Posted on 08/26/2011 10:37:32 PM PDT by newzjunkey
If you read the link I posted, you would see that they gave it up because they couldn’t find it, it doesn’t exist.
Good night and I’m not going to bother replying to your false claims any more. Whether those false claims supposedly help one side or another. I want truth only, and the truth is that there is no biological cause, genetic or otherwise, for homosexuality.
There is, believe what you want, put you blinders on and play into the gay agenda
Good Night
Now this is a lie to yourself:
. I want truth only, and the truth is that there is no biological cause, genetic or otherwise, for homosexuality.
You have already predetermined what the truth is in this sentence. Don’t fool yourself.
You have convinced yourself that if there is a biological cause, genetic, or otherwise you are wrong ... so therefore you won’t logically evaluate your position. The truth is, the fact that you are wrong regarding this actually strengthens your larger argument of human choice vs genetics.
Sorry you are so blinded to see it.
You have been given links to studies. You link to 6 year old propaganda from WebMD that simply parrots the homosexual meme.
You don't have a link to a study because there is none. Even homosexual geneticists have had to admit there's no homosexual gene. I gave you links to their quotes in post 76.
Take it back to whatever liberal moonbat site you crawled out of!
Maybe, but that doesn't change the fact that it is abnormal.
Marriage is what it is, by nature and history between a man and a woman. Changing this is a modern concept designed by the militant gays to destroy the institution of marriage.
There is nothing stopping a gay couple from being a gay couple. This is not good enough for militant gays. They want to destroy marriage and the family.
The fact that we are discussing a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage is absurd. But it is necessary due to the corrosive nature of the gay agenda.
If you can post a link to an actual scientific study, posted on a bona fide scientific journal website, NOT some WEBMD nonsene that has been proven WRONG and admitted to be wrong even by homosexual researchers, ping me.
Otherwise keep your idiotic claptrap know-nothing comments to yourself, or at least don’t ping me. I’m busy.
I’ve been studying the homsoexual agenda isseues for about 25 years. You really do not know what you are talking about. read MY links.
What kind of “gay rights” do you believe in, trickamsterdam? Are you a Dutch prostitute, by any chance? Odd screen name.
BTW, in San Francisco, homos call themselves and each other “queer” all the time, and universities are full of “Queer Studies”. That’s why I don’t use the term, they like it. I prefer “faggot”, since it is so close to the word “maggot”.
For the sake of the argument, let's say that is true. I am more inclined to think there is a gay predisposition which can still be overcome, but let us say, one way or another a man or woman is irrevocably gay. Surely that does not remove their rights; surely the conservative politics should still be encouraged in them; surely the deserve to be our friends and relatives.
The only question on the table is, is gay "marriage" one of their rights?
Demostrably it is not so. A marriage is a public act that obligates not only the two spouses but also the public. For exampe, for a religious institution to refuse honoring them as married people would be a violation of their right; for a state not to honor their decision to adopt a child would be a violation of their right; for a school to teach that homosexuality is an undesirable life style would be a violation of that right.
At this point the gay "marriage" is snuck in as a sort of "private marriage", without a public dimension at all. That is a lie: gay "marriage" is either a right, and then it also obligates the public to respect it, or it is not a right and then it is not a marriage.
Once gay "marriage" is instituted on any level, state or federal, there will be the public dimension of it also instituted step by step through lawsuits. At that point, our society will be damaged beyond recognition. The Church, for example, will have to go underground, and a responsible parent will teach his child that we cannot express our opinions in public, - that our country is an oppressive force, an enemy to be destroyed if possible, avoided if not.
It does not matter if there is a gay gene or not. See above post.
homosexual researchers aren’t really looking for a gay gene, it doesn’t help them ... they are looking for the prefect set of genetic and other conditions that perfectly explain homosexuality as a borne trait and not one chosen .. they won’t claim success unless they have a very high correlation.
You setup unrealistic hurdles to convince yourself that you are right and to keep any doubt from entering your brain
You never bother to ask what is their motivation, what are all the for and against reasons there would be for finding a gay gene? What is their agenda?
What they found in 2005 was in fact a gay gene, the fact that it wasn’t 100% perfectly matched to homosexuals caused the gene to be discredited because if it really was a gay gene, in their mind it would have 100% correlation to homosexuals. This is a problem for them. It didn’t jive with their preconceived notions just like yours. You are looking for black and white when there is gray ... the same as these researchers.
Not everyone with the smoking gene smokes...same with this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
It does matter when it shows that human beings determine their behavior not your genes and you can’t be born anything
Totally destroys the Gay Idea that you were born this way.
Puts this behavior in the same realm as drinking, smoking, doing drugs...etc.
None so blind as he who does not wish to see. That includes people who cling to falsehoods.
I will not bother reading/responding to anything else you post, you have not even read the link I posted previously. You want to cling to crap, your choice. I’m too busy to waste my time with blind fools.
Right. People may have genetic predisposition to being gay, alcoholics, prone to cancer or what not. It does not create any special gay rights, any more than we have people with Parkinsons's rights.
Under the American system, and I think under natural law, private mutually consented to adult gay behavior is unfortunate, but it is a right, like alcohol abuse or viewing pornography is a right. The oppressive regimes punished gays simply for being gays, just like they punished other social classes or ethnicities. Legislations like Defense of Marriage Act does not punish them at all, it simply states what marriage is and isn’t.
Why aren’t you standing up for Biblical principles?
“Male and female he created them.”
“Go forth, be fertile and multiply.”
Since its inception until a few years ago, the USA allowed states to have laws against sodomy. But a bunch of fags tried to get it overturned - actually they tried a few times, made a fake 911 domestic violence call, and then sodomized each other with the door open so cops would see.
There is nothing “oppressive” about anti-sodomy laws, and nothing unconstitutional.
They are not unconstitutional to be sure: American states traditionally regulated behaviors not mentioned in the Constitution. They are, however, an attempt to regulate private behavior of consenting adults, and so in that sense, oppressive.
In the example you give, the couple would intentionally make their private behavior public, so it has nothing to do with the question of private acts. If they used that trick to overturn an anti-sodomy law, either the law was badly written or the court reasoned badly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.