That site is too funny. Hold on...

[conuly]

Anti-gay stuff.

For the past fifteen years, homosexual activists have staked their political strategy on claims that homosexuality is an inherited trait, like left-handedness, for a significant minority of human beings.

Homosexuality, they have argued, is thus a "natural" condition and is not morally significant.

Interestingly, for many many years left-handedness was considered to be morally significant, and wrong. Something to ponder.

Back in 1999, clinical neurologists George Rice and George Ebers of Canada's University of Western Ontario reported that they had failed to find a link between male homosexuality and chromosomal region Xq28, a link which had been claimed by other researchers. The Canadian results were supported by work at the University of Chicago which, according to Science, "does not provide strong support for a linkage." Rice stated that the cumulative evidence "would suggest that if there is a linkage it's so weak that it's not important."

On this statement, he then claims that any evidence for sexuality being biological is non-existent.

Let's do this slowly.

ONE gene that was linked to homosexuality turns out to probably not be connected.

This makes sense. Given that sexuality, like handedness and autism is a spectrum trait (you can have varying degrees of ambidextriousness, autisticity, or bisexuality) it makes sense that it wouldn't be governed by a single gene.

If it's governed by several genes, like height and eye color are, then it could be very difficult to track those genes.

Additionally, it could also be governed in whole or in part by external factors, like hormone levels in utero. We don't know. That's why there's still research being done in this area (politically motivated, all of it, so I doubt any of it can be trusted).

The argument that homosexuality is matter of biology rather than morality is too useful for the homosexual community to abandon it altogether.

I do agree that the "it's biology, stupid" argument has a few flaws - mainly that it attracts this sort of nonsense. Why not say "it doesn't matter what caused *insert pronoun* to be gay, it's not a moral issue" instead? After all, many other things are not biologically based (for example, a preference for Monet over Manet), but we do not consider them to be moral issues.

All of these represent efforts to remove social stigma and to classify sinful behaviors as normal, or at least understandable.

I thought we were all sinners. If that is the case, isn't sinful behaviour understandable by its very nature?

The doctrine of total depravity reminds us that no part of ourselves is free from sin and its injury. That certainly includes our genetic code as well. As the church father Ambrose of Milan (340-397) stated, "Before we are born we are infected with the contagion, and before we see the light of day we experience the injury of our origin." In the end, the scientific evidence is not morally important, though it may be medically useful.

Shit, that scares me.

Moving on to practicality, I've never understood why any loving deity would make people flawed, then get mad when they acted as they were made. *shrugs*

Comments

[fjorab-teke.livejournal.com]

Yep, as I recall, only Old Testament "prophets" and Paul were the ones who openly spoke/srote against it. If anyone can find me ANY evidence that the Son of God (as I personally believe Him to be, as the "human" incarnate of God Himself) spoke out against it, I want them to tell me!

I can't see how someone would be homosexual by choice. First, it's too dangerous to have feelings like that in our society. Second, I have no clue why I'm hopelessly attracted to guys (and a very small percentile of girls, but more of a "wow I want to look like her") with slim athletic figures and brown good-visioned eyes.

[conuly]

Paul = misogynistic creep who hated all sex. Of course he didn't like teh gayness.

And the Old Testament prophets? *shrugs* I thought that Christians were supposed to care more about the New Testament than the Old.

As for Jesus, I'm not going to try to track his quotes. Too hard. But, I'll tell you what, when I invent a time machine you can come with me.

I can't see how someone would be homosexual by choice.

Neither can I, but you *ask* people when they chose to be straight and they just keep on with the diatribe. *sighs*

[spitefairy.livejournal.com]

I've never been able to find a single quote of Jesus about gays being bad. He stuck his neck out for the hookers you know.

Anyway, even if he did guess who recorded his words? Paul.

[xiggaroo.livejournal.com]

Sort of a weird irony that my gay uncle is named Paul...

[push-the-limits.livejournal.com]

You are correct. New Testament.
The laws of the Old Testament became null and void the moment Jesus died.

[staircase-wit.livejournal.com]

Jesus said something to the effect of, "just as god has made woman for man," or something like that. It's a powerful statement that doesn't condemn, but does negate, both homosexuality and polygamy in one statement. I think it's in Luke, but I may be wrong. I'm not a Bible scholar.

NOT a choice.

[scottrossi.livejournal.com]

this is overwhelmingly NOT a choice. utterly and totally NOT. to go through the things i had to, to deal with stigma and persecution, and live in fear when i go out in public, fear of being beatn, killed and ridiculed at the least is not fun at all, and certainly not something anyone would choose to go through. yes we are prideful and yes we enjoy our lifestyle, but that's because we have little else, and we are now in danger once again ... sigh.

thanks for these funny quotes conuly!

Re: NOT a choice.

[conuly]

They'd be funnier if they weren't taken seriously.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

On this statement, he then claims that any evidence for sexuality being biological is non-existent.

Let's do this slowly.

ONE gene that was linked to homosexuality turns out to probably not be connected.

This makes sense. Given that sexuality, like handedness and autism is a spectrum trait (you can have varying degrees of ambidextriousness, autisticity, or bisexuality) it makes sense that it wouldn't be governed by a single gene.

If it's governed by several genes, like height and eye color are, then it could be very difficult to track those genes.

Additionally, it could also be governed in whole or in part by external factors, like hormone levels in utero. We don't know. That's why there's still research being done in this area (politically motivated, all of it, so I doubt any of it can be trusted).

Oh, but don't you see, hon? By expecting them to understand this reasoning, you're asking them to consider more than one point at a time! You want them to think in a complex manner about this complex subject, and their poor widdle brains just can't handle that. They want everything to be black-and-white and one-to-one. One-to-many or many-to-many relationships are totally beyond them, and you're a BigMeanie Queen for expecting them to actually exert their grey matter and think.

(Please read the entire above statement with tongue planted firmly in cheek.)

[conuly]

(Please read the entire above statement with tongue planted firmly in cheek.)

People just wanna ruin my fun :(

[griffen.livejournal.com]

*blink?* *confused*

[acaciah.livejournal.com]

You're using earth logic. Don't you know that's anathema to these people?

;-P

[symposiarch.livejournal.com]

I have railed several times on the nonusefulness of making it all about biology. It has created, or at least contributed to, the false dichotomy between "biology" and "choice" -- there's an excluded middle. Major contributors to adult human behavior preferences:

-- Genetics
-- In utero biological forces (mom's diet, stress, etc.)
-- Post natal biological forces (your own diet, stress, etc.)
-- Early childhood environmental forces (that is, before "sense of self" is full developed), including both positive and negative reinforcement
-- Later environmental forces, including both positive and negative reinforcement
-- Conscious choice

... and what the Hell difference does it make anyway? So, great, my soul is going to Hell. If so, that's my choice to make, as long as I don't drag anyone nonconsensually down into the feiry pit with me. :p

I just don't get it. Alcoholism, which IS an issue about which there should be legal dictates, is genetic; specific language spoken, which is NOT an issue about which there should be legal dictates, has no genetic component at all. Genetics shmenetics. :)

[staircase-wit.livejournal.com]

"LeVay is the passionate evangelist." I know they're talking about Simon LeVay, but I keep thinking of Anton LaVey. To the Church of Satan's credit, it is the first organization in the 20th century to ordain openly gay homosexual priests.

[conuly]

As compared to openly gay straight priests?

[naath.livejournal.com]

I don't think that most people who condem honosexuals care two hoots whether it's nurture or nature or choice that makes a person gay. They say that gay *sex* is evil. And haveing sex (straight or gay or with yourself) is allways a choice (unless you are being raped which is a VeryBadThing of itself). So I think that evangelical types can just ignore all the waffle about why are person might be gay it doesn't matter to them what matters is that gay people don't *act on their desires*.

Now, me, I'm bi, I support gay rights I'm all for gay people being allowed to do anything they like but this far I agree with them
SEX IS A CHOICE

Which pretty much makes the entire argument over whether homosexuality is a choice pointless.

Me, I choose to have sex - and I'm not married (though I'm in a het relationship right now) so that's a sin too (if I happened to be Christian I mean). I could easilly choose to *never have sex with anyone*. Just like I could choose to never drink alcohol, never smoke, never shoot a gun... Just because you desire a thing (for whatever reason you desire it) does not mean that you have to do/have that thing.

So wilst possible genetic/hormonal causes of homosexuality interest me at a scientific level they remain an utterly useless part of the 'I should be allowed to do what I want' debate because a desire and an action are two very different things.

[conuly]

I don't think that most people who condem honosexuals care two hoots whether it's nurture or nature or choice that makes a person gay. They say that gay *sex* is evil.

Yeah, I know, and I carefully avoided commenting on those parts of that essay which pointed this out.

[arazia.livejournal.com]

Now, for reference, I come from a heterosexual prospective. While there are women who I acknowledge as beautiful and attractive, I would never want to sleep with any of them. On the other hand, I have quite a few friends who are bi/gay.

Christianity in general is very patriarchal. The ideals of it stem from one male in command of a family, and his wife and children answering to him. If you incorporate a second adult male into the equasion, everything goes to pot. It is also a protection of the 'breeding' structure. That a coupling is not 'real' unless there is viable offspring. I may be wrong on this as well but, homosexuality was not all that uncommon in the greeks and romans from what I was aware of. (The old joke 'in greece, how do you separate the men from the boys? with a crowbar!') The whole anti-gay ideals may come from placing a stark contrast to the accepted ideals of the time.

This seems to happen a lot. That is why you see a great deal of 'cults' in the modern age which have views that are opposite to christianity. Where you have one viewpoint, you will always get people with the opposite view. And being the stubborn creatures we are, neither wants to admit they might be wrong.

If ther eis a superior being up there, it isn't loving. It's a frelling sadist and it enjoys watching us fight each other at every turn.

[rantinan.livejournal.com]

If ther eis a superior being up there, it isn't loving. It's a frelling sadist and it enjoys watching us fight each other at every turn.

Correct. Hail Eris.

[fjorab-teke.livejournal.com]

Yep, as I recall, only Old Testament "prophets" and Paul were the ones who openly spoke/srote against it. If anyone can find me ANY evidence that the Son of God (as I personally believe Him to be, as the "human" incarnate of God Himself) spoke out against it, I want them to tell me!

I can't see how someone would be homosexual by choice. First, it's too dangerous to have feelings like that in our society. Second, I have no clue why I'm hopelessly attracted to guys (and a very small percentile of girls, but more of a "wow I want to look like her") with slim athletic figures and brown good-visioned eyes.

[conuly]

Paul = misogynistic creep who hated all sex. Of course he didn't like teh gayness.

And the Old Testament prophets? *shrugs* I thought that Christians were supposed to care more about the New Testament than the Old.

As for Jesus, I'm not going to try to track his quotes. Too hard. But, I'll tell you what, when I invent a time machine you can come with me.

I can't see how someone would be homosexual by choice.

Neither can I, but you *ask* people when they chose to be straight and they just keep on with the diatribe. *sighs*

[spitefairy.livejournal.com]

I've never been able to find a single quote of Jesus about gays being bad. He stuck his neck out for the hookers you know.

Anyway, even if he did guess who recorded his words? Paul.

[xiggaroo.livejournal.com]

Sort of a weird irony that my gay uncle is named Paul...

[push-the-limits.livejournal.com]

You are correct. New Testament.
The laws of the Old Testament became null and void the moment Jesus died.

[staircase-wit.livejournal.com]

Jesus said something to the effect of, "just as god has made woman for man," or something like that. It's a powerful statement that doesn't condemn, but does negate, both homosexuality and polygamy in one statement. I think it's in Luke, but I may be wrong. I'm not a Bible scholar.

NOT a choice.

[scottrossi.livejournal.com]

this is overwhelmingly NOT a choice. utterly and totally NOT. to go through the things i had to, to deal with stigma and persecution, and live in fear when i go out in public, fear of being beatn, killed and ridiculed at the least is not fun at all, and certainly not something anyone would choose to go through. yes we are prideful and yes we enjoy our lifestyle, but that's because we have little else, and we are now in danger once again ... sigh.

thanks for these funny quotes conuly!

Re: NOT a choice.

[conuly]

They'd be funnier if they weren't taken seriously.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

On this statement, he then claims that any evidence for sexuality being biological is non-existent.

Let's do this slowly.

ONE gene that was linked to homosexuality turns out to probably not be connected.

This makes sense. Given that sexuality, like handedness and autism is a spectrum trait (you can have varying degrees of ambidextriousness, autisticity, or bisexuality) it makes sense that it wouldn't be governed by a single gene.

If it's governed by several genes, like height and eye color are, then it could be very difficult to track those genes.

Additionally, it could also be governed in whole or in part by external factors, like hormone levels in utero. We don't know. That's why there's still research being done in this area (politically motivated, all of it, so I doubt any of it can be trusted).

Oh, but don't you see, hon? By expecting them to understand this reasoning, you're asking them to consider more than one point at a time! You want them to think in a complex manner about this complex subject, and their poor widdle brains just can't handle that. They want everything to be black-and-white and one-to-one. One-to-many or many-to-many relationships are totally beyond them, and you're a BigMeanie Queen for expecting them to actually exert their grey matter and think.

(Please read the entire above statement with tongue planted firmly in cheek.)

[conuly]

(Please read the entire above statement with tongue planted firmly in cheek.)

People just wanna ruin my fun :(

[griffen.livejournal.com]

*blink?* *confused*

[acaciah.livejournal.com]

You're using earth logic. Don't you know that's anathema to these people?

;-P

[symposiarch.livejournal.com]

I have railed several times on the nonusefulness of making it all about biology. It has created, or at least contributed to, the false dichotomy between "biology" and "choice" -- there's an excluded middle. Major contributors to adult human behavior preferences:

-- Genetics
-- In utero biological forces (mom's diet, stress, etc.)
-- Post natal biological forces (your own diet, stress, etc.)
-- Early childhood environmental forces (that is, before "sense of self" is full developed), including both positive and negative reinforcement
-- Later environmental forces, including both positive and negative reinforcement
-- Conscious choice

... and what the Hell difference does it make anyway? So, great, my soul is going to Hell. If so, that's my choice to make, as long as I don't drag anyone nonconsensually down into the feiry pit with me. :p

I just don't get it. Alcoholism, which IS an issue about which there should be legal dictates, is genetic; specific language spoken, which is NOT an issue about which there should be legal dictates, has no genetic component at all. Genetics shmenetics. :)

[staircase-wit.livejournal.com]

"LeVay is the passionate evangelist." I know they're talking about Simon LeVay, but I keep thinking of Anton LaVey. To the Church of Satan's credit, it is the first organization in the 20th century to ordain openly gay homosexual priests.

[conuly]

As compared to openly gay straight priests?

[naath.livejournal.com]

I don't think that most people who condem honosexuals care two hoots whether it's nurture or nature or choice that makes a person gay. They say that gay *sex* is evil. And haveing sex (straight or gay or with yourself) is allways a choice (unless you are being raped which is a VeryBadThing of itself). So I think that evangelical types can just ignore all the waffle about why are person might be gay it doesn't matter to them what matters is that gay people don't *act on their desires*.

Now, me, I'm bi, I support gay rights I'm all for gay people being allowed to do anything they like but this far I agree with them
SEX IS A CHOICE

Which pretty much makes the entire argument over whether homosexuality is a choice pointless.

Me, I choose to have sex - and I'm not married (though I'm in a het relationship right now) so that's a sin too (if I happened to be Christian I mean). I could easilly choose to *never have sex with anyone*. Just like I could choose to never drink alcohol, never smoke, never shoot a gun... Just because you desire a thing (for whatever reason you desire it) does not mean that you have to do/have that thing.

So wilst possible genetic/hormonal causes of homosexuality interest me at a scientific level they remain an utterly useless part of the 'I should be allowed to do what I want' debate because a desire and an action are two very different things.

[conuly]

I don't think that most people who condem honosexuals care two hoots whether it's nurture or nature or choice that makes a person gay. They say that gay *sex* is evil.

Yeah, I know, and I carefully avoided commenting on those parts of that essay which pointed this out.

[arazia.livejournal.com]

Now, for reference, I come from a heterosexual prospective. While there are women who I acknowledge as beautiful and attractive, I would never want to sleep with any of them. On the other hand, I have quite a few friends who are bi/gay.

Christianity in general is very patriarchal. The ideals of it stem from one male in command of a family, and his wife and children answering to him. If you incorporate a second adult male into the equasion, everything goes to pot. It is also a protection of the 'breeding' structure. That a coupling is not 'real' unless there is viable offspring. I may be wrong on this as well but, homosexuality was not all that uncommon in the greeks and romans from what I was aware of. (The old joke 'in greece, how do you separate the men from the boys? with a crowbar!') The whole anti-gay ideals may come from placing a stark contrast to the accepted ideals of the time.

This seems to happen a lot. That is why you see a great deal of 'cults' in the modern age which have views that are opposite to christianity. Where you have one viewpoint, you will always get people with the opposite view. And being the stubborn creatures we are, neither wants to admit they might be wrong.

If ther eis a superior being up there, it isn't loving. It's a frelling sadist and it enjoys watching us fight each other at every turn.

[rantinan.livejournal.com]

If ther eis a superior being up there, it isn't loving. It's a frelling sadist and it enjoys watching us fight each other at every turn.

Correct. Hail Eris.