RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (4) < [1] 2 3 4 >   
  Topic: Will a "gay gene" refute I.D.?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,06:47   

Or prove that the designer put into place a series of events leading directly to Queer Eye for the Straight Guy?
I opened a new topic to avoid derailing the thoughtful and endlessly entertaing discorse here.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,09:07   

Haven't you learned from our resident IDists here?  Nothing refutes ID.  Nothing you say or do will refute ID.  Nothing we can find will refute ID.  ID is Truth, and Truth can not be refuted.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,09:25   

ID avocates ask for us to demonstrate thousands of years of evolution in the lab. Therefore the only way to refute it is to speed up time. I have asked my physicist friends to get on it.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,09:36   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ April 06 2006,14:25)
Id avocates ask for us to demonstrate thousands of years of evolution in the lab. Therefore the only way to refute it is to speed up time. I have asked my physicist friends to get on it.

Speeding up relative time should be easy.

Just identify where space is not moving and glue/bolt your experiment to it.

Doddle?

You might need a microscope/telescope though. Oh, and a way to accelerate light.

Maybe not as simple as I originaly thought.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,10:13   

A homsexual gene would only disprove ID if you thought that the designer didnt want homsexuality.  Of course, our resident ID'ers are unlikely to answer that questions.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,10:17   

A "pro gay" desinger would sit well with the fundamentailsts. "Fundamentalist" is very descriptive because they 'fund' the DI and they are 'mentalists'.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,10:20   

Re "ID avocates ask for us to demonstrate thousands of years of evolution in the lab. Therefore the only way to refute it is to speed up time. I have asked my physicist friends to get on it."

But, that would make the result intelligently designed, since the speed up wouldn't have happened without your input, which would make a success evidence for I.D. ;)

Henry

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,11:32   

The "gay gene" is in all likelihood nothing more than the fantasy of gay advocates to satify there attempt at "normalcy."  

As for the Designer, homosexuality seems to be the consequence of free-will.  This behavior, like most behaviors, can be modified especially if one is educated about the prevalence of disease, domestic violence and early morality that correlates STRONGLY with the practice of homosexuality.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,11:41   

Once again, TD jumps in with a logical but unocnnected with reality opinion.  The homosexuals I know would have loved to have been "Normal", since that would have saved the embarrasment and even physical danger of coming out of the closet, the strained relations with parents, the difficulties of finding other people like them, etc etc.  If it really was that much of a lifestyle choice, many of them would not have picked it in the first place.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,11:42   

"early morality." LOL

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,11:54   

Hey Thordaddy!
Will a gay gene refute ID?

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
steve_h



Posts: 533
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,12:05   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ April 06 2006,14:25)
ID avocates ask for us to demonstrate thousands of years of evolution in the lab. Therefore the only way to refute it is to speed up time. I have asked my physicist friends to get on it.

Time goes fast when you're having fun.  Maybe you could try holding parties in your lab?

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,12:16   

We would but we have computers in there that cost half a million dollars and they don't like us to spill beer on them.

Quote
This behavior, like most behaviors, can be modified especially if one is educated about the prevalence of disease, domestic violence and early morality that correlates STRONGLY with the practice of homosexuality.
Dont forget electric shock therapy, that works to. Incedentaly, disease and domestic violence also correlate strongly with religion, but it doesn't mean that if you point this out people will stop being religious.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,12:22   

Quote
But, that would make the result intelligently designed, since the speed up wouldn't have happened without your input, which would make a success evidence for I.D. ;)

Henry
Poor Henry has been exposed to the IDiots for so long he can now perfectly anticipate Salvadorc Ordova's responses.

   
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,12:53   

This is an example of why very few people believe in evolution.  Science is readily corrupted by ideologues.  

Is there or is there not a disproportionate amount of AIDS, STDs and domestic violence amongst American homosexuals? (homosexuals represent 2% of population while representing around 60% of AIDS cases).

Does the prevalence AIDS, STDs and domestic violence in a certain demographic not signify a rise in mortality rates?

Given these very simple facts, is it wise and prudent, let alone "educational," to teach children of the "normalcy" of homosexuality (normal as compared to what)?

The "scientists" can keep beating up the fundies about this issue, but what do they say about the above and its lack of ANY religious argumentation?

The "scientists" seem more like ideologues and that's why there is little differentiation in any of the responses in this issue?

A real scientist would never assume ALL those that argue against HIS position to be a religious fundamentalist, would he?

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,13:02   

If you are referring to my post:

I never questioned your statistics, I simply said that pointing it out to homosexual people will not make them 'repent'.

I never said thay homosexiality is 'normal'.

I never said you were a fundamentalist.

I never expressed animosity towards religion.

What makes you think I am an ideologue?

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,13:04   

Silly Thordaddy, as usual, you have a point, but it's on top of your pointy white hat.  That covers your face. Down to your bedsheet.
Quote

Is there or is there not a disproportionate amount of AIDS, STDs and domestic violence amongst American homosexuals? (homosexuals represent 2% of population while representing around 60% of AIDS cases).

Not amongst Lesbians.  Their rates are MUCH lower than the hetros.
Quote
Does the prevalence AIDS, STDs and domestic violence in a certain demographic not signify a rise in mortality rates?

A rise? what are you talking about?  these rate have been essentialy steady for years!
Quote

Given these very simple facts, is it wise and prudent, let alone "educational," to teach children of the "normalcy" of homosexuality (normal as compared to what)?

No, clearly it's important to teach them to be good lesbians.  This is your point, right? After all, the Designer made them gay.  With the Big Gay Gene.
Quote
The "scientists" can keep beating up the fundies about this issue, but what do they say about the above and its lack of ANY religious argumentation?

Those words don't make a coherent sentence, try again.

Will a "gay gene" refute I.D.? Third try is a charm, Thordaddy!

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,13:12   

I wonder who has more STD's and domestic violence, redneck men or Lesbians?  Should we teach the virtues of the Lesbian Lifestyle, and warn the flower of American womanhood about rednecks?

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,13:17   

Chris Hyland,

Who said anything about homosexuals repenting?

I only asked if it was wise and prudent, let alone "educational," to teach about the "normalcy" of homosexuality.

Do you have an answer?

Seven Popes,

So now I'm part of the KKK?  And all this for exposing taboo truths? LOL!  Come up with something more original.

Homosexuals are gay males and gay males are the demographic I am specifically talking about.  But about lesbians, I guess "science" will need to find 2 "gay genes?"

You ask,

Quote
Will a "gay gene" refute I.D.? Third try is a charm, Thordaddy!


I don't believe a "gay gene" will be found in all likelihood, but if one is then I think "science" will have to play coy about what it really represents.  IDers will still chalk it up to a choice of free-will.  You aren't against free-will, are you?

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,13:26   

I certainly am against free will, as an answer, if it is the wrong answer.

In your thread, Chris Hyland very cogently pointed out to you just why it is highly unlikely that a complex set of behaviors like homosexual behavior does not have at least some genetic component.

You're right, there's never going to be a discovery of "a gay gene," as in one gene that "causes" homosexuality. But to derive from that the answer you seem content with (you know, the one you assumed from the beginning) is laughably naive. I believe it all starts with your inability to deal with any degree of ambiguity, as pointed out on yet another of your threads.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,13:41   

I remember the day I chose, of free will, to be a heterosexual. I was in 7th grade and several of the other fellows had started dating. Not wishing to look developmentally delayed, I decided to begin also. But immediately I had a problem--there were two genders. Which one to select? This seemed like a dilemma of the first order, so I resolved to consider the problem carefully. On the one hand, I knew I could get along easily with males because we tended to like the same things. On the other hand, sometimes they became violent. It wouldn't feel good to have an abusive boyfriend, now would it. Girls seemed to be built more from curves than angles, and I think modernism is overrated, so curves were the more aesthetic choice. Point for the girls. In terms of smell, girls definitely smelled better, and since I would be spending a lot of time near whoever I was dating, this was a serious point for the girls. So with things pretty much tied I recalled that most boys I knew were dating girls by a margin of maybe 10:1. Perhaps this inexplicable imbalance was the result of hidden factors I wasn't aware of, which suggested girls would make better dates. Finally, I considered that I was in the south, and southerners will get very hostile to same-sex relationships usually. So I decided that girls were the clear winner, glanced at a girl's butt, and immediately got an erection.

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,13:48   

I don't suppose I'll have any more luck here than on the other "gay gene" thread. But, just for the record...

What "new talk" is there about a "gay gene"? Who said what?

And what, specifically, are what "scientists"  putting into what public school curricula that you so object to, Thordude?

You know: quotes, references, links... that sort of thing.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,14:04   

Silly Thordaddy,
Quote
IDers will still chalk it up to a choice of free-will.  You aren't against free-will, are you?

How could they have free will if the designer made them gay?

Fourth try Thordaddy, would a "gay gene" refute I.D.?

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,14:23   

Thordaddy:
Quote

I only asked if it was wise and prudent, let alone "educational," to teach about the "normalcy" of homosexuality.

Do you have an answer?

Do you think it's prudent to allow your young women to date men?  With the greater risks of Aids,and being beaten or killed by their spouse?  Wouldn't it be MORE prudent, using your illogic, to encourage them to be Lesbians?

Russell, I'm only aware of studies linking homosexuality to prenatal biology here at the Brain Research institute.
Like I mentioned elewhere in this forum, they found:
Quote
"a male with three older brothers is three times more likely to be gay than one with no older brothers, though there's still a better than 90 percent chance he will be straight. They argue that this results from a complex interaction involving hormones, antigens, and the mother's immune system."

Not a gay gene per se, but evidence of a biological root to homosexuality.

SteveStory, LOL.  By the way, I owe you a thread derail, so take your shot :D

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,14:40   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 06 2006,16:32)
As for the Designer, homosexuality seems to be the consequence of free-will.  This behavior, like most behaviors, can be modified especially if one is educated about the prevalence of disease, domestic violence and early morality that correlates STRONGLY with the practice of homosexuality.

TD must not know any gay people. I think he's regurgitating nonsense his pastor told him.

It's also nice that TD has figured out what causes homosexuality. If only he'd share the evidence with us. sigh...

Do you have any actual evidence for this homosexuality/domestic violence correlation, or is that just a product of your feverish imagination?

Also, homosexual WOMEN have a lower rate of STD's than any other group. Should children be taught that? If not, why not?

However, it is refreshing to see that you correlate 'early morality' with homosexuality, whatever that is.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,14:43   

Quote (Seven Popes @ April 06 2006,19:04)
Silly Thordaddy,
Quote
IDers will still chalk it up to a choice of free-will.  You aren't against free-will, are you?

How could they have free will if the designer made them gay?

Fourth try Thordaddy, would a "gay gene" refute I.D.?

You people are STILL expecting a coherent answer from TD? WTF?

Okay, here's TD's answer, since he won't say it. A gay gene would refute evolution. So would the absence of one. Got it?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,14:53   

re: the Brain Research institute study.

That's it???

No new mention of a "gay gene".

No half-educated person is suggesting that sexuality isn't largely - though not exclusively - determined biologically.

No "scientists" - or scientists - telling anyone what public schools to teach...

In other words, TD is full of ####.

Wow. What a surprise. Next thing you know, the sun will rise in the east.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,17:13   

Arden,
Quote

TD must not know any gay people. I think he's regurgitating nonsense his pastor told him.

He might know more gay people than he thinks he does!


--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,17:27   

I had no idea about the birth order thing w/r/t gayness. That's really interesting stuff. I had no idea. 3 times as likely? That's a he11 of an effect. Wow. All I'd read recently was some suspicion that the brains of embryos who later became gay people were being exposed to the mixture of hormones normal to an embryo of the other sex. I'll have to research that birth order stuff, that looks really interesting.

Quote

SteveStory, LOL.  By the way, I owe you a thread derail, so take your shot :D

Steve is not for Vendetta, baby, I love everyone. I only lean on people on my threads when a corrosive creationist is oozing around, because all the little evolutionist t-cells will show up and start attacking him all kinds of ways, and you see what happens on Panda's Thumb as a result of that, I don't want that to happen on the threads where I'm interested in the topic.

(edited to get the word 'he11' around Wesley's filter, which filter must have been like number 384 in the birth order, so gay is it.)

   
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,17:33   

The responses are indicative of ideologues and not scientists.


C.J. O'Brien opines,

Quote
I certainly am against free will, as an answer, if it is the wrong answer.

In your thread, Chris Hyland very cogently pointed out to you just why it is highly unlikely that a complex set of behaviors like homosexual behavior does not have at least some genetic component.


This demands two questions that relate to what I have asked.  Why and/or how are we teaching the "complex set of behaviors" of homosexuality to grade school children?  And secondly, what is the strong science that LEADS one away from the free-will hypothesis?  Evolution should require no gene and a Designer would require no need for those that had an aversion to the process of reproduction.

So stevestory's trivial notion of selecting his orientation is irrelevant.  Most of us don't choose our heterosexuality, but a very few of us have inclinations that defy evolution.  You claim it be based in genetics.  Would this be the "self-destruct" gene?

Quote
You're right, there's never going to be a discovery of "a gay gene," as in one gene that "causes" homosexuality. But to derive from that the answer you seem content with (you know, the one you assumed from the beginning) is laughably naive. I believe it all starts with your inability to deal with any degree of ambiguity, as pointed out on yet another of your threads.


And this is what we look to science for...?  Ambiguity?  I can tell you unequivocally that I am less impressed with "science" than I've ever been.  I suppose the retort will be that ambiguity is "truth" in some instances.  The problem is that the instances form a particular pattern.

Russell,

If it will satisfy your curiosity, I could have said "re-newed" talk of a "gay gene," but there could certainly be those for who this talk is new.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,17:40   

Russell opines,

Quote
No half-educated person is suggesting that sexuality isn't largely - though not exclusively - determined biologically.

No "scientists" - or scientists - telling anyone what public schools to teach...


But is homosexuality really "sexuality" in the evolutionary sense?  On what account?

If schools are teaching evolution as "fact" and homosexuality as "normal" then homosexuality is a product of evolution?  This doesn't make ANY sense at first glance.

You are essentially claiming a "self-destruct gene."  Are you proposing this Russell?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,18:06   

Quote
This doesn't make ANY sense at first glance.
Hey, he got one thing right! Good for him.

   
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,19:26   

Quote
You are essentially claiming a "self-destruct gene."  Are you proposing this Russell?
You're spluttering again, Thordude. Take a deep breath. Now, let it out slowly. Good! Now another...There now. Feeling better?

I asked you to point out specifically what was said, and by whom, that has you in such a lather. You never answered. Someone less hysterical was kind enough to point me to the website, where I found a not very surprising article providing more evidence that people don't simply decide whether they're going to be homo- or heterosexual.  You disagree?  Great! I guess the only difference between you and the Brain Research Institute is they have data.

But let's get to the real heart of the matter, shall we? I mean, who cares whether it's the direct action of a gene, or the indirect result of dozens genes interacting with who knows what in the environment? Anyone with half a brain will surely agree that (1) sexual orientation is largely a product of biology (2) that a small, but significant, fraction of kids will turn out to be homosexual. So, given that, what do you, Thorguy, propose should be taught in school about it?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,01:40   

Quote (Seven Popes @ April 06 2006,18:12)
I wonder who has more STD's and domestic violence, redneck men or Lesbians?  Should we teach the virtues of the Lesbian Lifestyle, and warn the flower of American womanhood about rednecks?

LOL!

Who said you can't know your science and have a sense of humour at the same time...

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,02:06   

Quote
Why and/or how are we teaching the "complex set of behaviors" of homosexuality to grade school children?  And secondly, what is the strong science that LEADS one away from the free-will hypothesis?


Regarding free will you seem to be confusing two issues. Indeed it is a choice to live a homosexual 'lifestyle' and to have homosexual sex. But I am curious as to what evidence you have that in the majority of cases the feelings of attraction towards the same sex are a result of free will.

Most gay people I know started to have these feelings at the same time or slightly later than the rest of us do. Many people struglle with it for years and it can take a psychological toll, especially when they have been raised in an environment where they have come to regard it is sinful. Additionally if they decide to come out they can expect much ridicule and bullying, especially if it is at a young age. Im not sure what you mean by teaching that homosexuality is normal, but it is very important that people who are gay are taught that there is nothing wrong with that. Of course they should be taught the statistics about AIDs etc, I certainly was when I was in high school, in the US is there a deliberate attempt to hide this information?

Teaching people that it is not OK to be gay will not make less people gay it will just make more people depressed and unhappy.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,03:29   

Quote
teaching the "complex set of behaviors" of homosexuality to grade school children
LOL. Yeah, being gay takes training. You bet.

"I wish I could quit you! But I'm so well trained."

   
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,03:47   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 06 2006,17:53)
Given these very simple facts, is it wise and prudent, let alone "educational," to teach children of the "normalcy" of homosexuality (normal as compared to what)?

Quote (thordaddy @ April 06 2006,18:17)
I only asked if it was wise and prudent, let alone "educational," to teach about the "normalcy" of homosexuality.

Quote (thordaddy @ April 06 2006,22:33)
Why and/or how are we teaching the "complex set of behaviors" of homosexuality to grade school children?

It has been repeatedly pointed out that public schools do not teach grade school children about homosexuality! Yet you keep asking the question. Why, I wondered?

Suddenly, I realized my misunderstanding. "We" in your questions obviously refers to you and your spouse/significant other/life partner/whatever. You are teaching your grade school children that homosexuality is normal, and you want to know if we can explain why. Right?

Sorry, can't help you. I have no idea why you teach your grade school children that homosexuality is normal, since you clearly don't believe it. Maybe you need some counseling?

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,10:31   

Russell opines,

Quote
But let's get to the real heart of the matter, shall we? I mean, who cares whether it's the direct action of a gene, or the indirect result of dozens genes interacting with who knows what in the environment? Anyone with half a brain will surely agree that (1) sexual orientation is largely a product of biology (2) that a small, but significant, fraction of kids will turn out to be homosexual. So, given that, what do you, Thorguy, propose should be taught in school about it?


First, you play the wise, cool, calm and collected scientist well.  Unfortunately, I am having the most enjoyable time on this site.

1. What is sexual orientation in evolutionary matters?  

2. Why would evolution produce a "homosexual" orientation in humans?

3. Why would we teach a behavior as "normal" if statistics show a high correlation (over-representation) between the behavior (homosexuality) and AIDS, STDs, drug abuse and domestic violence?

These are very simple and straighforward questions.  I assume you will impart upon me your wisdom that coincides with your answers?

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,10:46   

Chris Hyland opines,

Quote
Regarding free will you seem to be confusing two issues. Indeed it is a choice to live a homosexual 'lifestyle' and to have homosexual sex. But I am curious as to what evidence you have that in the majority of cases the feelings of attraction towards the same sex are a result of free will.


There is NO strong evidence for anything else.  An evolutionary pathway to a "homosexual" orientation seems contradictory on its face.  The search for a "gay gene" has resulted in nothing accept the exposure of science's corruptability under the pressure of political ideologues.  Homosexuals and Lesbians differentiate in many respects in terms of their "gay" behaviors suggesting 2 "gay genes" or evolutionary pathways towards "gayness."  Then we must throw in "bisexuality" which makes an evolutionary explanation all that more improbable.  

Quote
Most gay people I know started to have these feelings at the same time or slightly later than the rest of us do. Many people struglle with it for years and it can take a psychological toll, especially when they have been raised in an environment where they have come to regard it is sinful. Additionally if they decide to come out they can expect much ridicule and bullying, especially if it is at a young age. Im not sure what you mean by teaching that homosexuality is normal, but it is very important that people who are gay are taught that there is nothing wrong with that. Of course they should be taught the statistics about AIDs etc, I certainly was when I was in high school, in the US is there a deliberate attempt to hide this information?


Nothing wrong?  If the behavior shows overrepresentation in terms of AIDS, STDs, drug abuse, domestic violence and early morality then how can you say there is "nothing wrong" with that behavior?

With friends like Chris, homosexuals need more friends like thordaddy.

Is "nothing wrong" the equivalent of saying it's "normal?"

Quote
Teaching people that it is not OK to be gay will not make less people gay it will just make more people depressed and unhappy.


But you're assuming an unmalleable biological "orientation."  What's the evidence, I ask?

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,10:54   

Thor,

You said,
Quote
Most of us don't choose our heterosexuality, but a very few of us have inclinations that defy evolution.
Is that your answer to my question about whether or not you could easily turn off your attraction to the female body? That some people can but most can't? That it takes a strong (and presumably wicked) inclination to go against the tide of attraction but that it's really there all along? Would you be happy letting your daughter marry a gay guy who realized it was wrong/impractical to be gay and repented? I'm not talking about disease - let's say he's young and healthy. A woman kind of thrives when her husband is attracted to her. Do you really think this guy will give her that? Because I've spent a lot of time around gay guys, and I never felt from them any attraction or tension of the sort that usually occurs when males are around. It is so extremely comfortable that women often say gay guys make great friends.

Have they just buried their attraction to the female? Why doesn't it jump out at odd moments?

Quote

2. Why would evolution produce a "homosexual" orientation in humans?
That question has been answered. Why do you repeat it as if you had not read the responses. Tell us why you disagree with the answers, don't ignore them.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,10:58   

Quote

There is now strong evidence for anything else.

If you think you freely chose your attraction towards females, you're profoundly mistaken.
 
Quote
A evolutionary pathway to a "homosexual" orientation seems contradictory on its face.

Care to read what we told you?
Quote
 The search for a "gay gene" has resulted in nothing accept the exposure of science's corruptability under the pressure of political ideologues.  

Could you back-up your assertion?

(why do I ask anyway...?  :( )

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,11:02   

Thordaddy, do honestly believe anyone would actually choose to be gay? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to be gay in America? If being homosexual were some sort of "choice," no one in his or her right mind would "choose" to be homosexual.

I actually live in a region of the country where a significant fraction of the population is gay. And if you think that gay people suffer by comparison to straight people in any significant moral or ethical way, you're not just wrong, you're ignorant. I generally find gay people more intelligent, more engaging, more compassionate, more considerate, and generally more admirable than straight people. And I'm straight myself, if you think that I might in some way be prejudiced against straight people.

Are there gay people who are jerks? Of course. On the other hand, gay jerks are massively outnumbered by straight jerks.

And if you think defining the "beginning of life" is hard, try defining "normal."

As usual, you're trying to find some way to get science to support your bigotries and prejudices. It ain't gonna work.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,11:53   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 07 2006,15:31)
3. Why would we teach a behavior as "normal" if statistics show a high correlation (over-representation) between the behavior (homosexuality) and AIDS, STDs, drug abuse and domestic violence?

You mean, why is it considered normal to like a drink, even though alcohol is the number one factor in late evening violence, wife beating, liver cirhosis, etc etc?  You'd think that if alcohol was relly as bad as it was we would all hate the stuff.  

And just to drive the point home again- the difference between the alcohol and homosexuality is that you dont have brain structures and hormones pushing you to take a drink, at least not as far as I know.  There is more "free will" involved.  But with sexuality, all the available evidence says it is hard wired in.  Your pupils dilate and other bodily signs change when you see an attractive member of the opposite sex.  

Besides, I note you havnt actually produced any of these studies that show high correlations with anything, and of course you keep leaving lesbians out of it.  I wonder why?

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,12:08   

I don't think homosexuality should be taugh as "normal", since it's obviously not the norm (heterosexuality is).
However, since it's pretty common and, more importantly, not a reprehensible behavior (it's just two people that love each other), I don't get your concern here, daddy. ???

BTW, do you know the difference between correlation and causation?
Don't you grasp that, since homosexuals are constantly rejected, they are more susceptible to fall into drug addiction and violence?

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,12:17   

Our disagreement appears to rest mainly on the fact that you believe homosexuality to be a choice. You ask for proof otherwise, Im not sure what form this would take, as I would guess you think gay people are lying about this fact.

Quote
An evolutionary pathway to a "homosexual" orientation seems contradictory on its face.
I never said there was one, assuming it's psychological that does not mean it is the result of free will. However as I pointed out before, the existence of a 'gay gene' will lead many people to feel justified in calling it a genetic disease.

Quote
Homosexuals and Lesbians differentiate in many respects in terms of their "gay" behaviors.
Lesbians are homosexuals.

Quote
Nothing wrong?  If the behavior shows overrepresentation in terms of AIDS, STDs, drug abuse, domestic violence and early morality then how can you say there is "nothing wrong" with that behavior?

Again they should be told this, Im not saying you should encourage people to be gay, but people do commit suicide because they are gay in a society where it is seen as a sin. Students have an over representation of stds, religious people have an over representation of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STDs, teen pregnancy, and abortion. I do not think we should tell people religion and going to university are wrong, but these things are more of a choice than being gay. Again just because you are gay does not mean you go out and sleep with loads of random guys and take drugs, these things are choices, being attracted to the same sex is not.

Quote
But you're assuming an unmalleable biological "orientation."  What's the evidence, I ask?
I am happy for ther sake of argument to assume its psychological, but in the vast majority of cases it is not a choice, unless of course there is a big gay conspiracy I am not aware of. As for malleability, electric shock therapy has been shown to do the trick.

Quote
Is "nothing wrong" the equivalent of saying it's "normal?"
The most important question. No it is not, nothing wrong means that they are not automatically bad people, or sinners. They need all the information about the statistics you mentioned, and then they may or may not choose to live that lifestyle.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,12:40   

I am more than willing to put my vast reputation on the line with the prediction that homosexuality in the majority of cases can be traced to the brain.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,13:28   

Quote
Nothing wrong?  If the behavior shows overrepresentation in terms of AIDS, STDs, drug abuse, domestic violence and early morality then how can you say there is "nothing wrong" with that behavior?


Again (third time! ), got any EVIDENCE for the assertion that gays disproportionately have problems with domestic violence or drug abuse? Cuz you see, TD, you just hating gays does not constitute 'evidence', doncha know...

Also, 3rd time again, these figures are not true of gay women. Gay women have lower STD and 'early morality' rates than any other group. Does that mean they're the most moral people in society of all? Shouldn't we be teaching women to emulate them? If not, why not?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,14:15   

Quote
(Arden Chatfield: ) Again (third time! ), got any EVIDENCE for the assertion ...
Also, 3rd time again,...Shouldn't we be teaching women to emulate [lesbians]? If not, why not?

I don't suppose I'm going to have any more luck with my question:
Quote
Anyone with half a brain will surely agree that (1) sexual orientation is largely a product of biology (2) that a small, but significant, fraction of kids will turn out to be homosexual. So, given that, what do you, Thorguy, propose should be taught in school about it?

Because apparently Thordude has the "most enjoyable time on this website" by avoiding ever answering questions.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,04:34   

Quote (Russell @ April 07 2006,19:15)
[A]pparently Thordude has the "most enjoyable time on this website" by avoiding ever answering questions.
Nor ever reading any answers to his.

I see no point in attempting to engage him in honest discussion. He is quite clearly incapable of it. He's either being deliberately obtuse and dishonest, or he has some deficit in mental capacity. Perhaps both.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,06:33   

Quote
Thordaddy:  Why would we teach a behavior as "normal" if statistics show a high correlation (over-representation) between the behavior (homosexuality) and AIDS, STDs, drug abuse and domestic violence?


As others have alluded to, that correlation implies causation is a logical fallacy.

Correlation DOES NOT imply causation

This is Basic Logic 101, but it seems to have eluded Thordaddy.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,09:33   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 08 2006,11:33)
...

This is Basic Logic 101, but it seems to have eluded Thordaddy.

Many things elude Thordaddy.

I would guess that Thordaddy believes himself a moral person. Yet his behaviour here so-far indicates otherwise.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,11:01   

avocationist opines,

Quote
Is that your answer to my question about whether or not you could easily turn off your attraction to the female body? That some people can but most can't? That it takes a strong (and presumably wicked) inclination to go against the tide of attraction but that it's really there all along? Would you be happy letting your daughter marry a gay guy who realized it was wrong/impractical to be gay and repented? I'm not talking about disease - let's say he's young and healthy. A woman kind of thrives when her husband is attracted to her. Do you really think this guy will give her that? Because I've spent a lot of time around gay guys, and I never felt from them any attraction or tension of the sort that usually occurs when males are around. It is so extremely comfortable that women often say gay guys make great friends.


I don't think there is any evidence that people choose their heterosexuality.  Most people will readily admit that they didn't.  This seems to make sense because evolution HAS NO NEED to devise "sexual orientations" especially those (homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality) that seemingly defy the basis for evolution, namely, reproduction.  There are a lot of "choices" people make that they wish that hadn't.  Does this means they are ALL genetically-based "choices?"

Quote
Have they just buried their attraction to the female? Why doesn't it jump out at odd moments?


Or they are really just attracted to other males and they rely on those like you who say, "Who would choose this lifestyle?"  They derive benefit from the behavior?


Quote
That question has been answered. Why do you repeat it as if you had not read the responses. Tell us why you disagree with the answers, don't ignore them.


Then write the answer out specifically so I don't miss again, please?

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,11:16   

ericmurphy opines,

Quote
Thordaddy, do honestly believe anyone would actually choose to be gay? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to be gay in America? If being homosexual were some sort of "choice," no one in his or her right mind would "choose" to be homosexual.


Would anyone honestly choose to do a lot of things that have negative consequences?  Obviously, they do! Is your stance that all such situations genetically-based?  So if no one would "choose" to be homosexual, is such an orientation ABNORMAL?

Quote
I actually live in a region of the country where a significant fraction of the population is gay. And if you think that gay people suffer by comparison to straight people in any significant moral or ethical way, you're not just wrong, you're ignorant. I generally find gay people more intelligent, more engaging, more compassionate, more considerate, and generally more admirable than straight people. And I'm straight myself, if you think that I might in some way be prejudiced against straight people.


That matters NOT A WIT to a father who has 2 young children and has to make a decision to send his children into a very deceitful school system.

I mean, look at all the responses from supposed scientists, and the total denial of the fact that American homosexuals are HIGHLY-OVERREPRESENTATED in incidences of AIDS, STDs, drug abuse, domestic violence and early mortality.

This is a fact and you are suggesting I should remain ignorant to the fact that the California school system has a friendly pro-gay stance.  Homosexuality is "normal," but then it isn't because NO ONE would CHOOSE such a lifestyle, right?

Quote
Are there gay people who are jerks? Of course. On the other hand, gay jerks are massively outnumbered by straight jerks.


But I could care less about "homosexual" personalities.  I've known gay people and whatever they do in their personal life is their business.  Teaching the "normalcy" of homosexuality is a whole other ballgame for a father of two.

Quote
And if you think defining the "beginning of life" is hard, try defining "normal."


So again we play the game.  Blur what it is to mean "normal" and abracadabra... Homsexuality is normal.

Quote
As usual, you're trying to find some way to get science to support your bigotries and prejudices. It ain't gonna work.


But of course... do you do anything different?  Your whole retort was devoid of any science and totally represented your biases and prejudices in favor of the "normalcy" of homosexuals.  Then again, NO ONE would choose to be "homosexual."  But they're still "normal."

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,12:17   

Quote
I mean, look at all the responses from supposed scientists, and the total denial of the fact that American homosexuals are HIGHLY-OVERREPRESENTATED in incidences of AIDS, STDs, drug abuse, domestic violence and early mortality.


'OVERREPRESENTATED', eh? Sounds pretty bad, whatever it means. The caps just make it more severe...

And last time you said they had high rates of 'early morality'. Which is it, 'early morality' or 'early mortality'?

So, for the 4th time, have any EVIDENCE for these claims, TD?

Cuz, you know, hating gays and putting your comments in boldface doesn't prove shlt, don't you know.

Well, I don't know, maybe that IS proof if you think that science and religion are the same thing.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,12:25   

Could somebody explain to me what you guys get out of arguing "issues" with the mentally retarded?

It's amazing how long these ridiculous threads go.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,13:07   

Arden,

You asking me to provide evidence for my assertions is like me asking you for evidence of evolution.

You want to say I'm in denial while you are in denial.

The difference is that I don't claim to be an "objective" scientist.

Let's ask a scientific question?

Why would evolution devise a "sexual orientation?"

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,13:27   

Thor,

Quote
I don't think there is any evidence that people choose their heterosexuality.  Most people will readily admit that they didn't.  This seems to make sense because evolution HAS NO NEED to devise "sexual orientations" especially those (homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality) that seemingly defy the basis for evolution, namely, reproduction.  There are a lot of "choices" people make that they wish that hadn't.  Does this means they are ALL genetically-based "choices?"
No, it does not. but evidence from animal studies that I have read, which were about pollution and not sexuality, discovered that in nature there is a wide array of sexual expressions in, for example, mice, and it depends upon the levels of hormone that each embryo was exposed to in the womb. This is normal variation, not pathological. For example, a male lying between two sisters or a female lying between two brothers will get a bigger dose of exposure to the opposite sex hormones. This affects brain development and later sexual expression. The more masculine females are less common and less attractive to the males, but under adverse conditions are more likely to thrive. There are just too many stories of people feeling different from childhood and being bewildered by their lack of attraction to the opposite sex, which they fully expected. There are many tragic stories of suicidal despair by homosexual who tried and wished they could change. Tchaikovsky is supposed to have killed himself over it, and died believing he was headed to ####.

Quote

Have they just buried their attraction to the female? Why doesn't it jump out at odd moments?
__
Or they are really just attracted to other males and they rely on those like you
Thor this response makes absolutely no sense. Because yes, we are saying exactly that - they are just attracted to other males. and why is that?

Quote
Then write the answer out specifically so I don't miss again, please?
Briefly, that a human group which has the occasional adult who isn't marrying and producing kids has extra assistance in raising the young. I've certainly noticed that gay people are often close to their parents and lend them more support in their old age. It is pretty taxing to have a family of your own as you well know. A childless uncle may take greater interest in his nieces and nephews since he is less burdened. And someone quoted a study showing that women with a gay relative seem to have more children.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,13:34   

Quote
Thordaddy: I mean, look at all the responses from supposed scientists, and the total denial of the fact that American homosexuals are HIGHLY-OVERREPRESENTATED in incidences of AIDS, STDs, drug abuse, domestic violence and early mortality.


And African-American males ages 18-29 are also HIGHLY-OVERREPRESENTATED in the same areas.  For the third time, correlation DOES NOT imply causation.

Has it ever dawned on your bigoted little brain that such numbers could be affected by the stress due to discrimination, social ostracism, and threats of physical violence that gays are subjected to?

The Australian Medical Association did detailed studies in 2002 that came to exactly that conclusion.

Please read carefully the sections on discrimination, and its negative effect on health.

Quote
1.Sexual Diversity in Society
1.1 Homosexuality is defined as the sexual and emotional attraction to members of the same sex, and has existed in most societies for as long as sexual beliefs and practices have been recorded. The proportion of the population that is not exclusively heterosexual has been estimated at between 8 and 11 percent. This figure will naturally vary depending on the definitions used to describe the continuum of sexual identity that exists in our society.

1.2 Societal attitudes towards homosexuality have had a decisive impact on the extent to which individuals have been able to express their sexual orientation. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Subsequently homosexuality was recognised as a form of sexual orientation or expression rather than a mental illness.2 This move by the medical professional was instrumental in improving the health and welfare of this population.

1.3 Strong family connections are important to the health and well being of individuals, and recently there has been greater recognition of the diversity of family structures that exist in our society. These family structures could include nuclear families, single parents, blended families from remarriages as well as gay and lesbian parents. Accurate statistics regarding the number of parents who are gay or lesbian is difficult to obtain, as this data is not routinely collected. However, the American Academy of Paediatrics states that ‘the weight of evidence gathered during several decades using diverse samples and methodologies is persuasive in demonstrating that there is no systematic difference between gay and nongay parents in emotional health, parenting skills, and attitudes towards parenting. No data have pointed to any risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with one or more gay parents.’

2. Discrimination
2.1 The term “heterosexism” has been used to describe the discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex (GLBTI) populations. Heterosexism encompasses the belief that all people are and should be heterosexual and that alternative sexualities pose a threat to society. In this way heterosexism includes homophobia, a fear of alternative sexualities, and transphobia, a fear of alternative gender identities. It may also include a fear of intersex people who do not fit neatly into the binary categories of male and female.

2.2 Discrimination may be overt as in verbal abuse and physical violence or as covert as the silence that surrounds talking about GLBTI issues. This affects all members of society as individuals comply with gender role stereotypes in order to avoid homophobic discrimination. It is a constraint on human behavior that serves to diminish individual potential for development as well as diversity in our community.

2.3 The common experience of discrimination means that the health of GLBTI populations differs from that of the general population. This discrimination leads to health problems that are shared by this group as well as health problems specific to each subgroup. For GLBTI individuals the impact of this discrimination can lead to a poorer general health status, diminished utilization of healthcare facilities and a decreased quality of health services.

3. Shared Health Issues
3.1 Society’s acceptance of diverse sexualities and gender identities is a major factor in an individual’s successful transition through various lifestages. These significant lifestages include childhood, youth, middle age and ageing. As GLBTI people transition through these lifestages there are a number of health issues that are commonly faced.

3.2 Mental health problems are statistically over-represented in this population throughout life due to exposure to discriminatory behavior. One of the main groups affected by homophobia is same-sex attracted young people, particularly those living in rural areas where there is greater social isolation from GLBTI peers and role models. A consequence of this discrimination for GLBTI young people is that they have increased rates of homelessness, risk-taking behavior, depression, suicide and episodes of self-harm compared to their heterosexual cohorts.

3.3 The experience of violence is higher for the GLBTI community than the general population10 and a recent survey of the GLBTI community in Victoria indicated that “over 70% of respondents had been subject to an experience of public abuse in the past 5 years”. This experience may range from verbal abuse to physical attack. The experience or threat of violence has the potential to have a significant impact on an individual’s physical and mental health.

3.4 Patterns of drug and alcohol use within the GLBTI community are greater that that of the general population. The increased incidence of smoking and alcohol intake is also of concern in relation to cardiovascular risk factors. There is support for the theory linking individual patterns of drug and alcohol misuse with experiences of discrimination.


AMA Position Statement on Sexual Diversity

If you wish to raise your kids to be as bigoted as you are, that's your decision.  Just don't expect them to get very far in the modern world.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,13:35   

Quote
Arden,
...

Let's ask a scientific question?

Why would evolution devise a "sexual orientation?"

Yeah Arden! You got an answer for that? Got something for that in your big answer-book? Huh?

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,13:59   

:07-->
Quote (thordaddy @ April 08 2006,18:07)
Arden,

You asking me to provide evidence for my assertions is like me asking you for evidence of evolution.

You want to say I'm in denial while you are in denial.

The difference is that I don't claim to be an "objective" scientist.

Let's ask a scientific question?

Why would evolution devise a "sexual orientation?"


Gotcha, TD. Beautiful nonanswer. Basically, you're making shlt up. Thanks for clarifying that.

I forgot, this is Planet Thordaddy, where if Thordaddy believes anything strongly enough that makes it true.

And if someone else shows him he's full of shlt, that proves that person is 'nonobjective'.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,02:33   

Thordaddy, don't try to derail my lovely thread!  I purposely started another because I didn't want to derail yours.
Would a "gay gene" refute I.D.?
Can you not answer that simple question?  Must you run away from the answer every time?  I just want to know Thordaddy, if a gene or set of genes is found to cause homosexuality, would this refute Intelligent Design?  
Fifth try Thordaddy, would a "gay gene" refute I.D.?

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,13:05   

Seven Popes asks,

Quote
Fifth try Thordaddy, would a "gay gene" refute I.D.?


No.

Homosexuality is a product of free-will.

Is that straightforward enough?

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,13:24   

I just want to know Thordaddy, if a gene or set of genes is found to cause homosexuality, would this refute Intelligent Design?  
sixth try Thordaddy, would a "gay gene" refute I.D.?

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,15:30   

LOL.  amazing.

I think you maybe need to use smaller words for him, or something?

maybe if you pointed out the inherent contradiction in his non-answer?

how bout this:

TD:

IF there is a gay gene, would that refute ID?

maybe it's the emphasis that's missing?

I can't think of any simpler words to use, actually.

but i have a question for you:

Do you really expect an answer worth the time you spent asking him?

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,15:48   

Thanks for your concern, Sir toejam, but I can think of no better way of entertaining myself.  I live in a rural community in the deep south, and I enjoy pulling my pickup truck next to one belonging to the local rednecks.  They will then speed up, closing the gap between themselves and the car in front of them.  They simply can't stand being passed.
I will then fall back a bit, and when they have done the same, I will speed up a bit.  They close the gap.  They have no choice. I have gotten them to dance with me as many as seven times.  They cannot help themselves even when they know that they are being manipulated.
The same is true with Thordaddy.  I have shown my hand now, but it'll be very difficult for him to address the question i've posed.  He'd rather speed up.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,16:01   

Quote
I can think of no better way of entertaining myself


I understand; forget i asked.

er, carry on.

a bit of parting advice:

"Don't play games with pickups that have shotgun racks."

Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda taught me that.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,02:56   

Quote (sir_toejam @ April 10 2006,21:01)
"Don't play games with pickups that have shotgun racks."

Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda taught me that.

Wow.  Someone else as old as I am  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,03:18   

I can't quite parse the original question. The answer is, "That's the way the Designer chose to do it." The question seems entirely irrelevant. So ID can't be refuted by anything at all.

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,04:35   

Herr Toejam, I might change my handle to Uneasy Rider, thanks for reminding me of a classic.  I loved Jack Nicholson in the football helmet. :D
Midnight voice, I am consistantly surprised by the ages of people met sight unseen.  I have met youngsters in their twenties who are incredibly mature, and oldsters like myself who do silly things like this creating this thread. :(
Flint, this thread comes from a simular thread started by Thordaddy.  I did not wish to derail his rhetorical gem, entitled "Will A Gay Gene Refute Evolution".
Thordaddy believes that homosexuality is wrong, and uses tortured logic to support homophobic teaching.  He pointed out that since homosexual men have a greater incidence of HIV/AIDS, we need to teach our students about the dangers of homosexuality.  When I pointed out that lesbians have infection rates far below that of heterosexuals, and asked if we should teach our daughters about the virtues of a lesbian life, he fell silent.
I set up a paradoxical question, Since he postulated the existance of a gay gene in his thread, I would ask him if his designer (clearly to him, it's the Christian God) made homosexuals.  Now Thordaddies particular flavor of christianity doesn't think highly of homosexuals (I've seen the insides of their homes, they need gay men more than gays need them.  I.D. might also mean interior decorating). It seem unjust for his God to create them (with this "gay gene"), only to send them to Hades. The question was not really about refuting I.D., it was about exposing Thordaddies designer. I believe that Thordaddy is a creationist hiding behind I.D. in order to push his theology into public education.  In other posts, he denies that Intelligent Design's credibility was damaged by Kitzmiller v Dover.  
I (regrettably) baited him by pointing out that people who shared his ideology had committed perjury in that court case, in effect "lying for Jesus".  I used the Judge Jones quote:
Quote
"It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

Since then, Thordaddy will hardly repond to any of my posts, and when he does, it's by attempting to derail this thread or by pummeling his straw man, not mine.  He can't honestly answer the question.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,05:07   

Quote
I am consistantly surprised by the ages of people met sight unseen.


I don't know if it surprises anybody, but despite the immaturity I repeatedly display in not just letting T-diddy et al. stew in their ignorance, I recall seeing "Easy Rider" during my freshman year in college.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,05:13   

seven popes:

My suspicion is that thordaddy knows queers choose to be sinful, but has never before had to think it through. The effort to do so requires that he apply skepticism to his absolutes, and I can see that this renders him confused, incoherent, and circular. It also highlights that he has certain blind spots, so that good questions like yours simply don't exist. They're literally not there.

I saw Easy Rider after I returned from two tours in Vietnam. And I thought it was too violent!

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,08:46   

well, having done two tours in 'Nam would make you an expert on what is violent, that's for sure!

I'd agree with you, for the time it seemed awfully brutal.

but of course i was only 9 when it came out (my brother snuck me in to see it - shhh!;), so...

IIRC, that was the first time i ever saw a naked woman on the big screen.

actually, I've of course seen it many times since, and yes, there are some scenes that still disturb me.

which means it's a good movie.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,10:27   

Seven Popes,

I answered your question with an unequivocal NO and you still claim I haven't answered your question.

Will a "gay gene" refute ID, you ask?

No, I say!  Homosexuality, given all the current evidence, is a product of free-will and a lifestyle choice.

How much clearer do I need to be?

You start from the assumption that homosexuality is an unalterable genetic orientation.  What is this based on, exactly?

What of "bisexuality?"

Are there 2 "gay genes" and 1 "semi-gay gene?"

You say,

Quote
Thordaddy believes that homosexuality is wrong, and uses tortured logic to support homophobic teaching.  He pointed out that since homosexual men have a greater incidence of HIV/AIDS, we need to teach our students about the dangers of homosexuality.  When I pointed out that lesbians have infection rates far below that of heterosexuals, and asked if we should teach our daughters about the virtues of a lesbian life, he fell silent.


When have I said "homosexuality" was "wrong?"  I've only said it was "unnatural" and "abnormal."  Even the AMA agreed with me at one point.  But what science did they use to change that designation?  None!  It was a politically-motivated re-evaluation.

And I am not silent on your irrevelant topic of lesbianism.  Your question shows how absurd it is to teach EITHER homosexuality or lesbianism to young school children.  Just because lesbianism doesn't have outrageous levels of disease is only a greater indication of how "unnatural" and "abnormal" homosexuality really is.  There are very DISTINCT differences between lesbianism and homosexuality.  Should we teach those differences?

Quote
I set up a paradoxical question, Since he postulated the existance of a gay gene in his thread, I would ask him if his designer (clearly to him, it's the Christian God) made homosexuals.  Now Thordaddies particular flavor of christianity doesn't think highly of homosexuals (I've seen the insides of their homes, they need gay men more than gays need them.  I.D. might also mean interior decorating). It seem unjust for his God to create them (with this "gay gene"), only to send them to Hades.


Again, another "scientist" who thinks that someone who disagrees with teaching young children about the "normalcy" of homosexuality and gayness MUST be religious.  Clearly, this is a fallacious assumption.  That's like me claiming that ALL those that SUPPORT the "normalization" of homosexuality are radical left-wing athiests.  Is that you, Seven Popes?  I've made no religious arguments because they aren't necessary in addressing my concern.
I'm appealing to SCEINCE for answers and all I keep running into are ideologues.

Quote
The question was not really about refuting I.D., it was about exposing Thordaddies designer. I believe that Thordaddy is a creationist hiding behind I.D. in order to push his theology into public education.  In other posts, he denies that Intelligent Design's credibility was damaged by Kitzmiller v Dover.


I knew very little about ID or evolution until about 3 months ago when this Dover case made into to the media spotlight.  I am a political junkie.  I have no intentions of sending my kids to public schools.  It's a bureaucracy built for mass mediocrity.  It's relevance in the global economy is declining.  Why?  All of your assumptions are fallacious and a sign of a narrow-minded ideologue.  

Quote
I (regrettably) baited him by pointing out that people who shared his ideology had committed perjury in that court case, in effect "lying for Jesus".  I used the Judge Jones quote:

Quote  
"It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."


Since when did one man's opinion because gospel?  LOL!  There is your ideology showing again.  

Judge Jones acts as if religious people and IDers HAVE to be one in the same and the area of their specific endeavors are entirely the same.  What a blinkered and ignorant view.  

Quote
Since then, Thordaddy will hardly repond to any of my posts, and when he does, it's by attempting to derail this thread or by pummeling his straw man, not mine.  He can't honestly answer the question


No!  How much more honest do need me to be?

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,10:48   

Quote
I answered your question with an unequivocal NO and you still claim I haven't answered your question.

Will a "gay gene" refute ID, you ask?

No, I say!  Homosexuality, given all the current evidence, is a product of free-will and a lifestyle choice.


Holy dense as a black hole, Batman!

Didn't someone in another thread point out a major sociological distinction that TD fits to a "T"?

He is apparently completely mentally incapable of understanding conditional statements.

or any kind of logic, in general.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,10:48   

Quote
Homosexuality, given all the current evidence, is a product of free-will and a lifestyle choice.
What evidence?

Quote
There are very DISTINCT differences between lesbianism and homosexuality.
Lesbians are homosexual, they are also gay.

Quote
Again, another "scientist" who thinks that someone who disagrees with teaching young children about the "normalcy" of homosexuality and gayness MUST be religious.
Well are you against teaching that it doesn't automatically make them freaks or bad people?

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,10:56   

I just want to know Thordaddy, IF a gene or set of genes is found to cause homosexuality, would this refute Intelligent Design?  
Seventh try Thordaddy, would a "gay gene" refute I.D?

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,11:00   

wow, OK, i can see where this game can be fun.

requires little effort to demonstrate a general sociological idiom.

do you think that pickup he drives will ever run out of gas, Seven?

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,11:00   

Chris Hyland asks,

Quote
What evidence?


Exactly... "what evidence" is there for a genetic component for homosexuality?  This is what I keep looking for and since we cannot find it I make the crazy assumption that is represents a choice.

Quote
Lesbians are homosexual, they are also gay.


So as to clarify, homosexuals are gay males and lesbians are gay females.  They both represent gays in general.

Quote
Well are you against teaching that it doesn't automatically make them freaks or bad people?


Are you honestly asserting that this takes place in the public school system outside fringe cases?  You seem to know little about the ethos and political leanings of most of the teachers in the US public school system.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,11:05   

Seven Popes,

A "gay gene" would NOT refute ID BECAUSE such a gene would further strain the credibility of evolutionary theory.  A "gay gene" would bolster the credibility of ID.

Is this answer clear enough?

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,11:08   

:00-->
Quote (thordaddy @ April 11 2006,16:00)

Quote
Lesbians are homosexual, they are also gay.


So as to clarify, homosexuals are gay males and lesbians are gay females.  They both represent gays in general.


WHAT

Oh man ,I'm so sorry I didn't pay any attention to this thread before.

:D  :D  :D  :D  :D

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,11:49   

Quote
homosexuals are gay males and lesbians are gay females
Perhaps T-diddy thinks that the "homo" in "homosexual" is from the Latin homo  ("man", like in Homo sapiens) and doesn't realize it's from the Greek 'oµo ("same").

I suspect he's phallocephalic.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,11:55   

Since is doesn't make sense to use homosexual as meaning both gay males and gay females as it pertains to the stats I provided, I used the common American reference to gay males, namely, homosexuals.

Maybe neither of you are American?  Homosexual is commonly used to mean gay MALES while lesbian refers to gay FEMALES.  They are both considered GAY.  Understand?

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,11:59   

Quote (Russell @ April 11 2006,16:49)
I suspect he's phallocephalic.

:D
I'm gonna start using this word regularly from now on! Too bad we don't have one with a similar meaning in Greece...

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,12:05   

Thor, if by "common American reference" you mean "common reference by those Americans who use words without trying to find out what they mean first", then I guess you're right.
Try here for starters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Jay Ray



Posts: 92
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,12:18   

Duh.

Homo = same
Sexual = gender

It's synonymous with plain ol' gay.

Ergo, anyone that is homosexual prefers sex within their gender.  Male, female, or otherwise.

Lesbian is specific to homosexual females.

Male homosexuals don't have a non-derogatory term associated with them, but I'm sure you can think of several.

Perhaps unsatisfactory and confusing to a linear thinking machine like T-Diddy, but true nonetheless.  The universe is an analog process, mate. Get with the program!

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,12:29   

Quote
Maybe neither of you are American?  Homosexual is commonly used to mean gay MALES while lesbian refers to gay FEMALES
First I've heard that, and I've lived in America my whole life.
But hey! Don't take my word for it (or Merriam-Webster's). Why don't you poll all your gay friends?  :D :D :D
Consider the possibility that you're just as wrong in your other perceptions as you so obviously are on this.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,13:29   

Thordaddy,
Quote
A "gay gene" would NOT refute ID BECAUSE such a gene would further strain the credibility of evolutionary theory.  A "gay gene" would bolster the credibility of ID.
explain.
1.A "gay gene" would NOT refute ID BECAUSE such a gene would further strain the credibility of evolutionary theory.

Evolution clearly predicts that there will be products of gene combinations which are not beneficial to the reproductive or survival abilities of a species.  This neatly explains stupid hillbillies.  They tend to die in tragic lawn mower racing accidents, or because they didn't know that driving off ether to produce Methamphetamines is best done with a vacum, not by boiling on an open gas flame.  Yet, near where I live they have established an enclave, and are thriving.  


2.A "gay gene" would bolster the credibility of ID.

Proof that the designer wanted there to be gay people? And that the designer genetically hard-coded the Gayness into them?  This is going to be great. :0

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,13:43   

Seven Popes,

Since we assumed your "gay gene" for the purpose of answering your question, can we now explain what exactly is a "gay gene?"

You seem to suggest that such a "gay gene" would be equivalent to a  "hillbilly gene."  Can we say these represent bad mutations?  

When I say a "gay gene" will bolster ID, I say this with the understanding that the "gay gene" will be mocked by the masses as corrupt science and a "gay gene" has no real meaning further undermining evolutionary theory.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,13:47   

Quote
Exactly... "what evidence" is there for a genetic component for homosexuality?  This is what I keep looking for and since we cannot find it I make the crazy assumption that is represents a choice.
Your're right it is crazy, assuming that it is purely psychological that is no reason to think it represents choice. It also could be due to hormone levels during pregnancy, this is neither genetic nor a choice.

Quote
Are you honestly asserting that this takes place in the public school system outside fringe cases?  You seem to know little about the ethos and political leanings of most of the teachers in the US public school system.
Fair enough, but I am asking your opinion on whether it is acceptable to tell children who might be experiencing these feelings that they are not freaks or bad people. I am not sure what does take place in the US school system, but the I don't think that saying homosexuality is 'normal' (although I think this is unnessecary at best) if that is what people are saying, will increase the number of people who decide to be gay. Telling people the potential consequences of entering the 'gay lifestyle' is a good idea, and I know I was certainly taught it when I was in high school (although where I grew up students on average took more drugs and caught more stds than homosexuals).

Quote
can we now explain what exactly is a "gay gene?"
The gay gene codes for the transcription factor Sodomase, which increases estrogen production during development. :D ...maybe.

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,14:19   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 11 2006,18:43)
Seven Popes,

Since we assumed your "gay gene" for the purpose of answering your question, can we now explain what exactly is a "gay gene?"

You seem to suggest that such a "gay gene" would be equivalent to a  "hillbilly gene."  Can we say these represent bad mutations?  

When I say a "gay gene" will bolster ID, I say this with the understanding that the "gay gene" will be mocked by the masses as corrupt science and a "gay gene" has no real meaning further undermining evolutionary theory.


1.)Thordaddy,
Quote

Since we assumed your "gay gene" for the purpose of answering your question, can we now explain what exactly is a "gay gene?"

The one you mentioned in your post:
Quote
Posted: April 04 2006,20:41    
There is new talk of a "gay gene" being profferred by "scientists."

My question is this;

Would this not represent a refutation of evolution?  Or more modestly, would this not at the minimum represent a bad mutation naturally selected?  What in evolution would justify a selection of a "gay gene?"

I assumed you knew what you were talking about.
2.)Thordaddy:
Quote
You seem to suggest that such a "gay gene" would be equivalent to a  "hillbilly gene."  Can we say these represent bad mutations?

Thordaddy, is English your second language?  I wrote in my post:
Quote
Evolution clearly predicts that there will be products of gene combinations which are not beneficial to the reproductive or survival abilities of a species.

3.)Thordaddy:
Quote

When I say a "gay gene" will bolster ID, I say this with the understanding that the "gay gene" will be mocked by the masses as corrupt science and a "gay gene" has no real meaning further undermining evolutionary theory.

The masses don't have to understand.  The masses are free to mock.  If science is right, than it is right. My question is a simple one,
I just want to know Thordaddy, IF a gene or set of genes is found to cause homosexuality, would this refute Intelligent Design?  
nineth try Thordaddy, would a "gay gene" refute I.D?

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,14:29   

technically, i think that's the eighth time you have repeated the question using the same phrasing.

did i miss one?

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,14:36   

No Sir toejam, I defer to your superior maths (and I went back and counted).  The queery count (  ;)  ) stands at eight.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,14:38   

Seven Popes,

Searching for something you can't find isn't the same as explaining what it is you're looking for.

Scientists are looking for a "gay gene."  If they tell us what it looks like then maybe we can help find it?

What does this "gay gene" look like?

You think, "oh, it looks like it causes homosexuality," will satisfy as an answer.

Since I granted your nonexistent "gay gene" for sake of argument, can you tell me what the "gay gene" looks like for the same reason?

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,14:42   

Quote
Scientists are looking for a "gay gene."
I'm pretty sure they're not. But maybe that's just T-diddy's sloppy shorthand for "scientists are looking for genetic components of a predisposition towards homosexuality".

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,14:44   

Thordaddy:
Quote
Since I granted your nonexistent "gay gene" for sake of argument,

Uhhhh, Thordaddy, it's your gene.  From the Gay gene evo thread.  I quoted you.  Read carefully. It helps if you sound out the letters.  Slowly.

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,14:47   

I just want to know Thordaddy, IF a gene or set of genes is found to cause homosexuality, would this refute Intelligent Design?  
nineth try Thordaddy, would a "gay gene" refute I.D?

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,14:56   

Here Russell...,

Gay Gene

But notice the assumption upon which the "gay gene" is built?  The assumption is that evolution provides for "sexual orientations."  Is the mere existence of the act of homosexuality sufficient evidence to conclude that evolution provides for "sexual orientation?"

Why would living organisms need an "orientation" outside that which provides for reproduction, namely, evolution?

Homosexuality is counter to reproduction.  Evolution provides for this?

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,15:00   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 11 2006,19:56)
Why would living organisms need an "orientation" outside that which provides for reproduction, namely, evolution?

Homosexuality is counter to reproduction.  Evolution provides for this?

Read all the posts, and your question will be answered

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,15:02   

I just want to know Thordaddy, IF a gene or set of genes is found to cause homosexuality, would this refute Intelligent Design?  
tenth try Thordaddy, would a "gay gene" refute I.D?

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,16:02   

Isn't it fun to watch a homophobic bigot like Thordaddy try to justify his bigotry?  Especially when he's so ignorant on the topic he thinks the term homosexual only refers to males?  Wouldn’t surprise me at all if our Thordaddy has some gay leanings himself, and only posts his hateful rants here to ease his sense of self loathing.

Quote
Thordaddy: Homosexuality, given all the current evidence, is a product of free-will and a lifestyle choice.


Suuuuuuure it is, if you discount all the current studies that show an evolutionary advantage to having gays around to help with child-rearing, and those that show a dramatic statistical correlation between the chances of being gay and having a certain amount/type of siblings.  Of course you also have to totally ignore the personal testimony of millions upon millions of gays who will tell you that their sexual preference is not a conscious decision.  I guess if you have your head up your ass as far as Thordaddy, it's easy to block out those things you don't want to hear.

And there's that "gay lifestyle" T-wad keeps harping on.  I wonder if he'll ever tell us what it means?  Do 100% of gays lead this "gay lifestyle"?  50%?  5%?  Do the gay police arrest you if you're gay and don't behave like T-wad expects?  Nothing like a little group stereotyping to help with your demonization, right?

All blacks are lazy and shiftless
All hispanics are thieves
All asians can't drive
All gays choose the "gay lifestyle".

Quote
Thordaddy:  And I am not silent on your irrevelant topic of lesbianism.  Your question shows how absurd it is to teach EITHER homosexuality or lesbianism to young school children.  Just because lesbianism doesn't have outrageous levels of disease is only a greater indication of how "unnatural" and "abnormal" homosexuality really is.  There are very DISTINCT differences between lesbianism and homosexuality.  Should we teach those differences?


NOW we’re getting somewhere.  Maybe T-wad can tell us those very DISTINCT differences between female same-sex couples and male same-sex couples.  

I bet I know what the real difference is.  When T-wad sees two gay males kissing he goes “Ewwww, that’s icky!”, but he’d pay good money to watch two hot looking gay women making out.  Am I right Thordaddy?

Sir Toejam has been correct along.  There’s no reason to argue with such an idiot homophobe.  It’s just good mental exercise, and may help the occasional lurker get a long hard look at just how low a bigoted Christian fundy can sink.

Quote
Thordaddy:  How much more honest do need me to be?


Well T-wad, any honest thing you post from here on out will be your first.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
W. Kevin Vicklund



Posts: 68
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,16:20   

Not surprisingly, thorluther gets his definitions wrong.  A gay is a homosexual man, and a lesbian is a homosexual woman.  Of course, gay can also be generalized to include lesbians.

Also, while homosexuality may or may not be "abnormal", it is certainly natural - over 300 species of vertebrates and invertebrates are documented to engage in homosexual behaviors.  There are a number of evolutionary advantages and explanations for homosexual behavior.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,19:36   

Russell,

Read Occam's Aftershave for a shiny example of that which I speak.  It's pure ideology.

Occam Aftershave opines,

Quote
Isn't it fun to watch a homophobic bigot like Thordaddy try to justify his bigotry?  Especially when he's so ignorant on the topic he thinks the term homosexual only refers to males?  Wouldn’t surprise me at all if our Thordaddy has some gay leanings himself, and only posts his hateful rants here to ease his sense of self loathing.


What exactly is a "homophobic bigot?"  Isn't that a type of stereotyping that you roundly condemn?  And then you demonize me by claiming my homosexuality?  LOL!  Am I afraid of "males" or "sameness?"  If homosexuality is genetically-based then what do I have to be afraid of exactly?  These are few question for the pseudo-scientist.

Then you spew,

Quote
Suuuuuuure it is, if you discount all the current studies that show an evolutionary advantage to having gays around to help with child-rearing, and those that show a dramatic statistical correlation between the chances of being gay and having a certain amount/type of siblings.  Of course you also have to totally ignore the personal testimony of millions upon millions of gays who will tell you that their sexual preference is not a conscious decision.  I guess if you have your head up your ass as far as Thordaddy, it's easy to block out those things you don't want to hear.


Boy, that isn't the same science I'm reading.  My science says there MAYBE a genetically-based predisposition towards homosexuality with environmental factors playing a key role effecting that disposition.  As for "evolutionary advantage" to homosexuality, that's seems a stretch since survival through reproduction is the primary function of evolution.  You are asserting an "orientation" that rejects reproduction, but perhaps helps the results of reproduction?  Again, what is the need for homosexuality from an evolutionary standpoint?

Quote
And there's that "gay lifestyle" T-wad keeps harping on.  I wonder if he'll ever tell us what it means?  Do 100% of gays lead this "gay lifestyle"?  50%?  5%?  Do the gay police arrest you if you're gay and don't behave like T-wad expects?  Nothing like a little group stereotyping to help with your demonization, right?


You've already shown that stereotyping doesn't bother you when you stereotyped me as a "homophobic bigot."  The "gay lifestyle" is one in which someone engages in gay sex and associates their identity with their sexuality and follows a very recognizable and distinct ideological system.  I wouldn't claim that all gays are active in this respect, but there are certainly many who are.  Your feigned ignorance does nothing to change this fact.

Quote
All blacks are lazy and shiftless
All hispanics are thieves
All asians can't drive
All gays choose the "gay lifestyle".


This is what they teach you at public school?

Next you say,

Quote
NOW we’re getting somewhere.  Maybe T-wad can tell us those very DISTINCT differences between female same-sex couples and male same-sex couples.


Distinct levels of AIDS and STDs between homosexuals and lesbians.  Distinct levels of monogamous and polygamous relationships.  Distinct levels for sexual partners.  These are just a few distinctions.  

Quote
I bet I know what the real difference is.  When T-wad sees two gay males kissing he goes “Ewwww, that’s icky!”, but he’d pay good money to watch two hot looking gay women making out.  Am I right Thordaddy?


Yeah, that's right!  LOL!  I've never paid money to watch lesbians, actually.  And for your information, I think all the faux-lesbianism that passes for cool these days is rather trivial and immature.  But if you are wondering whether I see a difference between two gay men and two gay women, well, yes, there is a difference as males elicit no sexual attraction while the women may regardless of whether they were engaged with each other.

Quote
Sir Toejam has been correct along.  There’s no reason to argue with such an idiot homophobe.  It’s just good mental exercise, and may help the occasional lurker get a long hard look at just how low a bigoted Christian fundy can sink.


The only ignorant one is you and the drivel you've been indoctrinated with.  

You claimed that discrimination causes AIDS.  Using discrimination is the BEST WAY TO AVOID AIDS especially for practicing homosexuals.

With friends like Occam, homosexuals need more friends like thordaddy.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,19:39   

Quote
homosexuals need more friends like thordaddy.


I suspected as much.

sure your name isn't "sugardaddy"?

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,19:45   

Opines

Wailing and moaning she opines
How can I read something between the lines?

Thordaddy's told me how I've got to choose
And now I'm singin' the celibate blues

Cause even though he's a patent twit
I see a man but I want a ....

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2006,09:51   

All quotes from Thordaddy

Quote
What exactly is a "homophobic bigot?"


Someone like you with an irrational fear of any person who has a different sexuality than what you deem “correct”, and who espouses discrimination against those persons based on your fears.

Quote
Isn't that a type of stereotyping that you roundly condemn?


Nope.  Stereotyping in making a judgment on ALL members of a group based on the actions of a few individuals, like demonizing all gays based on the few militants you see on TV.  You as an individual are showing to be a homophobic bigot based on your individual actions here.

Quote
And then you demonize me by claiming my homosexuality?


Not at all, just pointing out a plausible reason for your hate filled anti-gay diatribes.  Do you have a better explanation?

Quote
LOL!  Am I afraid of "males" or "sameness?" If homosexuality is genetically-based then what do I have to be afraid of exactly?  


Absolutely nothing, yet you obviously are petrified of gays to the point of actively denying them their civil rights.

Quote
Boy, that isn't the same science I'm reading.  My science says there MAYBE a genetically-based predisposition towards homosexuality with environmental factors playing a key role effecting that disposition.  As for "evolutionary advantage" to homosexuality, that's seems a stretch since survival through reproduction is the primary function of evolution.  You are asserting an "orientation" that rejects reproduction, but perhaps helps the results of reproduction?  Again, what is the need for homosexuality from an evolutionary standpoint?


Links to studies showing the evidence for positive evolutionary benefits have already been provided.  That you are too stupid or too lazy to read and understand them is your problem.  Altruism doesn't make sense for an individual but is an evolutionary evolved trait too – every single individual need not maximize his reproductive potential as long as the population reproductive potential is positively affected.

Quote
You've already shown that stereotyping doesn't bother you when you stereotyped me as a "homophobic bigot."  


No stereotyping – you’re an individual assh*le bigot.

Quote
The "gay lifestyle" is one in which someone engages in gay sex and associates their identity with their sexuality and follows a very recognizable and distinct ideological system. I wouldn't claim that all gays are active in this respect, but there are certainly many who are.  Your feigned ignorance does nothing to change this fact.


Please elaborate on this very recognizable and distinct ideological system.  How does it differ from the “heterosexual lifestyle”?   What percentage of the gay population with this lifestyle is “many”, and how did you determine the actual numbers?

Quote
You claimed that discrimination causes AIDS.


Of course this is a blatant lie.  I corrected your lie by stating

Discrimination causes severe stress
Severe stress cause health problems, both physical and emotional
Health problems negatively affect the spread of AIDS

I like when you repeat such easily exposed lies; it makes my job of highlighting your dishonesty that much easier.

Are you claiming that homosexuality causes AIDS?

Quote
Using discrimination is the BEST WAY TO AVOID AIDS especially for practicing homosexuals.


Maybe we should discriminate against those d*mn queers by making them all wear striped uniforms with pink triangles affixed.  That seemed to work once before as I recall.  Is that your solution?

Fred Phelps is waiting for you Thordaddy, you’re his boy!

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2006,10:29   

Occam,

You are a glaring example of the nondiscriminate and all tolerating mindset that has infected the public school system.  Oh, but wait, actually you are very intolerant and discriminatory.  So, you are in fact a product of the public school system indoctrination program.

You say,

Quote
Someone like you with an irrational fear of any person who has a different sexuality than what you deem “correct”, and who espouses discrimination against those persons based on your fears.


Are you qualified to assess "irrational fear" over the internet with your only evidence being stats on homosexual and the resulting pathologies associated with act?  And please do explain how exactly I've discriminated against homosexuals outside the use of your wildly indoctrinated imagination?

Quote
Nope.  Stereotyping in making a judgment on ALL members of a group based on the actions of a few individuals, like demonizing all gays based on the few militants you see on TV.  You as an individual are showing to be a homophobic bigot based on your individual actions here.


Again, please provide my demonization of gays with direct quotes.  I know that your indoctrination doesn't require such steps, but for the sake of argument can you grant my request.  Simply asserting your opinion is simply asserting your opinion.  You quote demonization is quite palpable.  Would you like me to provide quotes?

Quote
Not at all, just pointing out a plausible reason for your hate filled anti-gay diatribes.  Do you have a better explanation?


Actually, you were demonizing for being gay.  What if I was?  You would be discriminating against a gay person.  Bad little Occam!  You need to practice what you preach, boy.

Quote
Absolutely nothing, yet you obviously are petrified of gays to the point of actively denying them their civil rights.


Pure bull-cockey and once again a glaring example of that which I speak when it comes to the public school system.  If I decided to engage in homosexual actions, should I be no less discriminating than if I were to engage in normal relations given what we know about AIDS, STDs, drug abuse, domestic violence, etc. amongst homosexuals?  The "ignorance is bliss" position!

Quote
Links to studies showing the evidence for positive evolutionary benefits have already been provided.  That you are too stupid or too lazy to read and understand them is your problem.  Altruism doesn't make sense for an individual but is an evolutionary evolved trait too – every single individual need not maximize his reproductive potential as long as the population reproductive potential is positively affected.


I can link to plenty of evidence that shows homosexuality to be a very dangerous and deadly behavior.  Are these really evolutionary benefits?  But again, the evidence for a genetic causation of homosexuality is nill.

Quote
No stereotyping – you’re an individual assh*le bigot.


LOL!

Quote
Please elaborate on this very recognizable and distinct ideological system.  How does it differ from the “heterosexual lifestyle”?   What percentage of the gay population with this lifestyle is “many”, and how did you determine the actual numbers?


YOU!!!!!!

Quote
Of course this is a blatant lie.  I corrected your lie by stating

Discrimination causes severe stress
Severe stress cause health problems, both physical and emotional
Health problems negatively affect the spread of AIDS


But do you disagree that discrimination CAN PREVENT the spread of AIDS?

Quote
I like when you repeat such easily exposed lies; it makes my job of highlighting your dishonesty that much easier.


If I see a rattlesnake in my midst, will discrimination be stress-inducing or stress-reducing?  Do you have science to back up your assertion that discrimination causes stress in this context?  I've given you a common sense example of positive discrimination.  The kind more homosexuals need to practice so as to not fall prey to disease and early death.

Quote
Are you claiming that homosexuality causes AIDS?


No, I am claiming that homosexuality is a high-risk behavior associated with disease like AIDS.

Quote
Maybe we should discriminate against those d*mn queers by making them all wear striped uniforms with pink triangles affixed.  That seemed to work once before as I recall.  Is that your solution?


Again, all emotion with no clear thinking.  Typical of the public school system these days.  Maybe, we should not teach young children about the phenomenon of homosexuality and the supposed "normalcy" of such behavior especially with the associative diseases such as AIDS known to be common amongst its practitioners.

Quote
Fred Phelps is waiting for you Thordaddy, you’re his boy!


Who Fred Phelps?  Did you learn about him in class?

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2006,11:03   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 12 2006,15:29)
No, I am claiming that homosexuality is a high-risk behavior associated with disease like AIDS.

And how is heterosexuality different?

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2006,12:46   

Assuming that the stats you cite are true, what on earth would change other than teaching children this in sex education? You say homosexuality is a choice so I ask you again assuming it isnt genetic what evidence do you have that it is a lifestyle choice?

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2006,13:26   

Thordaddy, you’re really a confused little Fundy, aren't you?

You keep confusing homosexuality with “unprotected anal sex.”  You seem to use the terms interchangeably.  Why is that?  Is that what your preacher taught you about human sexuality?

Thordaddy said:
Quote
I can link to plenty of evidence that shows homosexuality to be a very dangerous and deadly behavior.
 

Please do so.  Just don’t make the mistake of linking to studies showing unprotected anal sex to be a very dangerous and deadly behavior.  That is know to be dangerous for ALL couples, both hetero and home.  I want to see your evidence that homosexuality (which means same-sex attraction) is by itself a very dangerous and deadly behavior.  

There are plenty of monogamous homosexual couples who practice nothing but safe sex when making love.  Show us how they are exhibiting very dangerous and deadly behavior.  

I asked

Quote
Please elaborate on this very recognizable and distinct ideological system.  How does it differ from the “heterosexual lifestyle”?   What percentage of the gay population with this lifestyle is “many”, and how did you determine the actual numbers?


And you replied
Quote
YOU!!!!!!


I take that as an admission you can’t answer the question, and were just lying again when you made the claim.

Quote
But do you disagree that discrimination CAN PREVENT the spread of AIDS?


Lining AIDS patients up against the wall and shooting them can prevent the spread of AIDS, does that mean we should do it?

18-29 yr. old African-American males are responsible for a disproportionate percentage of the crime rate in America.  Does that mean we should discriminate against ALL young African-American males?  

There are laws with severe penalties for knowingly passing on the AIDS virus.  The laws apply to ALL people regardless of sexual orientation.

How does denying ALL gays their civil rights, and discriminating against ALL gays prevent the spread of AIDS?

BTW, don’t think for a second that anyone buys your “it’s due to AIDS” reason that you’re so anti-gay.  You’re just using that as an excuse for your religious-based bigotry, and we all know it.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2006,17:50   

Quote
BTW, don’t think for a second that anyone buys your “it’s due to AIDS” reason that you’re so anti-gay.  You’re just using that as an excuse for your religious-based bigotry, and we all know it.
I do wonder why he never responds to my question: is he OK with "Johnny has two mommies".

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Seven Popes



Posts: 190
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2006,02:52   

I just want to know Thordaddy, IF a gene or set of genes is found to cause homosexuality, would this refute Intelligent Design?  
eleventh try Thordaddy, would a "gay gene" refute I.D?

--------------
Cave ab homine unius libri - Beware of anyone who has just one book.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2006,14:53   

Quote
Here Russell...,
Gay Gene
Hey, T-diddy. Did you notice that that news article was all about one of the very articles I referred you to? Did you notice that, despite the dumb title on the layperson's article, the paper in question was, in fact, not a search for "the gay gene"?

Quote
But notice the assumption upon which the "gay gene" is built?  The assumption is that evolution provides for "sexual orientations."
No, I don't notice that assumption. Please elaborate. Perhaps you are making that assumption, or perhaps you are assuming that other people are. But I see no evidence for that at all, outside your fevered imagination.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2006,02:44   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 12 2006,15:29)
No, I am claiming that homosexuality is a high-risk behavior associated with disease like AIDS.

Please explain why lesbians are exhibiting high risk behavior associated with AIDS

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
  112 replies since April 06 2006,06:47 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (4) < [1] 2 3 4 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]