Is Homosexuality Genetic or an Evil Force that Plays Mind Games with People?

AkeGreen.org ^ | July 20, 2003 | Ake Green

[unspun]

...the fact that two of them are married has not diminsihed our marriage 1 bit.

WADR, no, they're not married.

[tutstar]

read later

[scripter]

It doesn't have to be genetic to be an innate trait, or to be the result of an innate trait + environmental factors.

I concur. The reason I post links is to help folks better understand the complicated issues surrounding homosexuality. I believe the summary in Satinover's The Gay Gene? covers it well. Just scroll to the bottom of the article.

But the genetic vs. chosen lifestyle debate is deceiving, at best.

I think it's completely deceiving and it's certainly not an argument I make. Most don't understand the issues because there's so much confusion and bias.

I posted this link earlier in the thread and I think you may find it of interest: How Might Homosexuality Develop? Putting the Pieces Together. Also, while you can't get much out of reading the I Do Exist website, the video itself is very interesting. I cannot recommend the video enough.

[bigsigh]

I'll tell their minister. They'll be surprised.

[bigsigh]

done before since myu first post to you. You vaguely remember my comments about your research. I don't save posts and I won't reread your crap. The fact that you don't remember and won't admit it is not my problem.

[bigsigh]

Read my reply to lj. If you were not so defensive of him and accusing me of stalking him, you could have replied like an adult and you would be on subject. You make false accusations and post stuff from my profile but you can't follow the content of a simple thread, another sign of zealotry. I suggest you learn to focus on meaning and let your little tirades go.

This is the point where I say, I'm tired again of your evasiveness and leave so you can say anything you want without fear of the truth coming out in my reply. But I'll see you again on another thread when you decide to side bust my responses to others.

[DBeers]

DU is a democratic site, in case you're wondering. Conservatives come in religious and non-religious varieties, and together are responsible for Bush's victory (and hence should be mutually grateful). However, the condemnation of members who are homosexual (I'm not) is wrong. And using religion - not as a respectable point of discussion and reflection - but as a club to beat other FU members over the head with, is certainly NOT (at least I think not) the purpose of FR, nor does it represent the sentiments with which it was founded (does it?). Moreover, if the conversation is reduced to the type of condemnations you see littered like mental garbage throughout this thread, then you are correct - there is little more I can say. But DU is a place for intolerance, so you might as well go there yourself.

The fact that the conservative cause is comprised of both Christians and non Christians does not give you license to denigrate God and or Christians -period. Intolerance is liberal codeword that suggest only liberal positions are to be respected. I will not tolerate your continued Christian bashing and would strongly suggest again you stop it -- this time without attempting to excuse your inexcusable actions... Nip it in the bud!

What Free Republic is all about:

Statement by the founder of Free Republic

As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.

Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.

We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.

[scripter]

So you're running away, yet again, unable to support your statements.

[scripter]

More red herrings.

I'm saving your comments in this thread so I can further demonstrate you make unsupportable statements and run away.

[BagelFace]

The only ones "denigrating" here are you and yours. I don't think that's very Christian of you. Period.

[gidget7]

Absolutely! The problems come into play when just as this sermon so aptly puts it, what they speak, what is in their minds, and what they know in their hearts are two very different things. The old, "me thinks they protest too much" cliche'.

What is in their hearts, no matter how deeply it is buried, is the reason for their denial, as well as depression, drug use, feelings of alienation, labeling of any opposition as hate speech, etc etc etc.

[A. Pole]

You're making a common mistake in assuming that if something is genetic it must be passed on through the generations. While most often that IS the case, not always. A few examples: after fertilization, a gene in the embryo mutates.

I did not know that mutations can be so frequent and so regular (as to keep on recreating 2% minority with very well defined characteristics). Amazing!

How would you explain the higher frequency of this mutation in prisons or in upper classes of ancient Rome and Greece?

[A. Pole]

But DU is a place for intolerance, so you might as well go there yourself.

On FR you need to be a member in good standing for at least eight years before you can start to make intolerant anti-Christian remarks. It is very different from DU.

If you are not careful you might have a nasty meeting with Viking Kitties.

[Neoliberalnot]

I think you should consider where the highest prevalence of homosexual behavior occurs--answer, in our prison system. Why is this? Do you consider those in prison to represent the highest order of mental stability? Homosexuality if a mental disorder worthy of treatment. Arguments put forth by homosexuals can be used to defend any deviant behavior but that doesn't make it right.

[Pharmboy]

I was not implying at all that homosexuality is due to repeated mutations. If you read on in my post I explain that it is likely a particular combination of genes. Sorry if I was not more clear about that, but please re-read.

[A. Pole]

OK, I re-read. You presented this "explanation" of special "combination of genes", made it into a proven fact and drew the conclusion.

"Since homosexuals--by their behavior--take themselves out of the gene pool, it is an interesting question and one that more answers await more research."

It is a how-wash. How the REAL and HONEST research is possible if the condition of pro-homosexual brainwashing, PC hysteria prevails? Honest and intelligent researchers will stay a mile away from this stinking topic.

The new false dogma is more strongly entrenched than Lysenko-ism was under Stalin's rule.

[ItsOurTimeNow]

I certainly hope you're not suggesting that the LORD, the creator and sustainer of the Universe and all of creation, is not capable of ensuring the proper translation of His Holy Word. The one True source of His mighty authority, and His chosen method of communicating with His people.

I believe He's fully capable of overseeing it.

[ItsOurTimeNow]

It's sin. It makes people do, say, and think things that are evil and contrary to what is normal.

[Pharmboy]

Ironic that YOU mentioned Lysenko, since his idiocy revolved around discounting genetics and placing all his beliefs into environmental influences. Aside from the awful effects of central planning, Lysenko was also responsible for the yearly agricultural shortages in the old Soviet Union (but I'm sure you knew that). And, I of course acknowledge that human behavior is a bit more complex than the best genes and growing conditions for potatoes.

Back to the gays...you implied that I "...presented this "explanation" of special "combination of genes", made it into a proven fact and drew the conclusion."

No--I never used the term "proven fact." I believe that common sense and much data would lead people into believing that male homosexuality is largely genetic.

Male sexuality is largely driven by visual sexual cues...T&A. This is not something straight males can be talked out of...it is what it is. True male homosexuals do not respond to this. Also, the fact that many gays knew they were so oriented from the time they were children is another common sense fact for genes. Further, in a Darwinian sense, it would be totally illogical to leave such important issues as those surrounding reproductive success up to environmental "chance."

[A. Pole]

No--I never used the term "proven fact." I believe that common sense and much data would lead people into believing that male homosexuality is largely genetic.

What about the pressures of political corectness and constant propaganda ? The psychatric congress decision to remove the homosexuality from the list of sexual disorders, was it caused by common sense or political pressure?