That site is too funny. Hold on...
Nov. 24th, 2004 01:20 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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*
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*
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-11-23 10:41 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-23 10:44 pm (UTC)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*
no subject
Date: 2004-11-23 10:46 pm (UTC)Anyway, even if he did guess who recorded his words? Paul.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-23 11:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-23 11:03 pm (UTC)The laws of the Old Testament became null and void the moment Jesus died.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-24 08:41 am (UTC)