Originally posted by twhiteheadIf you watched the video, you'd realize the silly position you've put yourself in by arguing the wrong point.
So you object to your definition being changed, but your definition remains a secret.
[b]The point of the video which you didn't but give a token glance to was the opposite.
I made an offer to watch the video, but you have not agreed to my conditions. Are they not reasonable conditions? Or do you not really want me to watch the video?
I no ...[text shortened]... to: 'If they legalize gay marriage then I can't bitch about it without being labelled a hater'.
The video announces from nearly the beginning how the speaker intends to discuss an ancillary aspect of the legalization of homosexual marriage, namely, an attack on free thought/conscience/speech.
Sloganeers (We're here, we're queer, get used to it) and other confrontational pro-homosexual movements of the late 60's-90's took a very strategic turn toward the end of the 90's, becoming a politically-savvy grassroots organization with a specific game plan to change the course of history for an exceedingly small minority of the population (in the US, estimates are as low as less than 2% of the people are indentified as homosexual, although most people who are asked their opinion on the number have assumed the number in the teens to mid-20's).
They realized that a bull-rush of insistence for acceptance of their lifestyle had historically been met with firm to extreme resistance, so they opted for a far more subtle approach.
By using a very media-friendly approach, they softened the message and changed the conversation from being a question of morality to a question about civil rights.
By all accounts, this was a brilliant strategy.
Part of their message was fashioned to address the fears of the opposition as it relates to the concerns of social policy and individual conscience.
The opposition was concerned how a reneging on traditional marriage structure would lead to an expectation of wholesale acceptance of homosexuality.
To counteract this, the strategy included verbiage which spoke of their solitary desire to marry: no one is going to force any one else to change their personal views or the expression thereof.
As the 20 or so minutes of this video highlights, nothing could be further from the truth.
The goal from the beginning was to obtain acceptance by others for their immoral lifestyle--- somewhat expected, humanly speaking: who wants to feel like what they're doing is wrong or condemned?
But the concerns the opposition raised about social policy and individual conscience are being proven all over the globe, just as we are seeing the true intents of the pro-homosexual agenda playing out as expected.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI have stated my conditions for watching the video. I notice no takers thus far.
If you watched the video, you'd realize the silly position you've put yourself in by arguing the wrong point.
My position isn't silly regardless of whether or not I am arguing the point you wish me to argue. If anything you are at least conceding that my points are correct.
although most people who are asked their opinion on the number have assumed the number in the teens to mid-20's
So, every fifth person? I guess such people don't think it through.
Originally posted by sonshipThis video was just silly. OMG - they're telling kids about gay couples. Well, DUH! Marriages often have kids present. Did we think they weren't going to notice that it was two dudes up there sometimes now?!
[b] What Gay Marriage Did To Massachusetts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZX55HUPFSU[/b]
The guy's channel's called "Mass Resistance" - but the reality is that you guys are getting your arse handed to you in the court of public opinion. You're all going to end up like the KKK, still stubbornly meeting in small little homes full of fellow bigots, refusing to admit you've lost, and lost bad.
- Joined
- 15 Aug 12
- Moves
- 11620
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeLet's put something to rest here.
I was born 'straight' and am happily married. I didn't however 'choose' to be straight, i was just made that way. Similarly, somebody who is 'gay' didn't 'choose' to be gay, They were also 'made that way.'
Now if you are going to put forward the proposition of a 'Creator God' then surely you have to concede that God created both straight and gay hum ...[text shortened]... only straight people enjoy the sanctuary of marriage? That seems illogical. That seems hateful.
Let me say here first-I'm not here to debate whether homosexuality is right or wrong. I want to focus on something else here.
For you to just throw out there that "someone who is 'gay' didn't 'choose' to be gay, they were made that way" shows an appalling lack of understanding of modern genetic research. Yes, yes, you'll find a plethora of studies that talk about 'finding the gay gene' but the problem is that these studies' findings are like iPhones-new ones come out every year. Perhaps one of the better studies and 'more conclusive' (note the quotations marks) done was the study by NorthShore Research Institute, The claim was bold yet unconvincing to be honest-"It erodes the notion that sexual orientation is a choice."
However, less than a year later, the study leader comes out and says, "When people say there's a gay gene, it's an oversimplification...genetics is not the whole story."
The issue-we do not know where the vast majority of genetic factors are located in the genome. The study done by NorthShore was valuable, in that it was perhaps a step closer to locating where potential genes influencing sexual orientation may lie. But that is about the extent of it.
My point-to keep it short. We do not know the origin of most characteristics in the human genome. To say there is 'no gay gene' is as unsupportable and dumb as saying 'there is a gay gene'. Countless studies claim they've found it, only to be refuted or questioned by the genetics community. The NorthShore study was no different.
One thing seems certain though-epigenetic factors have a greater influence on sexual orientation.
You may have noticed I used the personal pronoun 'we' often. That is because I am a MD and PhD and work in Neurogenetics. Anyone who suggests that it is genetic simply doesn't understand genetics and isn't really up-to-date on modern research or rather the lack of it. We simply don't have proof of that statement but rather have more questions if it is even a valid study to pursue.
[Edit: go ahead and thumb this down all you like. I'm honestly trying to be informative here and make you aware. I'm sure most of you have done the research yourself. If you haven't and are only repeating what others have said...then shame on you.]
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
Originally posted by King TigerSo is your position that all people are born straight and that social factors and life experiences cause them to 'become' gay (nurture rather than nature) or do you follow Sonship's line of reasoning that gay people are just 'pretending' to be so?
Let's put something to rest here.
Let me say here first-I'm not here to debate whether homosexuality is right or wrong. I want to focus on something else here.
For you to just throw out there that [b]"someone who is 'gay' didn't 'choose' to be gay, they were made that way" shows an appalling lack of understanding of modern genetic research. Ye ...[text shortened]... arch yourself. If you haven't and are only repeating what others have said...then shame on you.][/b]
Originally posted by King TigerYou seem to have made the completely false assumption that 'made that way' implies genetics. For someone who clearly knows the term 'epigenetics', that is a rather odd mistake to make. Humans are not made purely by their genes. That is more or less what epigentics is all about.
For you to just throw out there that "someone who is 'gay' didn't 'choose' to be gay, they were made that way" shows an appalling lack of understanding of modern genetic research.
One thing seems certain though-epigenetic factors have a greater influence on sexual orientation.
I actually agree that most research into sexual orientation implies epigenetic factors are at play, especially the conditions found in the mothers womb. For example, some studies have shown that the more male children a woman has the higher the chance the next one will be gay.
But conditions in the womb still 'make you that way'.
The fact remains that in many cases it is possible to tell whether or not a child is gay when they are still quite young. ie it is not a learned behaviour in adolescence or later.
- Joined
- 15 Aug 12
- Moves
- 11620
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeLet's first be precise with terms and concepts.
So is your position that all people are born straight and that social factors and life experiences cause them to 'become' gay (nurture rather than nature) or do you follow Sonship's line of reasoning that gay people are just 'pretending' to be so?
I am not putting forth 'my position' as if the data was up for interpretation. The exact point I'm making is that we have no data to at best little data. Hence, to suggest that someone is born gay is an unsupportable position as is someone isn't born gay from a genetic's point of view. This being the key-from a genetic's point of view.
Until there is more solid evidence a verdict should not be offered on this particular point. The statement's that 'they were born that way' or they have a 'gay gene' or 'they weren't born that way' or 'there is no gay gene' are statements made in a void of evidence either way.
What I will say is this. Geneticists have long been aware that epigenetic factors have a greater influence-at least this is a wide perception and one that I personally hold.
Epigenetic = non genetic (lay terms)
If sonship is saying 'they are merely pretending to be gay' I think this is a wrong line of thinking. First, it suggests you know better what they pretend to be or don't pretend to be (a pretentious and logically unsupportable claim). Second, I assume from sonship's point of view that no one is born Christian genetically nor gay genetically. Therefore, perhaps he is just pretending to be a Christian....the argument becomes as insane as that statement and what we end up with is getting absolutely no where.
My professional view is simple-we don't know yet for certain in the field of genetics. The case is ongoing. However, outside evidence (and this is a vast field-religious, social, psychological, etc) suggest that sexual orientation is much more a factor of epigenetics.
To be frank-they gay community has long sought to validate this claim that 'I'm born gay'. At the moment, there is no credible scientific evidence to suggest it but rather evidence outside of science suggests otherwise.
Of course, I love science but I love reason more. I understand that at the moment science has a very limited to no scope on this issue. Therefore, I am forced to look beyond science and consider other factors which seem more compelling to me. I know upbringing (you referred to it as nurture) can certainly be a huge factor (only an idiot would deny this). If a gay gene does exist will you be gay if you are brought up in a conservative Christian home that reads Romans 1 weeky? To say 'yes' is to argue for a form of scientific determinism which I largely reject.
I believe we all have a choice-to suggest we don't I feel fundamentally undermines our humanity. I actually find it far more respectful to say 'I chose to be gay' rather than 'I was born this way'. Own your choices and don't in some manner wear a badge of shame by seeking scientific validity. If science one day does verify that homosexuality is genetic then it should be viewed as simply that but not deterministic. If we step into determinism, the issues surrounding transgender become rather interesting and the argument starts turning to the Right (Bruce Jenner was born a man and by scientific determinism he should be a man right?).
That is the fundamental flaw. The LGBT wants a form of scientific determinism regarding the LGB but they don't want it with the T. I say, just drop the whole notion all together. You'll only get yourself in a hot mess and I as a geneticist am no where close to giving anything in the debate my stamp of approval.
I have convictions on it of course, but these are influenced not by what I know in genetics but what I know elsewhere.
Help at all?
K.T.
- Joined
- 15 Aug 12
- Moves
- 11620
Originally posted by twhiteheadtwhitehead,
You seem to have made the completely false assumption that 'made that way' implies genetics. For someone who clearly knows the term 'epigenetics', that is a rather odd mistake to make. Humans are not made purely by their genes. That is more or less what epigentics is all about.
I actually agree that most research into sexual orientation implies epigeneti ...[text shortened]... s gay when they are still quite young. ie it is not a learned behaviour in adolescence or later.
I don't know why you even bother responding to me or trying to get me to really respond to you.
I made no assumption but rather engaged the perception of many. For many, 'made that way' does imply genetics. If ghost of duke truly doesn't believe that then he should probably not have prefaced all he said with, 'I was born straight'. This implies genetic determinism in my mind.
You as a computer programmer should not pretend to know a hundredth of what I know in my very own field. I doubt you really know more than what you've read on wiki about epigenetics. No more than I would presume to tell you how to write a script.
Perhaps if you wanted to critically engage me you should ask me about my assumptions before making an assumption yourself. That is why I am so far very willing to engage ghost of duke, he sought information. You come at me making a claim.
How about we both give each other respect as human beings. I'll try to be less abrasive to you and maybe try to like you a little more, and how about you instead of prefacing your post with 'you seem to' start off showing mutual respect and realize I am saying what I say with calculation.
Made a false assumption....you, sir, made the assumption that I partook of that view when I am responding to a view that exists throughout society and permeates it.
If you have something worth saying I'll respond to it. If not, don't even bother as I grow tired of your assumptions and false erudition in fields you only browse the internet about.
Originally posted by twhiteheadClearly from his post he is saying 'to be made such and such a way' and then to claim it was 'genetic' is wrong because there is absence of evidence. He then turns around and says precisely what you closed with that epigenetics (you mispelled it btw whitehead-showing that you perhaps know less about it than you want to show). So I think you are way off the mark and king tiger, who I happen to relatively dislike fyi (he knows it), was actually doing a fine job addressing a current perception that I myself would have held. Genes make us I assume. Which to me means, "made that way" does imply genetics. Of course, environment affects us too. But since king tiger started responding to a post that started with being born I think he was on the mark and you were quite off.
You seem to have made the completely false assumption that 'made that way' implies genetics. For someone who clearly knows the term 'epigenetics', that is a rather odd mistake to make. Humans are not made purely by their genes. That is more or less what epigentics is all about.
I actually agree that most research into sexual orientation implies epigeneti ...[text shortened]... s gay when they are still quite young. ie it is not a learned behaviour in adolescence or later.
08 Jul 15
Originally posted by King TigerNo need to respond, but I have accused twhitehead before of pretending to be a computer programmer. However, I will not rule out that he might be some other kind of programmer. 😀
twhitehead,
I don't know why you even bother responding to me or trying to get me to really respond to you.
I made no assumption but rather engaged the perception of many. For many, 'made that way' does imply genetics. If ghost of duke truly doesn't believe that then he should probably not have prefaced all he said with, 'I was born straight'. Th ...[text shortened]... grow tired of your assumptions and false erudition in fields you only browse the internet about.
Originally posted by King TigerYou are rather abrasive to quite a few folks on these forums. Why?
twhitehead,
I don't know why you even bother responding to me or trying to get me to really respond to you.
I made no assumption but rather engaged the perception of many. For many, 'made that way' does imply genetics. If ghost of duke truly doesn't believe that then he should probably not have prefaced all he said with, 'I was born straight'. Th ...[text shortened]... grow tired of your assumptions and false erudition in fields you only browse the internet about.
- Joined
- 15 Aug 12
- Moves
- 11620
08 Jul 15
Originally posted by RJHindsYou claim to be a Christian, right? Why then is your self-described title the 'near genius'. I'm assuming it must be a joke?
No need to respond, but I have accused twhitehead before of pretending to be a computer programmer. However, I will not rule out that he might be some other kind of programmer. 😀
I'm not accusing him of not being a programmer. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that. See no reason for him to lie.
Originally posted by King TigerWell given that you know about epigentics, it really shouldn't.
For many, 'made that way' does imply genetics. If ghost of duke truly doesn't believe that then he should probably not have prefaced all he said with, 'I was born straight'. This implies genetic determinism in my mind.
You as a computer programmer should not pretend to know a hundredth of what I know in my very own field.
There is no pretending at all. I do know a little about genetics, and have made no claims beyond what I do know. I have no idea how it compares to what you know, nor made claims in that regard. I have made statements based solely on what you have said in that one post of yours.
I doubt you really know more than what you've read on wiki about epigenetics.
Well you would be wrong. I have done several Harvard University courses on DNA, and have studied genetics elsewhere too.
Perhaps if you wanted to critically engage me you should ask me about my assumptions before making an assumption yourself.
Why should I ask you about an assumption you already stated? Should I re-ask you everything you write, l just to make sure you really meant it the first time around? You have even restated it in this post. Must I ask you again? OK:
Are you really really really assuming that Ghost of Duke meant 'genetics' when he said 'born that way'?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
08 Jul 15
Originally posted by King TigerYes, that clarifies your position. My own assertion was more a case of reverse reasoning. I am not of the opinion that people become gay as a result of social factors or early life exeriences etc. It therefore leads me to conclude that people are born gay. I don't see a third option. (Excluding the ridiculous).
Let's first be precise with terms and concepts.
I am not putting forth 'my position' as if the data was up for interpretation. The [b]exact point I'm making is that we have no data to at best little data. Hence, to suggest that someone is born gay is an unsupportable position as is someone isn't born gay from a genetic's point of view. This ...[text shortened]... e influenced not by what I know in genetics but what I know elsewhere.
Help at all?
K.T.[/b]
And i wasn't really talking genetically, and had not heard of the 'gay gene' until you wrote it. I was thinking perhaps more 'chemically' (a link maybe to testosterone levels etc) or other pre-birth factors we don't yet fully understand. - This is however a topic i have no indepth knowledge of. In short though it is my opinion that people become gay 'prior' to birth. I can do no more than speculate as to the mechanics or reasons for this.