[simonjames]

As Thunderous put it a couple of pages back the church and the state should remain separate. Therefore denying 'rights' on religious beliefs is null and void. But no, I guess the religious zealots want the world to only use their 'laws'. Funny too how Zimp gets to choose some laws to apply to himself but enforces others. How friggin convenient.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by simonjames:
As Thunderous put it a couple of pages back the church and the state should remain separate. Therefore denying 'rights' on religious beliefs is null and void. But no, I guess the religious zealots want the world to only use their 'laws'. Funny too how Zimp gets to choose some laws to apply to himself but enforces others. How friggin convenient.

If you read the first page, you'll find I was all for it. I say people should be able to choose what they want, free will, it's what makes the world go round.

Doesn't mean I approve.

[forkies]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
...I can only remember of one Godly man that had never sinned. That was never born into sin.

And he came bearing the name, "Zimphire."

(Just so there is no confusion, I intend this to mean I think you are unduly self-righteous.)

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by forkies:
And he came bearing the name, "Zimphire."

(Just so there is no confusion, I intend this to mean I think you are unduly self-righteous.)

You have the right to think that, I have shown nothng of this. I haven't acted like I was better than anyone. As a matter of fact, I have said the opposite.

Again, I am no better than anyone. I am a sinner just like the next guy.

Too many people mix up repeating God's word with self rightousness. Not the same.

[Superchicken]

Not to be unneccicarly rude... but you guys who are going around insulting Zimph for having specific veiws are kinda hypocritical. You're showing far more hate for him, because he doesn't feel the same about you, but your big thing is that Zimph shouldn't not like something that has a different veiw that he does.

Or... shoot that's hard to read.. but you guys are being tottal hypocrites, which is soo lame! I mean come on you're throwing a hissyfit and being insulting why? Because someone respectfuly does not agree on a morality issue because they've thought it out and come to a different conclution than you have? Conformists

[putamare]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
no one here really reads what anyone else says they just look for stuff to put in their quote boxes out of context

I quoted you in context and specifically rebutted your ridiculous assertions. The fact that you have not been able to address my detailed refutation of your sheltered opinions raises the question: did you even read them and were you capable of understanding them?

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
There really isn't one... I just don't like people claiming it's genetic when there's no hard evidence it is.

The following material comes from a paper on Genetics & Human Behaviour from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, since some foolish people would choose to belive that anything published by a gay-advocacy site would be necessarily incorrect, a common fallacy known as Guit By Association, or the Bad Company Fallacy.

10.9 Bailey and Pillard found that 52% of the MZ co-twins of male homosexual twins were also homosexual or bisexual. (Bailey, J. M. & Pillard, R. C. (1991). A genetic study of male sexual orientation. Arch. Gen. Psychiat. 48, 1089?96.) For DZ male twins, this fell to 22%, which suggests that genetic factors may be influential. The researchers estimated the heritability of male homosexuality and bisexuality to be between 0.31 and 0.74. Analysis of the various models of the possible influences on sexual orientation developed by the researchers showed that genetic influences were always statistically significant, while non-shared environmental influences were sometimes significant, and shared environmental influences were never significant.

10.13 More recently, Kendler et al conducted a study that used a random sample of approximately 3,000 people. The researchers found a concordance rate of 32% for nonheterosexual orientation in MZ twins. (Kendler, K. S., Thornton, L. M., Gilman, S. E. & Kessler, R. C. (2000). Sexual Orientation in a US National Sample of Twin and Nontwin sibling pairs. Am. J. Psychiat. 157, 1843?6.) For DZ twins of the same sex, the chance of the second twin also being homosexual or bisexual fell to 13%. The researchers estimated that the heritability of male sexual orientation was between 0.28 and 0.65.

10.14 In the light of the evidence from family, twin and adoptive studies which suggests that genetic factors, along with environmental factors, may influence sexual orientation to some degree, attempts have been made to identify the particular genes involved. The most well-known research is that of Dean Hamer, who received considerable publicity in the early 1990s and was widely reported as having discovered the 'gay gene'. Hamer studied 40 pairs of homosexual brothers who all had family histories that indicated a high rate of homosexuality on the mother's side. (Hamer, D. H., Hu, S., Magnuson, V. L., Hu, N. & Pattatucci, A. M. L. (1993). A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science 261, 321?7.) He interpreted this to mean that a genetic influence on sexual orientation might be found on the X chromosome in these families. In 33 of the 40 sibling pairs, he identified significant similarities in the genetic markers in a particular region of the X chromosome called Xq28, which contains 4 million base pairs and approximately one hundred genes. Since male children only inherit one X chromosome from their mothers, who have two X chromosomes, the probability of both brothers in a sibling pair having inherited the same part of the X chromosome is only 50%. Thus, the finding of 82% of sibling pairs with shared DNA in this region was found to be significant.

10.15 Two years after Hamer's original study, his group of researchers replicated the Xq28 finding, but with less significant results, and using a smaller number of families. (Hu, S. et al. (1995). Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females. Nat. Genet. 11, 248?56.) They found that 67% of homosexual brothers had inherited the same Xq28 region as each other. The researchers also found that there was no significant linkage for homosexual female siblings.

10.16 In 1998, Sanders et al replicated the work in a study involving 54 homosexual sibling pairs. They found that 66% of the pairs of brothers shared the Xq28 region. Their work was presented at the American Psychiatric Association Annual Meeting in Toronto in 1998 but has not yet been formally published. In a similar-sized sample to the Sanders et al study, Ebers and Rice found no indication that Xq28 contained a gene that influenced sexual orientation. (ice, G., Anderson, C., Risch, N. & Ebers, G. (1999). Male homosexuality: absence of linkage to microsatellite markers at Xq28. Science 23, 665?7. ) They examined 52 pairs of homosexual brothers and found that only 46% shared the Xq28 region, which was not statistically significant. Their study differed from the original work in that it did not select participants on the basis of evidence of maternal transmission. However, the researchers argued that even if this methodology were applied, their data would still fail to yield significant results.

10.17 In 1999, Hamer combined the data from these four studies and estimated the percentage of brothers who shared the Xq28 region at 64%. While this result is less significant than his initial result, Hamer's meta-analysis of DNA linkage data continues to support the hypothesis that Xq28 may contain genes that have a role in sexual orientation in males, but indicates that the association is not as strong as was first suggested.

While research is continuing, and nobody would claim a 100% correlation, it is clear that anyone who claims there is no hard evidence for a genetic correlation is deeply misinformed, and if after being confronted with said evidence continues to deny it is clearly a fool.

[Zimphire]

Wouldn't call that HARD evidence.

Not that it matters either way.

I wonder if other sexual deviances are genetic.

[AKcrab]

I wonder if blind faith is genetic.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by putamare:
The following material comes from a paper on Genetics & Human Behaviour from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, since some foolish people would choose to belive that anything published by a gay-advocacy site would be necessarily incorrect, a common fallacy known as Guit By Association, or the Bad Company Fallacy.



While research is continuing, and nobody would claim a 100% correlation, it is clear that anyone who claims there is no hard evidence for a genetic correlation is deeply misinformed, and if after being confronted with said evidence continues to deny it is clearly a fool.

Thanks for the nice link. I'd just again caution against a completely deterministic view of sexual orientation. It seems to be in the same general ballpark as other traits. Some people appear to be believe it's 100% genetically determined, like sex itself, which is just as wrong IMO as saying it's 100% choice. And again I just want to say that if sexual orientation is set before puberty, which I tend to beleive at least for males, that doesn't mean that's it's 100% genetic. There could be environmental factors apart from those that are "chosen." (Then again, I'm not a big believer in free will in general, but that's another thread.)

Originally posted by AKcrab:
I wonder if blind faith is genetic.

heh. Actually religiosity has been studied and is genetic - identical twins raised apart are more similar in religiosity than fraternal twins raised together. So does that mean they shouldn't be discriminated against? They can't help it, after all.

[Superchicken]

This shows that there are genes that can give a predispoition. But it also makes it clear that you can be gay without the gene. Which means you can't block off homosexuality as something GENETIC, it means you have a predisposition for it. You can be gay for nongenetic reasons. If they found a way to link up say 80+ plus then I would say that it would make sense, however this is far from hard evidence.
The document doesn't say how common the genes are in heterosexual males.
I would say this is good data to know but I don't think that any reasonable person who wanted information not information to back up either side would take this with much more than a grain of salt.

Would I mind if homosexuality is genetic? You can easily resolve that with romans 9 for goodness sake. I was simply deffending my understanding of genetics But I still would like to find out which protein these genes make and how they thinkt hey enfluence homosexual behavior.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Oh great, now David was gay. What else are you guys going to come up with. I am truely interested.

Nope, I'm not gay... or were you talking about another David?

Just curious, Zim, since if we take the Bible "men lying with men" thing literally, would gay sex be ok if they did it standing up?

I'm relieved that it doesn't say anything about women lying with women... I love lesbian scenes!

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Wouldn't call that HARD evidence.

There's got to be a joke here.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Not that it matters either way.

I wonder if other sexual deviances are genetic.

No, sexual deviances are:
[list=1][*]Fun[*]Interesting[*]Liberating[*]Difficult to talk your wife into[*]Did I mention fun?[/list=1]

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Men 'lying' with men is a sin?

In that case, most political debate is a sin!

[putamare]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
This shows that there are genes that can give a predispoition.

Here your are just equivocating, call it what you will, the link has been demonstrated.

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
But it also makes it clear that you can be gay without the gene.

Nobody was arguing genetic predeterminism. You made several statements such as "don't even THINK about saying it's genetic until you learn something about genetics", "I maintain that right now the only evidence that we have that in my opinion is worth trying to make a case for is the psycological evidence that certain things in child hood will help curve you to one way", "I don't think we've found any hard evidence to suggest gentics relates to homosexual behavior", "homosexuality being genetic which was proven to be highly unlikely by myself", "don't say it's genetic when we don't have proof of that", and "the only people who we have saying that homosexuality is genetic is homosexual activist groups" which are all obviously, patently wrong. Have I proven beyond all shadow of a doubt that homosexuality is 100% genetically determined? Of course not. All that I have proven and all that I claim is that you are wrong.

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
But I can garuntee you that IF we did have evidence of it it'd be all through the news!

The article "Report Suggests Homosexuality is Linked to Genes" by Natalie Angier appeared on the front page of the New York Times on Friday, July 16th, 1993. Wow, you were actually right about something.

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
If they found a way to link up say 80+ plus then I would say that it would make sense, however this is far from hard evidence. ... I would say this is good data to know but I don't think that any reasonable person who wanted information not information to back up either side would take this with much more than a grain of salt.

Stop the presses & issue warnings to the editors of Science, Nature Genetics, Archives of General Psychiatry and American Journal of Psychiatry. They've gone off and printed reviewed studies that some high school student with only the most minor understanding of genetics believes are without merit. While your at it tell:
Bailey, J. M.: Associate Professor of Psychology Northwestern University
Pillard, R. C.: Professor of Psychiatry at Boston University
Kendler, K. S.: Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics's Rachel Brown Banks Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry; Professor of Human Genetics; Director, Psychiatric Genetics Research Program; Director, Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics.
Kessler, R. C.: Harvard Medical School.
Hamer, D. H.: Assistant Professor of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, also affiliated with the NIH and National Cancer Institute.
that they are sadly mistaken, and that only an 80+ concordance rate means anything.

Well, you know what? You are mistaken. Again. The "acceptable" limit of concordance (did you pull 80 out of your behind?) in order to demonstrate a connection is determined by sample size (& thus error), not by some a priori judgment. Left handedness has an MZ concordance of only 12%, a third of the most conservative estimate of MZ concordance of minority sexual orientation.

You know what else? No one study means squat. However, if you actually did any research at all on the subject, you would find that the results of twin studies, animal studies, and many others all contribute to the same basic conclusion: that there is a genetic component. Furthermore, other studies, such as an examination of the Sambians of New Guinea, shed real doubt on the environmental perspective.

On the other hand, I weary of this game of intellectual whack-a-mole. At least the moles have the decency to vary the holes they pop out of, instead of wearing the opponent down by repeatedly popping up out of the same one no matter how many times or how hard they are hit. That is it for me, I lack the photonic energy to illuminate your singular density.

As an aside, there is a gey gene. It resides on chromosome 19, and is one of three pairs associated with eye color.

[Zimphire]

http://www.frc.org/get/is00d2.cfm

[nonhuman]

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there is a god of some sort, and this god says that homosexuality is evil, that anyone who has gay sex is going to hell, and that two men shouldn't be allowed to get married.

Now, if god says that two men can't get married, why do we need a law that says the same thing? Why do we need human laws that just say the same thing as god's laws? Does it even mean anything to be without sin when the possibility of sin is removed? Wouldn't god rather you resist the temptation to marry another man than to be deprived of the opportunity to do so?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there is a god of some sort, and this god says that homosexuality is evil, that anyone who has gay sex is going to hell, and that two men shouldn't be allowed to get married.

Now, if god says that two men can't get married, why do we need a law that says the same thing? Why do we need human laws that just say the same thing as god's laws? Does it even mean anything to be without sin when the possibility of sin is removed? Wouldn't god rather you resist the temptation to marry another man than to be deprived of the opportunity to do so?

And that was the reason why I said I was all for it.

[maxintosh]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
http://www.frc.org/get/is00d2.cfm

Oh, jeebus, not those whackos!

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=4211

http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hatespeech/frc.html

http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissu...blreich004.htm

http://slashdot.org/yro/00/02/06/1249258.shtml

http://www.fightinghate.org/Hategroups.htm

http://search.freefind.com/find.html...ALL&search=all

[maxintosh]

DP

[forkies]

Originally posted by maxintosh:
Oh, jeebus, not those whackos!

(links regarding "family" org)

Wow, nice post. Thank you for those very informative links.

[libraryguy]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
Pfff, you have got to be kidding me. You know how many deaths and hate Christians are responsible for in the past 2000 years?

I don't seem to remember and Gay crusades.

You are fat? Does that mean you can't walk down the street holding hands with the one you love without fear of getting beat up? Are you not allowed to get married or get tax exemptions? Are you not allowed to adopt children? Ohhh someone called you tubby in highschool, the horror.

Get your butt on a treadmill, then you will not longer be fat. Gay people can't change who they are.

Couldn't have said it better myself!!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by maxintosh:
Oh, jeebus, not those whackos!

I can come up with many more if you like.

Fact is, no one knows exactly where homosexuality comes from.

Not that it matters. It wont change anyone's opinion that deams it immoral.

[Yoda's Erotic Piggyback]

Originally posted by Zimphire:


I can come up with many more if you like.

Fact is, no one knows exactly where homosexuality comes from.

Not that it matters. It wont change anyone's opinion that deams it immoral.

1) If I believe in God then I would think that God made me gay.

2) If I am not religious I would still think I was born gay.

3) Satan did my mom and she gave birth to an evil kid. I say Evil only because I LOVE men and not woman and I should burn in hell for that.

Either way, born that way with or without God's doing.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Yoda's Erotic Piggyback:
1) If I believe in God then I would think that God made me gay.

BZZT

See after the fall of man, Man had no protection from evil.

2) If I am not religious I would still think I was born gay.

It is ok to think that. Really. It's just when you try to push it off as fact, that it starts getting deep. I don't deny that people are born gay. I am just saying, there are no solid proof of that. And not that it somehow makes homosexuality normal human behavior.

3) Satan did my mom and she gave birth to an evil kid. I say Evil only because I LOVE men and not woman and I should burn in hell for that.

Either way, born that way with or without God's doing.

Hmm I don't think the Bible ever said anything about burning in hell for loving another man. But ok.

[Yoda's Erotic Piggyback]

Originally posted by Zimphire:


BZZT

See after the fall of man, Man had no protection from evil.

It is ok to think that. Really. It's just when you try to push it off as fact, that it starts getting deep. I don't deny that people are born gay. I am just saying, there are no solid proof of that. And not that it somehow makes homosexuality normal human behavior.


Hmm I don't think the Bible ever said anything about burning in hell for loving another man. But ok.

Ok so what you are saying in point 1 that gay is infact evil.

You seem to want proof that one is born gay but your own poof of God is based on your own experiances and faith.

The bible says that you should kill anyone that is gay, or gay is evil and evil goes to hell.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Yoda's Erotic Piggyback:
Ok so what you are saying in point 1 that gay is infact evil.

I am saying I think the source of homosexuality is inheritly evil. Being gay may or may not be. That isn't me to decide. I don't believe so. I think only persuing a homosexual lifestyle would be considered "evil"

You seem to want proof that one is born gay but your own poof of God is based on your own experiances and faith.

I don't want no such proof, I could care less. I was just pointing out you cannot call something factual, when it's not.

[Yoda's Erotic Piggyback]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

I don't want no such proof, I could care less. I was just pointing out you cannot call something factual, when it's not.

Please tell me that you are not saying the bible is "factual".

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Yoda's Erotic Piggyback:
Please tell me that you are not saying the bible is "factual".

If you are going to make statements like this, there is really no reason for me to be discussing Biblical matters with you.

[Yoda's Erotic Piggyback]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
If you are going to make statements like this, there is really no reason for me to be discussing Biblical matters with you.

I was totally serious. You just don't want to answer as it would contradict.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Yoda's Erotic Piggyback:
I was totally serious. You just don't want to answer as it would contradict.

No I don't want to answer that because it would give such a statement validitity it doesn't deserve.

[Yoda's Erotic Piggyback]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No I don't want to answer that because it would give such a statement validitity it doesn't deserve.

Right, so if the Bible is factual then so is being born gay which is what you are so afraid to even consider and shows your bias.

Case closed.

[simonjames]

If you don't like gay marriage then DON'T HAVE ONE

and don't stop others from having one just because you don't want one



[mods - can we have a smiley with a piece of 4 by 2 smacking the crap out of another smiley please?]

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Not that it matters. It wont change anyone's opinion that deams it immoral.

Zim,

Just curious, but isn't it God's job to judge what's moral and immoral, not yours or anyone elses?

I mean, you can make the judgement that it is immoral for yourself, but don't judge others.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Yoda's Erotic Piggyback:
Right, so if the Bible is factual then so is being born gay which is what you are so afraid to even consider and shows your bias.

Case closed.

Ok, where are you getting that I am afraid to consider that? Even though I said the opposite? Why do you always make things up to argue about? You do this a lot. Is that how they teach you to argue in Canada?

Zim,

Just curious, but isn't it God's job to judge what's moral and immoral, not yours or anyone elses?

I mean, you can make the judgement that it is immoral for yourself, but don't judge others

Of course it is his job and not mine. How is me showing what he says about something immoral in any way be considered me judging?

Not the same thing.

[boots]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Of course it is his job and not mine. How is me showing what he says about something immoral in any way be considered me judging?

Not the same thing.

Because it is your interpretation of what he said.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by boots:
Because it is your interpretation of what he said.

It would be safe to assume that is what most Christians interpret it as well. From what I have heard the 30 years I have lived on this earth.

The people that think God approves of homosexual sex, are few and far between.

You'll find lots of them in the liberal circles.

Like this one.

[boots]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It would be safe to assume that is what most Christians interpret it as well. From what I have heard the 30 years I have lived on this earth.

The people that think God approves of homosexual sex, are few and far between.

You'll find lots of them in the liberal circles.

Like this one.

So group concensus makes it right?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by boots:
So group concensus makes it right?

Of course that alone doesn't make it right.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You'll find lots of them in the liberal circles.

Like this one.

Zim,

I'm no liberal and I would say Simey is not all that liberal as well.

You have the right to your opinions regarding homosexuality - for yourself. However, you do not have the right to tell anyone else that they are moral or immoral based on their sexuality.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I'm no liberal and I would say Simey is not all that liberal as well.

I'm very much a liberal - a classical liberal in fact.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Zim,

I'm no liberal and I would say Simey is not all that liberal as well.

You have the right to your opinions regarding homosexuality - for yourself. However, you do not have the right to tell anyone else that they are moral or immoral based on their sexuality.

I never told anyone that. I have as a matter of fact, told them it wasn't up to me to Judge. What I did was, when people posted that God did NOT say homosexual sex was wrong was, tell them I believe otherwise, and explain why.

There is a difference.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm very much a liberal - a classical liberal in fact.

Hehe I believe I said for the most part.

And Simey, you are a rare breed. And I respect you for that.

[daimoni]

.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm very much a liberal - a classical liberal in fact.

Yes, in the classic sense, I too am a liberal...

But by today's terms, I am not.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by daimoni:
Sorry for skipping pages two through three... but I'd be interested to find out what the state of Montana ends up doing.

Kind of as an "oh by the way" to this thread, the bill was killed in Committee.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Read this please.

[boots]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Read this please.

Nice. Thanks for drawing that to our attention.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by boots:
Nice. Thanks for drawing that to our attention.

Don't thank me, thank Andrew Sullivan.

[Montanan]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Read this please.

A very insightful and moving article. Thank you for posting the link, Simey.

[UNTeMac]

Thanks Simey, that article is a perfect example of the love possible in homosexual relationships. I could imagine feeling the same way if I lost my girlfriend that day.

People get too hung up on the sexual part because it makes them uncomfortable. In reality, that's the only thing that is fundamentally different about homosexual relationships. They eat together, they fight, the laugh...they're people. Why morally or legally deny anyone the right to love who they choose?