone of the same sex are not capable of making an informed decision. Should we allow them to act on their decision while discriminating against 17 year olds that can make an informed decision?

 

[Brad]

Mac6yver:

I fixed the first link. Oh, and please provide solid evidence that Homosexuality not genetic. I am looking for solid evidence, not opinion.

Divine Revelation (Scripture, Tradition) tells us that it is not genetic, but an abomination. That is as solid as it gets.

I don’t believe that homosexuality is a real condition of a human person. Someone might act out on lust through homosexual acts but that does not make them a homosexual. Scientific evidence tells us that tens of thousands of babies are born every day. That is overwhelming evidence that human beings are heterosexual by their genes and therefore homosexuality is not genetic.

In any event, human history - forever - has maintained that homosexual acts are unnatural so it’s not up to me to prove that they are natural - that would be silly to argue against that much history - it’s up to the homosexual activists to prove it is - and they haven’t because they cannot.

I can provide you scientific data that shows a tendency for “homosexuals” to be the product of inordered development in early upbringing.

 

[Mac6yver]

jlw:

DIVERSITY.

Can you follow??

Forgive me, I do not follow.

 

[Mac6yver]

Brad:

How did you fix the link? Working for MSNBC?

No, I simply edited the http address.

 

[Mac6yver]

Brad:

Why do we have to set a limit of age with respect to informed decisions (such as marriage) but we don’t have to set a limit of biology with respect to marriage?

Perhaps the people over 18 that want to get married to someone of the same sex are not capable of making an informed decision. Should we allow them to act on their decision while discriminating against 17 year olds that can make an informed decision?

Well, there are some limits to the “biology” or sex if you will. That is why we have sexual consent ages.

 

[jlw]

Mac6yver:

Forgive me, I do not follow.

Ok. Some first thoughts…

Is diversity a good thing??? Why??

 

[Mac6yver]

Brad:

Divine Revelation (Scripture, Tradition) tells us that it is not genetic, but an abomination. That is as solid as it gets.

I don’t believe that homosexuality is a real condition of a human person. Someone might act out on lust through homosexual acts but that does not make them a homosexual. Scientific evidence tells us that tens of thousands of babies are born every day. That is overwhelming evidence that human beings are heterosexual by their genes and therefore homosexuality is not genetic.

In any event, human history - forever - has maintained that homosexual acts are unnatural so it’s not up to me to prove that they are natural - that would be silly to argue against that much history - it’s up to the homosexual activists to prove it is - and they haven’t because they cannot.

I can provide you scientific data that shows a tendency for “homosexuals” to be the product of inordered development in early upbringing.

Actually, as many Christians enjoy pointing out, the Greeks and Romans considered homosexual acts to be natural.

 

[Mac6yver]

jlw:

Ok. Some first thoughts…

Is diversity a good thing??? Why??

Well, diversity is good generally. Not always, but generally. Mainly because it exposes people to different things.

 

[jlw]

Mac6yver:

Well, diversity is good generally. Not always, but generally. Mainly because it exposes people to different things.

Right. So…

A child is brought into the world, into existence firstly, because of sperm from a man, and an egg from a woman got together. Only THAT.

And then the child develops over nine months and then leaves the womb to the outside world, where he continues to develop, not just in physical age and maturity, but in behavioral ways as well. Right??

The child now needs to mature and learn to behave (learn who he is, what he’s capable of, what is right and wrong, what works, what doesn’t etc etc etc) In other words he needs to understand his nature.

The world is made of MEN and WOMEN. Male and Female. It is what it is.

Men are men. Women are women.

There are many differences of talents, personality, gifts, limitations, etc in all men. But men are still men.

There are many differences of talents, personality, gifts, limitations, etc in all women. But women are still women.

Men are men. Women are men. One thing for sure…

Men…are not women. Women…are not men.

You said: Well, diversity is good generally. Not always, but generally. Mainly because it exposes people to different things

A child is better off in a home with the REALITY OF NATURE.
Exposed, as you said, to the different sexes.

The child will see a man and take his (if a boy, for example) cues from the man of “what it means to be a man”. And will also look at the woman and FROM A MALE PERSPECTIVE, see “what it means to be a woman”. And he’ll see how a man should (or should not) treat a woman, and visa versa. Same for a little girl growing up.

So the couple who can’t conceive because of natural infertility or otherwise is STILL the MOST DIVERSE, and therefore the most ideal way for children to develop and be exposed the the different sexes, up close and personal.

This DIVERSITY is just the CONTINUATION of the basic law of nature that we already discussed. One man, one woman.

 

[Zoot]

Lisa N:

You seem to have a real problem with the Bishops. What’s that about? Saying it’s their fault is like saying is Jackie Peterson’s fault her son killed Laci and Connor. I guess she should have raised him better or watched him closer right? The predatory priests are responsible for their own behavior. They were after all, adults and capable of taking responsibility for their actions.

As to your comments that the priests are not being sued, well DUH? They have NO MONEY. There is something to that vow of poverty they were able to keep easier than that oh so difficult chastity thing. I assure you lawyers only sue parties that have MONEY. You know it’s like the crook who was asked why he robbed banks; his reply, well that’s where the money is! Attorneys could look at the assets of a large Archdiocese and salivate. Looking at a pathetic elderly indigent pervert hardly inspires the same level of energy from a lawyer.

As to your comments regarding staying or going, a priest who left for a heterosexual relationship, or marriage could function openly in society. The same could not be said for homosexuals in the 1970s. They could play around in dark corners and rent some grungy hotel room by the hour. How much nicer to stay in the “happy hunting ground” where every year a new crop was turned over to their ‘care.’ Not to mention the plush surroundings and pretty clothes they got to wear! Not a hard choice is it?

Any real NUMBERS on males/females? Giving a percentage tells us little other than one more time IT IS A HOMOSEXUAL PROBLEM.

Lisa N

As promised earlier, here are the numbers for those uncomfortable with percentages. These numbers come from the John Jay report. The numbers here are the number of priests. For example, 991 priests are accused of abusing only minor females.

*Table 3.5.3 *GENDER OF ALLEGED VICTIMS,

BY NUMBER OF ALLEGED ABUSERS

***Gender Count Percent of all

***Male and Female 157 3.6%

Female only 991 22.6%

Male only 2,805 64%

Gender unknown 429 9.8%

Total 4,230 100%

usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/cleric5.pdf

 

[Mac6yver]

Ok, but the vast majority of homosexuals are raised by hetero sexual couples. How do you account for that?

Also, it is already legal for gay couples to adopt, so despite what you may believe in regards to the benefit of a heterosexual couple raising a child, the fact is that homosexuals can already adopt. is it not better for that child to be raised in a home with two people who are comitted to one and other through marriage opposed to not being marriage? At least it sets an example of commitment.

 

[jlw]

Mac6yver:

Ok, but the vast majority of homosexuals are raised by hetero sexual couples. How do you account for that?

Well, 100% of all human persons exist through heterosexual unions, whether they be for 30 seconds or 60 years.

Approximately 97% of the world is heterosexual in thought and deed,

approx 3% of the world is homosexual in thought and deed apparently.

Of course these numbers account for your premise, don’t they??

 

[Mac6yver]

jlw:

Well, 100% of all human persons exist through heterosexual unions, whether they be for 30 seconds or 60 years.

Approximately 97% of the world is heterosexual in thought and deed,

approx 3% of the world is homosexual in thought and deed apparently.

Of course these numbers account for your premise, don’t they??

Just to play devils advocate, they have devised a way to fertilise an egg with out sperm. But that is aside from the point.

I do not understand the point you are trying to make though. Those stats look about right to me, but how do they prove your point?

 

[jlw]

Mac6yver:

Just to play devils advocate, they have devised a way to fertilise an egg with out sperm. But that is aside from the point.

I do not understand the point you are trying to make though. Those stats look about right to me, but how do they prove your point?

1. REALLY??? Come, now. Gimme a link!! This, I gotta see.
2. To be sure we are on the same page, what point do you *think *I am making???