Elton John Speaks Against Religion
- Thread starter 2-0-NINE
- Start date
Hemp said:
:dead
you for losing your skills.
i dont know the guy and never heard of him.
you for losing your skills.i dont know the guy and never heard of him.
Here are YOUR words Hemp.
http://siccness.net/vb/showthread.php?t=181396&page=7
:dead:
Here are HIS words:
http://siccness.net/vb/showthread.php?t=181396&page=9
:dead:
Heresy, you nit-pick every paragraph and ignore the overall meaning of the argument. The fact that I have to TELL you that human behavior is almost never 100% genetic instantly proves the degree of your ignorance. Obviously, any idiot (but not you, you are the special kind of idiot), would realize that "all the evidence in the world" does not mean every single study, every single question ever asked, because there is always dishonesty, poor scientific method, and the influence of idiots like you. "All the evidence in the world" does not verify gravity, but the overwhelmingly huge majority verifies it. If you can't differentiate which statements are blatant hyperbole, it's no wonder you can't see that you are merely one of many stupid bigots whose opinions are solely based on irrational judgment and later justified through shoddy incomplete parochial evidence.
The only backpedalling I have to do is for your benefit because you don't see the connections. If I have to spoon feed you every single logical relationship you'll just nitpick on semantics and expressions like you have been, rather than making a point.
You STILL cannot comprehend what effect the sum total of pros and cons can have on natural selection and evolution and demand I come up with data that neither side has to say one way or another, when YOUR POINT is moot. Just admit you were wrong in saying that it has no evolutionary purpose, then we can pretend you are not delusional in SOME arguments.
I never attempted suicide and I've used drugs for more reasons than self-medication; all that aside, you STILL are not "better" than me and your opinions are still definitely not based in fact. I love arrogant half-retarded narcissists like you. They have no true friends and think they are so special that anyone different from them is worse and willfully worse.
I've seen ignorant responses like yours before where you simply copy and paste half the others person's argument and nitpick every line because your overall argument is nothing. You cannot see the parallel in human nature between bigotry towards homosexuals and bigotry towards other characteristics which are not under an individual's control. Instead you fall-back on the typical ignoramus argument that just because it may not be entirely inherent to genetics it is an immoral act. "It's not like being a certain race because that is MORE predetermined." What an unfunny joke.
You claim homosexuality is immoral or a choice, where's your evidence. You want me to cite sources for everything but you have not cited any. It is quite probable that you are not as dumb as you sound and are just doing this to try to get your kicks online, which appears to be your place of residence.
Once again I shat in your ugly face and made it prettier: judgment is an ascribed status, thinking based on those judgments is an ascribed status, thus being judgmental is an ascribed status, and people are bound to be hateful for it considering human nature includes interaction and gathering information. People are not 'wilfully hateful towards X' when they are born but they are receptive to that sort of behavior. Nobody ever implied that people are born hating gays, I said it is "practically human nature to hate" because there is great opportunity in this world, and even a world with one modern human and other forms of life, for hatred. For taking my words so literally it's funny that you make an argument against it without understanding the word "practically." Now if you call THIS backpedalling, you should consider backpedalling to 5th grade and get some real reading comprehension.
Yeah, I cherry-picked the passage about the adulterer, but it is not out of context or interpretation. There were many books in the bible, which were literal, which were hyperbole, and which were actual quotes by Jesus, who the Christians follow more than the old testament, supposedly. Jesus seems to be tolerant and wants people not to judge, after all, that it's God's right not yours. That is just an argument for Christian bigots, it does not necessarily apply to you, and it most likely shouldn't because the Bible is about as solid evidence as a children's book on fairy tales.
Since you are so "educated" you would know that the bible has had many editions, has been copied thousands of times, and was not free of influence by man. Maybe it is just the continued ease of bigotry towards homosexual that has allowed for this? No.. it's clear that Jesus 'condemned' homosexuals and asked for every hick in the bible belt to do the same. That was sarcasm, since you couldn't figure out anything implied in any other sentence.
"And even if I should judge, my judgment is valid, because I am not alone, but it is I and the Father who sent me." Nobody else, save for other prophets can do that. Are you a prophet? Then stfu and admit you were wrong.
Go ahead and cite your 'credible sources' that say being gay is a choice. Maybe you haven't seen the hilarious videos of extremely feminine and homophobic counselors "teaching" other gays not to be gay anymore. Or maybe you don't think it's a possibility that due to all the social pressure people who are truly gay will claim to "choose" not to be gay, but citing a few weak-willed people does not prove anything. You have to show that people can change sexual and romantic attraction on a whim. Unless you can do that, and demonstrate it's possible, you can provide no evidence. Which is what your opinions are based on, NO EVIDENCE.
If you know so much about this topic why don't you go ahead and write a paper to get the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders to go back to listing homosexuality as a mental disorder. Or has the great conspiracy of the "gay agenda" infiltrated the majority of scientific research on the subject and all conspired to provide false evidence?
Hell, I don't even need to put words in your mouth, the ones you give us are hilarious enough. Ask for citations, don't provide your own, claim evidence in on your side, provide your own, can't understand analogies, nit-pick semantics and disconnect context from meaning, it's almost like you are deliberately choosing a side before you have rationalized it at all or seen any real evidence. Oh, that IS what you are doing. Please do yourself a favor and get help, you need it more than I do.
The only backpedalling I have to do is for your benefit because you don't see the connections. If I have to spoon feed you every single logical relationship you'll just nitpick on semantics and expressions like you have been, rather than making a point.
You STILL cannot comprehend what effect the sum total of pros and cons can have on natural selection and evolution and demand I come up with data that neither side has to say one way or another, when YOUR POINT is moot. Just admit you were wrong in saying that it has no evolutionary purpose, then we can pretend you are not delusional in SOME arguments.
I never attempted suicide and I've used drugs for more reasons than self-medication; all that aside, you STILL are not "better" than me and your opinions are still definitely not based in fact. I love arrogant half-retarded narcissists like you. They have no true friends and think they are so special that anyone different from them is worse and willfully worse.
I've seen ignorant responses like yours before where you simply copy and paste half the others person's argument and nitpick every line because your overall argument is nothing. You cannot see the parallel in human nature between bigotry towards homosexuals and bigotry towards other characteristics which are not under an individual's control. Instead you fall-back on the typical ignoramus argument that just because it may not be entirely inherent to genetics it is an immoral act. "It's not like being a certain race because that is MORE predetermined." What an unfunny joke.
You claim homosexuality is immoral or a choice, where's your evidence. You want me to cite sources for everything but you have not cited any. It is quite probable that you are not as dumb as you sound and are just doing this to try to get your kicks online, which appears to be your place of residence.
Once again I shat in your ugly face and made it prettier: judgment is an ascribed status, thinking based on those judgments is an ascribed status, thus being judgmental is an ascribed status, and people are bound to be hateful for it considering human nature includes interaction and gathering information. People are not 'wilfully hateful towards X' when they are born but they are receptive to that sort of behavior. Nobody ever implied that people are born hating gays, I said it is "practically human nature to hate" because there is great opportunity in this world, and even a world with one modern human and other forms of life, for hatred. For taking my words so literally it's funny that you make an argument against it without understanding the word "practically." Now if you call THIS backpedalling, you should consider backpedalling to 5th grade and get some real reading comprehension.
Yeah, I cherry-picked the passage about the adulterer, but it is not out of context or interpretation. There were many books in the bible, which were literal, which were hyperbole, and which were actual quotes by Jesus, who the Christians follow more than the old testament, supposedly. Jesus seems to be tolerant and wants people not to judge, after all, that it's God's right not yours. That is just an argument for Christian bigots, it does not necessarily apply to you, and it most likely shouldn't because the Bible is about as solid evidence as a children's book on fairy tales.
Since you are so "educated" you would know that the bible has had many editions, has been copied thousands of times, and was not free of influence by man. Maybe it is just the continued ease of bigotry towards homosexual that has allowed for this? No.. it's clear that Jesus 'condemned' homosexuals and asked for every hick in the bible belt to do the same. That was sarcasm, since you couldn't figure out anything implied in any other sentence.
"And even if I should judge, my judgment is valid, because I am not alone, but it is I and the Father who sent me." Nobody else, save for other prophets can do that. Are you a prophet? Then stfu and admit you were wrong.
Go ahead and cite your 'credible sources' that say being gay is a choice. Maybe you haven't seen the hilarious videos of extremely feminine and homophobic counselors "teaching" other gays not to be gay anymore. Or maybe you don't think it's a possibility that due to all the social pressure people who are truly gay will claim to "choose" not to be gay, but citing a few weak-willed people does not prove anything. You have to show that people can change sexual and romantic attraction on a whim. Unless you can do that, and demonstrate it's possible, you can provide no evidence. Which is what your opinions are based on, NO EVIDENCE.
If you know so much about this topic why don't you go ahead and write a paper to get the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders to go back to listing homosexuality as a mental disorder. Or has the great conspiracy of the "gay agenda" infiltrated the majority of scientific research on the subject and all conspired to provide false evidence?
Hell, I don't even need to put words in your mouth, the ones you give us are hilarious enough. Ask for citations, don't provide your own, claim evidence in on your side, provide your own, can't understand analogies, nit-pick semantics and disconnect context from meaning, it's almost like you are deliberately choosing a side before you have rationalized it at all or seen any real evidence. Oh, that IS what you are doing. Please do yourself a favor and get help, you need it more than I do.
@heresy
lmao wow, i seriously dunno who you talkin bout.
and i dont know when i said anything about the thizzsavers but that is my writing.
To tell you the truth i never ever let any of my friends get on here or let them know about it, only because i dont want word to go around that i wasnt a muslim like it already had.
so isolent do you know me and from where? hopefully you arent a muslim family friend and gonna get me hung like saddam
EDIT: oh now i remember the guy from cali i told to try this out, too bad i havent talked to him in over 4 months because of an arguement we got in.
lmao wow, i seriously dunno who you talkin bout.
and i dont know when i said anything about the thizzsavers but that is my writing.
To tell you the truth i never ever let any of my friends get on here or let them know about it, only because i dont want word to go around that i wasnt a muslim like it already had.
so isolent do you know me and from where? hopefully you arent a muslim family friend and gonna get me hung like saddam
EDIT: oh now i remember the guy from cali i told to try this out, too bad i havent talked to him in over 4 months because of an arguement we got in.
Your argument has no meaning.
You didn't have to tell me anything. Your entire argument can be summed up with one statement, "All the evidence in the world suggests that being gay is not a choice..."
This is what we are dealing with here. We are dealing with homosexuality being a choice, and according to you, all the evidence in the world suggests that being gay is not a choice. If it is not a choice and not 100% genetic what is it? A combination? A result of socialization?
You said, ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE WORLD, and I said that is either absolute or a relative all (refer to my previous posts.) You made the statement and the statement implies that most if not all the evidence is in support of homosexuality NOT being a choice. You made the statement, I didn't, but now you want to insult me because I'm calling you on it! LMAO!
See above. Did I not PREVIOUSLY state, "...and this implies ALL, an absolute number, or a relative all comprising the majority (or most significant.)"
Yes, I'll be the stupid bigot, yet you have resorted to the name calling and personal attacks FIRST. LMAO!
JARGON, and I have made my point quite clear. Stop misquoting and misinterpreting sources and information in hopes of spreading your homosexual agenda.
Why should I comment on something I couldn't care less about? YOU are the one concerned with those things. I am not because I am not arguing for or against those points. Can you PLEASE quote me or show me the page where I said it has no evolutionary purpose?
Sure, just like Hemp has never heard of you before....
You are a confused soul. You are upset because I am firm in my beliefs while you are used to having someone elses firm...lol...let me stop.:dead:
I am citing sources in the proper context and shattering every piece of so-called evidence you have presented.
You are an angry gay man. You started with all types of insults and here we are. All I did was quote you and respond accordingly.
This is coming from a person with a mental disorder...
Many homosexuals attempt to compare and contrast their gayness with being born black, or being born with blue eyes etc. The point is YOU were making it seem as if it is NOT a matter of CHOICE. I have said in this thread (and in past threads) that it is most likely a "glitch" or something abnormal that can be linked to homosexuality. Remember, you said, "All the evidence in the world suggests that being gay is not a choice...", but the source YOU cited said that is NOT what the findings show. :dead:
First, we need to address YOUR claim that, "All the evidence in the world suggests that being gay is not a choice..." and we need to address the previous question I have asked. See, YOU have the burden of proof here. You are the one who made the initial claim and cited a source, but the source itself said you are WRONG for citing it in that fashion. As for the previous question, if I show you five credible sources showing it IS a choice (or can be a choice) what will you do?
Did I not cite the same source YOU did but in its entirety? Did I NOT refer to the Journal of Abnormal Psychology and the study they presented when YOU mentioned homophobic men? Not only are you gay, but you are a liar. I'll go ahead and chalk that up to the possibility of not taking your meds today.
Sure guy.
Why is it that gay men usually say the most perverse things?
WRONG! These are ACHIEVED statuses. One is NOT born a KU KLUX KLAN member. One is not born HATING muslims. One is NOT born with a preference for math over science. Again, being judgemental is NOT something you are born with. Being judgemental comes as a result of SOCIALIZATION and EXPERIENCE. Please, show me the scientific evidence that suggests being judgemental is ascribed at birth.
I have not claimed they are NOT receptive. However, BEING that, or being RECEPTIVE to it, is something different.
What you implied is people are born judgemental.
It is not in a humans nature to hate. It is in a humans nature to act and react based on stimilation, socialization and experience.
Why is it that hemp jumped on your bandwagaon and typed, "Insolent1
you are correct that its human nature for us to be judgemental"? Shouldn't hemp go back to the 5th grade as well? Cut the crap, you were implying that it is human nature to hate. You implied it, hemp endorsed it (and actually said it), and now you're all butt hurt (pun maybe or maybe not intended) over the fact that I chose to demolish your claim. Your use of the word practically denotes virtually, all (implied) or close to all. So yes, I was correct in my response.
No, it is out of context with the original language and interpretation.
Psa 37:30 The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment.
Psa 119:13 With my lips have I declared all the judgments of thy mouth
Prov 31:9 Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.
Luke 7:43 Jesus commended Simon, "Thou hast rightly judged.
John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
1 Cor 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
1 Cor 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
:dead:
Which is why I said my studies are based on the Textus Receptus Major, the Vulgate, The Torah and the original languages. :dead:
Also, if the bible has many editions, has been copied thousands of times and is not free from error, how do we know the verses YOU cited are not corrupted? :dead:
Remember Sodom & Gommorah.
You are once again misinterpreting scripture, and I've previously shown you are incorrect. Show me in the bible where it says judgement is reserved for prophets.
When I do so what are you going to do? I've asked you this several times now and have not received an answer.
Stop relying on fallicies. You don't need to poison the well. What are you afraid of? You've already come out of the clost why do you fear what I have to post? Why do you fear what others will read?
Actually, there is a movement in getting this done. However, how will it benefit me? I'm not gay--you are.
Possibly, which is why gay genes have yet to be found and homosexual doctors have stated it doesn't exist.
Lies. I've already addressed this. However, what do you want cited? If you feel I need to cite something post it up.
This is what you are guilty of, and I've proven it.
This is what you are guilty of.
As long as they don't put us in the same room its cool.
You didn't have to tell me anything. Your entire argument can be summed up with one statement, "All the evidence in the world suggests that being gay is not a choice..."
This is what we are dealing with here. We are dealing with homosexuality being a choice, and according to you, all the evidence in the world suggests that being gay is not a choice. If it is not a choice and not 100% genetic what is it? A combination? A result of socialization?
You said, ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE WORLD, and I said that is either absolute or a relative all (refer to my previous posts.) You made the statement and the statement implies that most if not all the evidence is in support of homosexuality NOT being a choice. You made the statement, I didn't, but now you want to insult me because I'm calling you on it! LMAO!
See above. Did I not PREVIOUSLY state, "...and this implies ALL, an absolute number, or a relative all comprising the majority (or most significant.)"
Yes, I'll be the stupid bigot, yet you have resorted to the name calling and personal attacks FIRST. LMAO!
JARGON, and I have made my point quite clear. Stop misquoting and misinterpreting sources and information in hopes of spreading your homosexual agenda.
Why should I comment on something I couldn't care less about? YOU are the one concerned with those things. I am not because I am not arguing for or against those points. Can you PLEASE quote me or show me the page where I said it has no evolutionary purpose?
Sure, just like Hemp has never heard of you before....
You are a confused soul. You are upset because I am firm in my beliefs while you are used to having someone elses firm...lol...let me stop.:dead:
I am citing sources in the proper context and shattering every piece of so-called evidence you have presented.
You are an angry gay man. You started with all types of insults and here we are. All I did was quote you and respond accordingly.
This is coming from a person with a mental disorder...
Many homosexuals attempt to compare and contrast their gayness with being born black, or being born with blue eyes etc. The point is YOU were making it seem as if it is NOT a matter of CHOICE. I have said in this thread (and in past threads) that it is most likely a "glitch" or something abnormal that can be linked to homosexuality. Remember, you said, "All the evidence in the world suggests that being gay is not a choice...", but the source YOU cited said that is NOT what the findings show. :dead:
First, we need to address YOUR claim that, "All the evidence in the world suggests that being gay is not a choice..." and we need to address the previous question I have asked. See, YOU have the burden of proof here. You are the one who made the initial claim and cited a source, but the source itself said you are WRONG for citing it in that fashion. As for the previous question, if I show you five credible sources showing it IS a choice (or can be a choice) what will you do?
Did I not cite the same source YOU did but in its entirety? Did I NOT refer to the Journal of Abnormal Psychology and the study they presented when YOU mentioned homophobic men? Not only are you gay, but you are a liar. I'll go ahead and chalk that up to the possibility of not taking your meds today.
Sure guy.Why is it that gay men usually say the most perverse things?
WRONG! These are ACHIEVED statuses. One is NOT born a KU KLUX KLAN member. One is not born HATING muslims. One is NOT born with a preference for math over science. Again, being judgemental is NOT something you are born with. Being judgemental comes as a result of SOCIALIZATION and EXPERIENCE. Please, show me the scientific evidence that suggests being judgemental is ascribed at birth.
I have not claimed they are NOT receptive. However, BEING that, or being RECEPTIVE to it, is something different.
What you implied is people are born judgemental.
It is not in a humans nature to hate. It is in a humans nature to act and react based on stimilation, socialization and experience.
Why is it that hemp jumped on your bandwagaon and typed, "Insolent1
you are correct that its human nature for us to be judgemental"? Shouldn't hemp go back to the 5th grade as well? Cut the crap, you were implying that it is human nature to hate. You implied it, hemp endorsed it (and actually said it), and now you're all butt hurt (pun maybe or maybe not intended) over the fact that I chose to demolish your claim. Your use of the word practically denotes virtually, all (implied) or close to all. So yes, I was correct in my response.
No, it is out of context with the original language and interpretation.
Psa 37:30 The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment.
Psa 119:13 With my lips have I declared all the judgments of thy mouth
Prov 31:9 Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.
Luke 7:43 Jesus commended Simon, "Thou hast rightly judged.
John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
1 Cor 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
1 Cor 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
:dead:
Which is why I said my studies are based on the Textus Receptus Major, the Vulgate, The Torah and the original languages. :dead:
Also, if the bible has many editions, has been copied thousands of times and is not free from error, how do we know the verses YOU cited are not corrupted? :dead:
Remember Sodom & Gommorah.
You are once again misinterpreting scripture, and I've previously shown you are incorrect. Show me in the bible where it says judgement is reserved for prophets.
When I do so what are you going to do? I've asked you this several times now and have not received an answer.
Stop relying on fallicies. You don't need to poison the well. What are you afraid of? You've already come out of the clost why do you fear what I have to post? Why do you fear what others will read?
Actually, there is a movement in getting this done. However, how will it benefit me? I'm not gay--you are.
Possibly, which is why gay genes have yet to be found and homosexual doctors have stated it doesn't exist.
Lies. I've already addressed this. However, what do you want cited? If you feel I need to cite something post it up.
This is what you are guilty of, and I've proven it.
This is what you are guilty of.
As long as they don't put us in the same room its cool.
It is in black and white for all to see. WTF do you mean you don't know what I'm talking about? Whats even more strange is how I didn't even say his name, yet you were quick to say you didn't know him. :dead:
Of course it is your writing.
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.....
Yes, he knows you. According to him he is YOUR friend from cali who was shitting all over the place. :dead:
Hemp, I'm not going to do what I said I could do, but it would be returning evil for evil. The way you were coming at me and connecting stockton and myself was out of line. Would it be wrong for me to say the argument you got into was a lover spat of you coming out the closet and leaving islam? :dead: Yes, it would be, but I'm not going to do that because I still have some sort of respect for you. However, if you want to play hard ball step up to the plate...
Of course it is your writing.
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.....
Yes, he knows you. According to him he is YOUR friend from cali who was shitting all over the place. :dead:
Hemp, I'm not going to do what I said I could do, but it would be returning evil for evil. The way you were coming at me and connecting stockton and myself was out of line. Would it be wrong for me to say the argument you got into was a lover spat of you coming out the closet and leaving islam? :dead: Yes, it would be, but I'm not going to do that because I still have some sort of respect for you. However, if you want to play hard ball step up to the plate...
"And even if I should judge, my judgment is valid, because I am not alone, but it is I and the Father who sent me."
prophet: one who utters divinely inspired revelations
In other words, no judgment can be valid without "the Father" and only prophets speak words the Father. You're so arrogant you've lost over half your arguments and still cannot give it up. You don't even know what a hyperbole is because you are still attacking that argument rather than showing any evidence that being gay is a choice. People lie, so your testimonials from forced-into-the-closet gay men are crap, just like your bible quotes, which you still seem to think suggest that non-Godly judgment is verifiable right now.
On top of that, you say I 'misinterpret' scripture. There's no way to misinterpret scripture unless it's entirely explicit and it's not.
Duh, dumbshit, I was interpreting the bible passages how I wanted, because that's the only way you can interpret story, metaphor and parable. Or can we both agree that the Bible is not a valid source or knowledge? I assumed that it was SOMEBODY's but since you are making this an argument between us two, I think we can both agree to throw that away, or you really have been brainwashed as much as it seems.
It's mostly just stories, and often parables, and often metaphor. Quit misinterpreting reality, moron.
Good job, you have moved from a completely invalid historical document to a slightly less completely invalid historical document. Actually, they're both factual nonsense because they've been entirely in the hands of men for centuries. See what I said about nitpicking? No? That's because you're not rational.
You quoted the same source and demonstrated a complete lack of understanding. It shows that genetics possibly, and biology almost certainly have a correlation to the presence of homosexuality and it is other evidence that helps corroborate that there is not some sort of conspiracy for people to do 'harm' to themselves by being gay.
"Socialization and experience" ARE your environment. There is no choice involved in those unless you ascribe "free will" with no evidence of it to the situation.
For you heresy, definitely for you, your opinions are all but proof that you do not have free will. You may think, but you have no control over that thought, otherwise you would have admitted your lies and which arguments you have lost.
I remember that there was a story in the bible that did not prove homosexuality was immoral but was interpreted that way, and that the bible is a poor source of evidence. Funny that you think it isn't, being a moron as oblivious as you try to be.
Funny, you "call me out" on resorting to "fallacies" twice and then you do the same thing yourself, Hypocreheresy.
I talked to Hemp for about two weeks after running into him on TFC, and he sent me a link here to one of his naive posts. "sorbitol and mannitol get you high exactly like MDMA?" Sugar substitutes? Please don't insult yourself over a joke thread. On the other hand, you do read the bible like it's an valid source of knowledge, so I guess you are capable of MANY retarded things.
Even more ridiculous, we've gone back and forth a few times and you still do not understand what "all evidence in the world" in the context of the post means. Hell, you don't even understand that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for "all evidence in the world" to show ANYTHING to be true due to errors and biases. That's why it obviously (not to a special idiot such as yourself) served a RHETORICAL purpose, and it was not entirely LITERAL. You are truly one of the dumbest people I have ever met in that you CHOOSE to be irrational.
That's also known as part of the equation in ENVIRONMENT and GENETICS. And while it's not entirely genetics, it's not entirely environment, just like not one thing is capable of manifesting in a human without the appropriate environment, but most things are guaranteed. Or maybe you think you know what 'human nature is' and would like to explain it to all the philosophers who have never come to agree on what it is. Ignorant, arrogant, willfully hateful and stupid, if you weren't so inept you would be in a good position for acting the anti-christ. Sadly, internet debators such as yourself who have no real purpose besides getting kicks from spreading deceit are all too common and should just be ignored. Otherwise, get involved in the scientific community or the psychological community, or the philosophical community and stfu, because you really do not know a damn thing and this thread will be archived for decades as proof of it.
You never even had an argument and all your arguments are :dead:. Enjoy being alone, then your purposely deceptive opinion will be popular. I have no more time to waste with a liar. You are more educated than to have been unable to see the evolutionary and scientific implications and to attack the meaning rather than expressions, but you did anyway. You are truly an an astounding breed of internet troll.
prophet: one who utters divinely inspired revelations
In other words, no judgment can be valid without "the Father" and only prophets speak words the Father. You're so arrogant you've lost over half your arguments and still cannot give it up. You don't even know what a hyperbole is because you are still attacking that argument rather than showing any evidence that being gay is a choice. People lie, so your testimonials from forced-into-the-closet gay men are crap, just like your bible quotes, which you still seem to think suggest that non-Godly judgment is verifiable right now.
On top of that, you say I 'misinterpret' scripture. There's no way to misinterpret scripture unless it's entirely explicit and it's not.
Duh, dumbshit, I was interpreting the bible passages how I wanted, because that's the only way you can interpret story, metaphor and parable. Or can we both agree that the Bible is not a valid source or knowledge? I assumed that it was SOMEBODY's but since you are making this an argument between us two, I think we can both agree to throw that away, or you really have been brainwashed as much as it seems.
It's mostly just stories, and often parables, and often metaphor. Quit misinterpreting reality, moron.
Good job, you have moved from a completely invalid historical document to a slightly less completely invalid historical document. Actually, they're both factual nonsense because they've been entirely in the hands of men for centuries. See what I said about nitpicking? No? That's because you're not rational.
You quoted the same source and demonstrated a complete lack of understanding. It shows that genetics possibly, and biology almost certainly have a correlation to the presence of homosexuality and it is other evidence that helps corroborate that there is not some sort of conspiracy for people to do 'harm' to themselves by being gay.
"Socialization and experience" ARE your environment. There is no choice involved in those unless you ascribe "free will" with no evidence of it to the situation.
For you heresy, definitely for you, your opinions are all but proof that you do not have free will. You may think, but you have no control over that thought, otherwise you would have admitted your lies and which arguments you have lost.
I remember that there was a story in the bible that did not prove homosexuality was immoral but was interpreted that way, and that the bible is a poor source of evidence. Funny that you think it isn't, being a moron as oblivious as you try to be.
Funny, you "call me out" on resorting to "fallacies" twice and then you do the same thing yourself, Hypocreheresy.
I talked to Hemp for about two weeks after running into him on TFC, and he sent me a link here to one of his naive posts. "sorbitol and mannitol get you high exactly like MDMA?" Sugar substitutes? Please don't insult yourself over a joke thread. On the other hand, you do read the bible like it's an valid source of knowledge, so I guess you are capable of MANY retarded things.
Even more ridiculous, we've gone back and forth a few times and you still do not understand what "all evidence in the world" in the context of the post means. Hell, you don't even understand that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for "all evidence in the world" to show ANYTHING to be true due to errors and biases. That's why it obviously (not to a special idiot such as yourself) served a RHETORICAL purpose, and it was not entirely LITERAL. You are truly one of the dumbest people I have ever met in that you CHOOSE to be irrational.
That's also known as part of the equation in ENVIRONMENT and GENETICS. And while it's not entirely genetics, it's not entirely environment, just like not one thing is capable of manifesting in a human without the appropriate environment, but most things are guaranteed. Or maybe you think you know what 'human nature is' and would like to explain it to all the philosophers who have never come to agree on what it is. Ignorant, arrogant, willfully hateful and stupid, if you weren't so inept you would be in a good position for acting the anti-christ. Sadly, internet debators such as yourself who have no real purpose besides getting kicks from spreading deceit are all too common and should just be ignored. Otherwise, get involved in the scientific community or the psychological community, or the philosophical community and stfu, because you really do not know a damn thing and this thread will be archived for decades as proof of it.
You never even had an argument and all your arguments are :dead:. Enjoy being alone, then your purposely deceptive opinion will be popular. I have no more time to waste with a liar. You are more educated than to have been unable to see the evolutionary and scientific implications and to attack the meaning rather than expressions, but you did anyway. You are truly an an astounding breed of internet troll.
ok
Again, you are misinterpreting the text. Nowhere in the bible does it say or imply that the fathers consent is required for judgment. The two things that ARE required for judgment are RIGHTEOUSNESS and NO HYPOCRISY. If I am a crack addict and I tell you to stop smokign crack I am wrong. If I am NOT a crack addict, I tell you it is wrong to smoke crack, and I tell you because I don't want you to overdose that is filling the requirements that I have already presented. Again, I have listed the verses that said we are to judge. Due to your blindness, and wanting to be gay, you overlook these.
Your opinion.
You sound like a pre-schooler "you don't even know what this is blah blah blah"
Again, if I present this evidence what are you going to do? YOU are the one who needs to present the evidence because according to you all evidence supports your theory. Again, if I present it what are you going to do?
In the verses listed Jesus commanded people who were NOT prophets to JUDGE. As far as forced-into-the-closet-gay men does that have something to do with how you mentioned the arousal of homohphobes, but how that arousal can be linked to one of two things?
No, it is explicit, and if you had the ability to understand the languages the scriptures come from and how the scriptures ARE written a certain way you would understand this.
According to the bible, what you quoted is an actual event and not a story, metaphor or parable. Yes, you have misinterpreted the scriptures, and if you had a concept of Mosaic or Levitical law, you would know EXACTLY why these men were WRONG. It had NOTHING to do with them having skeletons in the closet (no pun intended.)
No, I'm not agreeing to that. Here it is I've already proven that you misinterpreted scripture (REFER TO YOUR ORIGINAL SIN MADNESS), and YOU were the one who brought the bible into this convo. Don't try to toss it out now buddy.
Another person hell bent on using the bible for his or her purpose. Another person who quotes the bible, yet when they are shown they are WRONG, they want to draw criticism to the bible--and attack what they originally tried to use as a source of proof or validation. LMAO!
What percentage of the bible is mostly stories? What about the percentage for parables? What about the percentage for metaphors? I'll be the moron, however, the fact is you're a gay drug abuser who has lived in sorrow. So, if anyone is misinterpreting reality, it must be you from all the meds and illicit drug use.
Yet you quote from the bible and tried to use it as proof. :dead:
Lies. You quoted the first source in an attempt to somehow show that people are born gay and that the size of the brain supports the theory. I showed that it didn't and even the person we are quoting says you're incorrect. Again, this is what Dr. LaVey said:
I did not prove that homosexuality was genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. INAH-3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than a part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women's sexual behavior...Since I looked at adult brains we don't know if the differences I found were there at birth, or if they appeared later
So, according to the DR the following is true.
1. He did NOT prove homosexuality was genetic. (something you implied he did.)
2. He did NOT show that gay men were born that way.
3. The most common mistake people make about his work is that he proved men are born gay (something you have implied and stated.)
4. He did NOT locate a gay center of the brain (something you implied)
5. He studied adult brains and does not know if the differences he found were present at birth OR arrived at a later date.
Now, how did I show a complete lack of understanding, when it was you who butchered the mans quote in tried to pass off the brain comment as proof? LMAO!
Thanks for proving my point. Your environment can shape the way you are (thus not everyone being born gay) and being judgemental is a product of the environment.
These are all falsehoods and fables. Not once have I lied, and not once have I lost an argument. What have you done? Lied, misquoted, misconstrued, accussed me of saying things I NEVER said, avoided questions, name call and hurl insults. LMAO! You mentioned the people who bash homosexuals, yet it is YOU who is doing the bashing in this thread. All I can do is simply sit back, crack up, and enjoy every post you make because it is obvious that you're a sick "man". :dead:
More insults and more misinterpretations. Those cities were not destroyed because of inhospitality, these cities were destroyed because of the many abominations. What was the main abomination? Homosexuality, fornication and strange flesh. Jude 1:7
How am I doing the same thing? Clearly Hemp stated that he did NOT know you, yet it is obvious that he DID know you. In addition, you are a gay drug addict, so it would be kinda hard for me to NOT think you haven't tried to off yourself. If you haven't don't worry about it. :dead:
Again, Hemp claimed to not even KNOW YOU. LMAO! However, according to the BOTH of you, your his friend that had bowel problems...maybe it was linked to something else...
It was a joke thread yet YOU promoted drug use and explained what happened when you tried whatever substance you were taking. Sure, it was a joke thread alright...
Again, I said "...and this implies ALL, an absolute number, or a relative all comprising the majority (or most significant.)"
You are once again starting to back peddle and spin the bottle. When you say ALL EVIDENCE you mean exactly that OR you mean the most signicant points to one thing--your position. Clearly this is INCORRECT. Again, if it is literral or rhetorical makes no difference at this point, and I even gave you the benefit of the doubt by suggesting it could have been a relative number and not absolute. The bottom line is, you need to stop typing madness because people are going to call you on it. Again, by making your statement, you are implying that most or all evidence supports your claim when it doesn't.
EMPHASIS MINE.
So how can one be born judgemental like you led Hemp to believe?
Why explain it to all of them when I can save myself the headache and discuss it with people who are in agreement? Confusion and not knowing which way to go is YOUR domain.
I'm being insulted by a homosexual who is a drug addict and can't shake his mental disorders.aranoid:
Ignored just like all of the questions I asked. Ignored just like all the proof I provided that sinks your ship.
How do you know I'm not involved in those communities, but what good have those communities done you? You're still a drug addict and you still have mental issues. :dead:
See, the only thing you've done is made insult after insult and misinterpret information.
1. You said original sin was sex.
That was refuted.
2. Once refuted you changed your position and said it stemmed from disobedience and that procreation was not possible until the fall.
That was refuted by showing you the verses in Genesis.
3. You said Jesus couldn't judge and that people shouldn't judge.
That was refuted by providiing several scriptures.
4. You cite the bible as a source yet you attack it when it is used against you.
That is illogical.
5. You quoted a portion of Dr. LaVeys statement, yet when I quoted all of it, it did not endorse your position.
You were proven wrong.
6. You introduced homophobes and sexual arousal in hopes of adding to your position.
I quoted a reliable source and showed the arousal was due to these men actually being homosexual themeselves or that it was caused by anxiety.
7. You said I did not cite any sources.
I cited all of Dr. LaVeys statement and I cited the source that dealt with the study of arousal.
8. You said "Just admit you were wrong in saying that it has no evolutionary purpose, then we can pretend you are not delusional in SOME arguments."
Yet when asked to quote or show this alleged statement you FAILED to do so.
Do I need to continue this? I mean you have like 10 more wacky claims that I demolished, but I need to move on so I can finish this up.
All of this is your opinion. However here is a fact. I am not gay, I am not on medication, I do not have mental issues, and I am not a junkie.
Again, you are misinterpreting the text. Nowhere in the bible does it say or imply that the fathers consent is required for judgment. The two things that ARE required for judgment are RIGHTEOUSNESS and NO HYPOCRISY. If I am a crack addict and I tell you to stop smokign crack I am wrong. If I am NOT a crack addict, I tell you it is wrong to smoke crack, and I tell you because I don't want you to overdose that is filling the requirements that I have already presented. Again, I have listed the verses that said we are to judge. Due to your blindness, and wanting to be gay, you overlook these.
Your opinion.
You sound like a pre-schooler "you don't even know what this is blah blah blah"
Again, if I present this evidence what are you going to do? YOU are the one who needs to present the evidence because according to you all evidence supports your theory. Again, if I present it what are you going to do?
In the verses listed Jesus commanded people who were NOT prophets to JUDGE. As far as forced-into-the-closet-gay men does that have something to do with how you mentioned the arousal of homohphobes, but how that arousal can be linked to one of two things?
No, it is explicit, and if you had the ability to understand the languages the scriptures come from and how the scriptures ARE written a certain way you would understand this.
According to the bible, what you quoted is an actual event and not a story, metaphor or parable. Yes, you have misinterpreted the scriptures, and if you had a concept of Mosaic or Levitical law, you would know EXACTLY why these men were WRONG. It had NOTHING to do with them having skeletons in the closet (no pun intended.)
No, I'm not agreeing to that. Here it is I've already proven that you misinterpreted scripture (REFER TO YOUR ORIGINAL SIN MADNESS), and YOU were the one who brought the bible into this convo. Don't try to toss it out now buddy.
Another person hell bent on using the bible for his or her purpose. Another person who quotes the bible, yet when they are shown they are WRONG, they want to draw criticism to the bible--and attack what they originally tried to use as a source of proof or validation. LMAO!
What percentage of the bible is mostly stories? What about the percentage for parables? What about the percentage for metaphors? I'll be the moron, however, the fact is you're a gay drug abuser who has lived in sorrow. So, if anyone is misinterpreting reality, it must be you from all the meds and illicit drug use.
Yet you quote from the bible and tried to use it as proof. :dead:
Lies. You quoted the first source in an attempt to somehow show that people are born gay and that the size of the brain supports the theory. I showed that it didn't and even the person we are quoting says you're incorrect. Again, this is what Dr. LaVey said:
I did not prove that homosexuality was genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. INAH-3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than a part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women's sexual behavior...Since I looked at adult brains we don't know if the differences I found were there at birth, or if they appeared later
So, according to the DR the following is true.
1. He did NOT prove homosexuality was genetic. (something you implied he did.)
2. He did NOT show that gay men were born that way.
3. The most common mistake people make about his work is that he proved men are born gay (something you have implied and stated.)
4. He did NOT locate a gay center of the brain (something you implied)
5. He studied adult brains and does not know if the differences he found were present at birth OR arrived at a later date.
Now, how did I show a complete lack of understanding, when it was you who butchered the mans quote in tried to pass off the brain comment as proof? LMAO!
Thanks for proving my point. Your environment can shape the way you are (thus not everyone being born gay) and being judgemental is a product of the environment.
These are all falsehoods and fables. Not once have I lied, and not once have I lost an argument. What have you done? Lied, misquoted, misconstrued, accussed me of saying things I NEVER said, avoided questions, name call and hurl insults. LMAO! You mentioned the people who bash homosexuals, yet it is YOU who is doing the bashing in this thread. All I can do is simply sit back, crack up, and enjoy every post you make because it is obvious that you're a sick "man". :dead:
More insults and more misinterpretations. Those cities were not destroyed because of inhospitality, these cities were destroyed because of the many abominations. What was the main abomination? Homosexuality, fornication and strange flesh. Jude 1:7
How am I doing the same thing? Clearly Hemp stated that he did NOT know you, yet it is obvious that he DID know you. In addition, you are a gay drug addict, so it would be kinda hard for me to NOT think you haven't tried to off yourself. If you haven't don't worry about it. :dead:
Again, Hemp claimed to not even KNOW YOU. LMAO! However, according to the BOTH of you, your his friend that had bowel problems...maybe it was linked to something else...
It was a joke thread yet YOU promoted drug use and explained what happened when you tried whatever substance you were taking. Sure, it was a joke thread alright...
Again, I said "...and this implies ALL, an absolute number, or a relative all comprising the majority (or most significant.)"
You are once again starting to back peddle and spin the bottle. When you say ALL EVIDENCE you mean exactly that OR you mean the most signicant points to one thing--your position. Clearly this is INCORRECT. Again, if it is literral or rhetorical makes no difference at this point, and I even gave you the benefit of the doubt by suggesting it could have been a relative number and not absolute. The bottom line is, you need to stop typing madness because people are going to call you on it. Again, by making your statement, you are implying that most or all evidence supports your claim when it doesn't.
EMPHASIS MINE.
So how can one be born judgemental like you led Hemp to believe?
Why explain it to all of them when I can save myself the headache and discuss it with people who are in agreement? Confusion and not knowing which way to go is YOUR domain.
I'm being insulted by a homosexual who is a drug addict and can't shake his mental disorders.
aranoid: Ignored just like all of the questions I asked. Ignored just like all the proof I provided that sinks your ship.
How do you know I'm not involved in those communities, but what good have those communities done you? You're still a drug addict and you still have mental issues. :dead:
See, the only thing you've done is made insult after insult and misinterpret information.
1. You said original sin was sex.
That was refuted.
2. Once refuted you changed your position and said it stemmed from disobedience and that procreation was not possible until the fall.
That was refuted by showing you the verses in Genesis.
3. You said Jesus couldn't judge and that people shouldn't judge.
That was refuted by providiing several scriptures.
4. You cite the bible as a source yet you attack it when it is used against you.
That is illogical.
5. You quoted a portion of Dr. LaVeys statement, yet when I quoted all of it, it did not endorse your position.
You were proven wrong.
6. You introduced homophobes and sexual arousal in hopes of adding to your position.
I quoted a reliable source and showed the arousal was due to these men actually being homosexual themeselves or that it was caused by anxiety.
7. You said I did not cite any sources.
I cited all of Dr. LaVeys statement and I cited the source that dealt with the study of arousal.
8. You said "Just admit you were wrong in saying that it has no evolutionary purpose, then we can pretend you are not delusional in SOME arguments."
Yet when asked to quote or show this alleged statement you FAILED to do so.
Do I need to continue this? I mean you have like 10 more wacky claims that I demolished, but I need to move on so I can finish this up.
All of this is your opinion. However here is a fact. I am not gay, I am not on medication, I do not have mental issues, and I am not a junkie.
http://www.narth.com/docs/berman2.html
from "Born that way" theory(check this)
The Human Embryo's Sex Differentiation:
Why Do Men Have Nipples?
A Book Review by Louis A. Berman PHD
Professor of Psychology (retired),
University of Illinois at Chicago
March 31, 2006 - My eyes popped when I saw the title of the New Yorker writer Mark Leyner and Dr. Billy Goldberg's little book, Why Do Men Have Nipples? I felt, I confess, more than a touch of envy when their book hit The New York Times Bestseller list, and came out in a paperback edition. My book, The Puzzle (Godot Press, 2003), covers the topic more thoroughly, and discusses the role of nipples in the sex life of both straight and gay males.
The Puzzle argues that male homosexuality results from an interaction between inborn and social factors, and that an important inborn factor is low brain masculinization. Why do male brains have to become masculinized at a given stage of embryonic development? Because for the first six weeks of life, all embryos are proto-female. Afterwards, some male brains become more thoroughly masculinized than others. Males whose brains are masculinized to a lesser or minimal extent, are more likely to display gender-discordance, or to drift toward homosexuality as a way of correcting or accommodating to their felt deficit.
A well-trained embryologist cannot tell the difference between a male and a female embryo if the embryo is less than seven weeks old. At that early stage of prenatal life, there is a fork in the road of development. If there are no hormonal changes in the prenatal environment, the embryo developes into a female. If, however, the embryo is destined to become a male, its Y-chromosomes trigger the production of testosterone (the male hormone), which masculinizes the brain and genitalia (internal as well as external) of the embryo. But it takes no female hormone to produce a female infant. (Only at age ten or later does the female body begin to produce the hormones that transform the girl into a woman.)
Every person begins life with a proto-female brain. Testosterone masculinizes the brain (and genitals) of those embryos that are genetically marked to develop as males. Almost all male genitals are thoroughly masculinized. (There are, unhappily, rare exceptions.) But, there is some direct evidence, and lots of indirect evidence, that there is a wide range of variation in the degree to which the male brain is masculinized. The Puzzle argues that the low-masculinized brain shades the inner life of the individual with female thoughts, feelings, and wishes. This tendency, it is hypothesized, underlies gender-discordant behavior, fear of homosexuality, and homosexual behavior. As one unhappy homosexual man lamented, "I am a male with a female brain."
So the problem (for those for whom it is felt as a problem) or the fact of their homosexual situation begins with the fact that we all begin life as a proto-female, and that a few males end up with a low-masculinized brain. What is the evidence that life begins for all of us as proto-females? We all have nipples, that's the evidence. As Leyner and Goldberg put it, "During development, the embryo follows a female template until about six weeks, when the male sex chromosome kicks in for a male embryo." But before the end of the sixth week, a pair of sweat glands on the chest has already begun to differentiate as nipples. All infants are therefore born with nipples and some breast tissue. As they approach puberty, the female hormones that course through the bloodstream of girls reshape their body in womanly ways, including the development of their breasts. Males are left with vestigial nipples, a reminder that life begins for all of us as proto-females, and some of us are fated to become more masculinized than others.
from "Born that way" theory(check this)
The Human Embryo's Sex Differentiation:
Why Do Men Have Nipples?
A Book Review by Louis A. Berman PHD
Professor of Psychology (retired),
University of Illinois at Chicago
March 31, 2006 - My eyes popped when I saw the title of the New Yorker writer Mark Leyner and Dr. Billy Goldberg's little book, Why Do Men Have Nipples? I felt, I confess, more than a touch of envy when their book hit The New York Times Bestseller list, and came out in a paperback edition. My book, The Puzzle (Godot Press, 2003), covers the topic more thoroughly, and discusses the role of nipples in the sex life of both straight and gay males.
The Puzzle argues that male homosexuality results from an interaction between inborn and social factors, and that an important inborn factor is low brain masculinization. Why do male brains have to become masculinized at a given stage of embryonic development? Because for the first six weeks of life, all embryos are proto-female. Afterwards, some male brains become more thoroughly masculinized than others. Males whose brains are masculinized to a lesser or minimal extent, are more likely to display gender-discordance, or to drift toward homosexuality as a way of correcting or accommodating to their felt deficit.
A well-trained embryologist cannot tell the difference between a male and a female embryo if the embryo is less than seven weeks old. At that early stage of prenatal life, there is a fork in the road of development. If there are no hormonal changes in the prenatal environment, the embryo developes into a female. If, however, the embryo is destined to become a male, its Y-chromosomes trigger the production of testosterone (the male hormone), which masculinizes the brain and genitalia (internal as well as external) of the embryo. But it takes no female hormone to produce a female infant. (Only at age ten or later does the female body begin to produce the hormones that transform the girl into a woman.)
Every person begins life with a proto-female brain. Testosterone masculinizes the brain (and genitals) of those embryos that are genetically marked to develop as males. Almost all male genitals are thoroughly masculinized. (There are, unhappily, rare exceptions.) But, there is some direct evidence, and lots of indirect evidence, that there is a wide range of variation in the degree to which the male brain is masculinized. The Puzzle argues that the low-masculinized brain shades the inner life of the individual with female thoughts, feelings, and wishes. This tendency, it is hypothesized, underlies gender-discordant behavior, fear of homosexuality, and homosexual behavior. As one unhappy homosexual man lamented, "I am a male with a female brain."
So the problem (for those for whom it is felt as a problem) or the fact of their homosexual situation begins with the fact that we all begin life as a proto-female, and that a few males end up with a low-masculinized brain. What is the evidence that life begins for all of us as proto-females? We all have nipples, that's the evidence. As Leyner and Goldberg put it, "During development, the embryo follows a female template until about six weeks, when the male sex chromosome kicks in for a male embryo." But before the end of the sixth week, a pair of sweat glands on the chest has already begun to differentiate as nipples. All infants are therefore born with nipples and some breast tissue. As they approach puberty, the female hormones that course through the bloodstream of girls reshape their body in womanly ways, including the development of their breasts. Males are left with vestigial nipples, a reminder that life begins for all of us as proto-females, and some of us are fated to become more masculinized than others.
http://www.narth.com/blogs/currentevents/archives/2006/07/no_scientific_b.html
July 18, 2006
No Scientific basis for "born gay" theory
By David Clarke Pruden
Although the simple "born gay" theory has faded from the science scene, activists continue to misrepresent scientific findings. When you assert that individuals are born gay and cannot change, people naturally jump to the conclusion that same-sex marriage is the only rational choice for same-sex attracted individuals.
However, the innate-immutable theory of homosexuality has no basis in science. The simplistic biological theory has been dismissed by all of the researchers whose studies have been cited to support the notion that homosexuality is so deeply compelled by biology that it cannot change.
Let's examine the words of just one of those often incorrectly cited as providing evidence for a "gay gene." Simon LeVay notes, "It is important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality was genetic, or find a cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men were born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work."
A new research study by a University of Illinois team, which has screened the entire human genome, reported that there is no one gay gene. Writing in the journal Human Genetics, lead researcher Dr. Brian Mustanski noted that environmental factors were also likely to be involved. Of the innate-immutable argument, Dr. Richard C. Friedman and Dr. Jennifer Downey, noted, "At clinical conferences one often hears . . . that homosexual orientation is fixed and unmodifiable. Neither assertion is true . . . The assertion that homosexuality is genetic is so reductionistic that it must be dismissed out of hand as a general principle of psychology." And the fluidity of homosexual attractions is well-established. Dr. Ellen Schecter of the Fielding Institute studied women who had self-identified as lesbian for more than 10 years and who after age 30 were now in intimate relationships with men lasting a year or longer. Even more prominent was the research by Robert Spitzer, the very psychiatrist who led the charge to remove homosexuality from the psychiatric manual. His study of 200 gay men and lesbian women who had undergone re-orientation therapy concluded: 44 percent of the women and 66 percent of the men had arrived at what he called "good heterosexual functioning" and 89 percent of the men and 95 percent of the women reported that they were bothered slightly or not at all by unwanted homosexual feelings.
Mainstream gay-affirming publications like The Advocate are changing their terminology to embrace the concept of fluid sexual attractions. Matt Foreman, of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, summarizes what the gay movement has done. "We as a movement can take pride that we opened the door for young people to be much more fluid about sexuality, gender, gender roles, orientation and sexual behavior than any other generation in history. That's what the gay movement has contributed to society, and that's a tremendously good thing." But is it? If the innate-immutable theory of homosexuality has no basis in science then why do so many activists still insist that individuals are born gay and cannot change? LeVay provided the answer. He notes " . . . people who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are more likely to support gay rights." This is not to say that anyone chooses homosexual attractions nor do most of us choose many of the other challenges we face in life, but we do choose how we respond.
July 18, 2006
No Scientific basis for "born gay" theory
By David Clarke Pruden
Although the simple "born gay" theory has faded from the science scene, activists continue to misrepresent scientific findings. When you assert that individuals are born gay and cannot change, people naturally jump to the conclusion that same-sex marriage is the only rational choice for same-sex attracted individuals.
However, the innate-immutable theory of homosexuality has no basis in science. The simplistic biological theory has been dismissed by all of the researchers whose studies have been cited to support the notion that homosexuality is so deeply compelled by biology that it cannot change.
Let's examine the words of just one of those often incorrectly cited as providing evidence for a "gay gene." Simon LeVay notes, "It is important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality was genetic, or find a cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men were born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work."
A new research study by a University of Illinois team, which has screened the entire human genome, reported that there is no one gay gene. Writing in the journal Human Genetics, lead researcher Dr. Brian Mustanski noted that environmental factors were also likely to be involved. Of the innate-immutable argument, Dr. Richard C. Friedman and Dr. Jennifer Downey, noted, "At clinical conferences one often hears . . . that homosexual orientation is fixed and unmodifiable. Neither assertion is true . . . The assertion that homosexuality is genetic is so reductionistic that it must be dismissed out of hand as a general principle of psychology." And the fluidity of homosexual attractions is well-established. Dr. Ellen Schecter of the Fielding Institute studied women who had self-identified as lesbian for more than 10 years and who after age 30 were now in intimate relationships with men lasting a year or longer. Even more prominent was the research by Robert Spitzer, the very psychiatrist who led the charge to remove homosexuality from the psychiatric manual. His study of 200 gay men and lesbian women who had undergone re-orientation therapy concluded: 44 percent of the women and 66 percent of the men had arrived at what he called "good heterosexual functioning" and 89 percent of the men and 95 percent of the women reported that they were bothered slightly or not at all by unwanted homosexual feelings.
Mainstream gay-affirming publications like The Advocate are changing their terminology to embrace the concept of fluid sexual attractions. Matt Foreman, of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, summarizes what the gay movement has done. "We as a movement can take pride that we opened the door for young people to be much more fluid about sexuality, gender, gender roles, orientation and sexual behavior than any other generation in history. That's what the gay movement has contributed to society, and that's a tremendously good thing." But is it? If the innate-immutable theory of homosexuality has no basis in science then why do so many activists still insist that individuals are born gay and cannot change? LeVay provided the answer. He notes " . . . people who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are more likely to support gay rights." This is not to say that anyone chooses homosexual attractions nor do most of us choose many of the other challenges we face in life, but we do choose how we respond.
Is There a "Gay Gene"?
Many laymen now believe that homosexuality is part of who a person really is * from the moment of conception.
The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature?
No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.
How The Public Was Misled
In July of 1993, the prestigious research journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer which claims that there might be a gene for homosexuality. Research seemed to be on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeablea normal variant of human nature.
Soon afterward, National Public Radio trumpeted those findings. Newsweek ran the cover story, "Gay Gene?" The Wall Street Journal announced, "Research Points Toward a Gay Gene...Normal Variation."
Of course, certain necessary qualifiers were added within those news stories. But only an expert knew what those qualifiers meant. The vast majority of readers were urged to believe that homosexuals had been proven to be "born that way."
In order to grasp what is really going on, one needs to understand some littleknown facts about behavioral genetics.
Gene Linkage Studies
Dean Hamer and his colleagues had performed a common type of behavioral genetics investigation called the "linkage study." Researchers identify a behavioral trait that runs in a family, and then:
a) look for a chromosomal variant in the genetic material of that family, and
b) determine whether that variant is more frequent in family members who share the particular trait.
To the layman, the "correlation" of a genetic structure with a behavioral trait means that trait "is genetic"-in other words, inherited.
In fact, it means absolutely nothing of the sort, and it should be emphasized that there is virtually no human trait without innumerable such correlations.
Scientists Know the Truth about "Gay Gene" Research
But before we consider the specifics, here is what serious scientists think about recent genetics-of-behavior research. From Science, 1994:
Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."{1}
Homosexual Twin Studies
Two American activists recently published studies showing that if one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, the other member of the pair will be, too, in just under 50% of the cases. On this basis, they claim that "homosexuality is genetic."
But two other genetic researchers--one heads one of the largest genetics departments in the country, the other is at Harvard--comment:
While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment.{2}
The author of the lead article on genes and behavior in a special issue of Science speaks of the renewed scientific recognition of the importance of environment. He notes the growing understanding that:
... the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple "violence genes" and intelligence genes" touted in the popular press.The same data that show the effects of genes, also point to the enormous influence of nongenetic factors.{3}
More Modest Claims to the Scientific Community
Researchers' public statements to the press are often grand and far-reaching. But when answering the scientific community, they speak much more cautiously.
"Gay gene" researcher Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:
"Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."{4}
But in qualifying their findings, researchers often use language that will surely evade general understanding making statements that will continue to be avoided by the popular press, such as:
...the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a nonMendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic.{5}
Sounds too complex to bother translating? This is actually a very important statement. In layman's terms, this means:
It is not possible to know what the findings mean--if anything--since sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited in the direct way eyecolor is.
Thus, to their fellow scientists, the researchers have been honestly acknowledging the limitations of their research. However, the media doesn't understand that message. Columnist Ann Landers, for example, tells her readers that "homosexuals are born, not made." The media offers partial truths because the scientific reality is simply too unexciting to make the evening news; too complex for mass consumption; and furthermore, not fully and accurately understood by reporters.
Accurate Reporting Will Never Come in "Sound Bites"
There are no "lite," soundbite versions of behavioral genetics that are not fundamentally in error in one way or another.
Nonetheless, if one grasps at least some of the basics, in simple form, it will be possible to see exactly why the current research into homosexuality means so littleand will continue to mean little, even should the quality of the research methods improveso long as it remains driven by political, rather than scientific objectives.
Understanding the Theory
There are only two major principles that need to be carefully understood in order to see through the distortions of the recent research. They are as follows:
1. Heritable does not mean inherited.
2. Genetics research which is truly meaningful will identify, and then focus on, only traits that are directly inherited.
Almost every human characteristic is in significant measure heritable. But few human behavioral traits are directly inherited, in the manner of height, for example, or eye color. Inherited means "directly determined by genes," with little or no way of preventing or modifying the trait through a change in the environment.
How to "Prove" That Basketball-Players are Born that Way
Suppose you are motivated to demonstratefor political reasons--that there is a basketball gene that makes people grow up to be basketball players. You would use the same methods that have been used with homosexuality: (1) twin studies; (2) brain dissections; (3) gene "linkage" studies.
The basic idea in twin studies is to show that the more genetically similar two people are, the more likely it is that they will share the trait you are studying.
So you identify groups of twins in which at least one is a basketball player. You will probably find that if one identical twin is a basketball player, his twin brother is statistically more likely be one, too. You would need to create groups of different kinds of pairs to make further comparisons--one set of identical twin pairs, one set of nonidentical twin pairs, one set of sibling pairs, etc.
Using the "concordance rate" (the percentage of pairs in which both twins are basketball players, or both are not), you would calculate a "heritability" rate. The concordance rate would be quite high--just as in the concordance rate for homosexuality.
Then, you announce to the reporter from Sports Illustrated: "Our research demonstrates that basketball playing is strongly heritable." (And you would be right. It would be "heritable"--but not directly inherited. Few readers would be aware of the distinction, however.)
Soon after, the article appears. It says:
"...New research shows that basketball playing is probably inherited. Basketball players are apparently 'born that way!' A number of outside researchers examined the work and found it substantially accurate and wellperformed..."
But no one (other than the serious scientist) notices the media's inaccurate reporting.
What All Neuroscientists Know:
The Brain Changes with Use
Then you move on to conduct some brain research. As in the well-known LeVay brain study which measured parts of the hypothalamus, your colleagues perform a series of autopsies on the brains of some dead people who, they have reason to believe, were basketball players.
Next, they do the same with a group of dead nonbasketball players. Your colleagues report that, on average, "Certain parts of the brain long thought to be involved with basketball playing are much larger in the group of basketball players."
A few national newspapers pick up on the story and editorialize, "Clearly, basketball playing is not a choice. Not only does basketball playing run in families, but even these people's brains are different."
You, of course, as a scientist, are well aware that the brain changes with use...indeed quite dramatically. Those parts responsible for an activity get larger over time, and there are specific parts of the brain that are more utilized in basketball playing.
Now, as a scientist, you will not lie about this fact, if asked (since you will not be), but neither will you go out of your way to offer the truth. The truth, after all, would put an end to the worldwide media blitz accompanying the announcement of your findings.
Gene Linkage Studies:
"Associated With" Does Not Mean "Caused By"
Now, for the last phase, you find a small number of families of basketball players and compare them to some families of nonplayers. You have a hunch that of the innumerable genes likely to be associated with basketball playing (those for height, athleticism, and quick reflexes, for example), some will be located on the x-chromosome.
You won't say these genes cause basketball playing because such a claim would be scientifically insupportable, but the public thinks "caused by" and "associated with" are synonymous.
After a few false starts, sure enough, you find what you are looking for: among the basketball-playing families, one particular cluster of genes is found more commonly.
With a Little Help from the Media
Now, it happens that you have some sympathizers at National People's Radio, and they were long ago quietly informed of your research. They want people to come around to certain beliefs, too. So, as soon as your work hits the press, they are on the air: "Researchers are hot on the trail of the Basketball Gene. In an article to be published tomorrow in Sports Science..."
Commentators pontificate about the enormous public-policy implications of this superb piece of science. Two weeks later, there it is again, on the cover of the major national newsweekly: "Basketball Gene?"
Now what is wrong with this scenario? It is simple: of course basketball playing is associated with certain genes; of course it is heritable. But it is those intermediate physiological traitsmuscle strength, speed, agility, reflex speed, height, etc.-which are themselves directly inherited. Those are the traits that make it likely one will be able to, and will want to, play basketball.
In the case of homosexuality, the inherited traits that are more common among male homosexuals might include a greater than average tendency to anxiety, shyness, sensitivity, intelligence, and aesthetic abilities. But this is speculation. To date, researchers have not yet sought to identify these factors with scientific rigor.
What the majority of respected scientists now believe is that homosexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social, and biological factors.
From the American Psychological Association
"[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."{6}
From "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay
"At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role."{7}
From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist:
"Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."{8}
From Sociologist Steven Goldberg
"I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."{9}
As we have seen, there is no evidence that homosexuality is simply "genetic"--and none of the research itself claims there is.
Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.
http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
Many laymen now believe that homosexuality is part of who a person really is * from the moment of conception.
The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature?
No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.
How The Public Was Misled
In July of 1993, the prestigious research journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer which claims that there might be a gene for homosexuality. Research seemed to be on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeablea normal variant of human nature.
Soon afterward, National Public Radio trumpeted those findings. Newsweek ran the cover story, "Gay Gene?" The Wall Street Journal announced, "Research Points Toward a Gay Gene...Normal Variation."
Of course, certain necessary qualifiers were added within those news stories. But only an expert knew what those qualifiers meant. The vast majority of readers were urged to believe that homosexuals had been proven to be "born that way."
In order to grasp what is really going on, one needs to understand some littleknown facts about behavioral genetics.
Gene Linkage Studies
Dean Hamer and his colleagues had performed a common type of behavioral genetics investigation called the "linkage study." Researchers identify a behavioral trait that runs in a family, and then:
a) look for a chromosomal variant in the genetic material of that family, and
b) determine whether that variant is more frequent in family members who share the particular trait.
To the layman, the "correlation" of a genetic structure with a behavioral trait means that trait "is genetic"-in other words, inherited.
In fact, it means absolutely nothing of the sort, and it should be emphasized that there is virtually no human trait without innumerable such correlations.
Scientists Know the Truth about "Gay Gene" Research
But before we consider the specifics, here is what serious scientists think about recent genetics-of-behavior research. From Science, 1994:
Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."{1}
Homosexual Twin Studies
Two American activists recently published studies showing that if one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, the other member of the pair will be, too, in just under 50% of the cases. On this basis, they claim that "homosexuality is genetic."
But two other genetic researchers--one heads one of the largest genetics departments in the country, the other is at Harvard--comment:
While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment.{2}
The author of the lead article on genes and behavior in a special issue of Science speaks of the renewed scientific recognition of the importance of environment. He notes the growing understanding that:
... the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple "violence genes" and intelligence genes" touted in the popular press.The same data that show the effects of genes, also point to the enormous influence of nongenetic factors.{3}
More Modest Claims to the Scientific Community
Researchers' public statements to the press are often grand and far-reaching. But when answering the scientific community, they speak much more cautiously.
"Gay gene" researcher Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:
"Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."{4}
But in qualifying their findings, researchers often use language that will surely evade general understanding making statements that will continue to be avoided by the popular press, such as:
...the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a nonMendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic.{5}
Sounds too complex to bother translating? This is actually a very important statement. In layman's terms, this means:
It is not possible to know what the findings mean--if anything--since sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited in the direct way eyecolor is.
Thus, to their fellow scientists, the researchers have been honestly acknowledging the limitations of their research. However, the media doesn't understand that message. Columnist Ann Landers, for example, tells her readers that "homosexuals are born, not made." The media offers partial truths because the scientific reality is simply too unexciting to make the evening news; too complex for mass consumption; and furthermore, not fully and accurately understood by reporters.
Accurate Reporting Will Never Come in "Sound Bites"
There are no "lite," soundbite versions of behavioral genetics that are not fundamentally in error in one way or another.
Nonetheless, if one grasps at least some of the basics, in simple form, it will be possible to see exactly why the current research into homosexuality means so littleand will continue to mean little, even should the quality of the research methods improveso long as it remains driven by political, rather than scientific objectives.
Understanding the Theory
There are only two major principles that need to be carefully understood in order to see through the distortions of the recent research. They are as follows:
1. Heritable does not mean inherited.
2. Genetics research which is truly meaningful will identify, and then focus on, only traits that are directly inherited.
Almost every human characteristic is in significant measure heritable. But few human behavioral traits are directly inherited, in the manner of height, for example, or eye color. Inherited means "directly determined by genes," with little or no way of preventing or modifying the trait through a change in the environment.
How to "Prove" That Basketball-Players are Born that Way
Suppose you are motivated to demonstratefor political reasons--that there is a basketball gene that makes people grow up to be basketball players. You would use the same methods that have been used with homosexuality: (1) twin studies; (2) brain dissections; (3) gene "linkage" studies.
The basic idea in twin studies is to show that the more genetically similar two people are, the more likely it is that they will share the trait you are studying.
So you identify groups of twins in which at least one is a basketball player. You will probably find that if one identical twin is a basketball player, his twin brother is statistically more likely be one, too. You would need to create groups of different kinds of pairs to make further comparisons--one set of identical twin pairs, one set of nonidentical twin pairs, one set of sibling pairs, etc.
Using the "concordance rate" (the percentage of pairs in which both twins are basketball players, or both are not), you would calculate a "heritability" rate. The concordance rate would be quite high--just as in the concordance rate for homosexuality.
Then, you announce to the reporter from Sports Illustrated: "Our research demonstrates that basketball playing is strongly heritable." (And you would be right. It would be "heritable"--but not directly inherited. Few readers would be aware of the distinction, however.)
Soon after, the article appears. It says:
"...New research shows that basketball playing is probably inherited. Basketball players are apparently 'born that way!' A number of outside researchers examined the work and found it substantially accurate and wellperformed..."
But no one (other than the serious scientist) notices the media's inaccurate reporting.
What All Neuroscientists Know:
The Brain Changes with Use
Then you move on to conduct some brain research. As in the well-known LeVay brain study which measured parts of the hypothalamus, your colleagues perform a series of autopsies on the brains of some dead people who, they have reason to believe, were basketball players.
Next, they do the same with a group of dead nonbasketball players. Your colleagues report that, on average, "Certain parts of the brain long thought to be involved with basketball playing are much larger in the group of basketball players."
A few national newspapers pick up on the story and editorialize, "Clearly, basketball playing is not a choice. Not only does basketball playing run in families, but even these people's brains are different."
You, of course, as a scientist, are well aware that the brain changes with use...indeed quite dramatically. Those parts responsible for an activity get larger over time, and there are specific parts of the brain that are more utilized in basketball playing.
Now, as a scientist, you will not lie about this fact, if asked (since you will not be), but neither will you go out of your way to offer the truth. The truth, after all, would put an end to the worldwide media blitz accompanying the announcement of your findings.
Gene Linkage Studies:
"Associated With" Does Not Mean "Caused By"
Now, for the last phase, you find a small number of families of basketball players and compare them to some families of nonplayers. You have a hunch that of the innumerable genes likely to be associated with basketball playing (those for height, athleticism, and quick reflexes, for example), some will be located on the x-chromosome.
You won't say these genes cause basketball playing because such a claim would be scientifically insupportable, but the public thinks "caused by" and "associated with" are synonymous.
After a few false starts, sure enough, you find what you are looking for: among the basketball-playing families, one particular cluster of genes is found more commonly.
With a Little Help from the Media
Now, it happens that you have some sympathizers at National People's Radio, and they were long ago quietly informed of your research. They want people to come around to certain beliefs, too. So, as soon as your work hits the press, they are on the air: "Researchers are hot on the trail of the Basketball Gene. In an article to be published tomorrow in Sports Science..."
Commentators pontificate about the enormous public-policy implications of this superb piece of science. Two weeks later, there it is again, on the cover of the major national newsweekly: "Basketball Gene?"
Now what is wrong with this scenario? It is simple: of course basketball playing is associated with certain genes; of course it is heritable. But it is those intermediate physiological traitsmuscle strength, speed, agility, reflex speed, height, etc.-which are themselves directly inherited. Those are the traits that make it likely one will be able to, and will want to, play basketball.
In the case of homosexuality, the inherited traits that are more common among male homosexuals might include a greater than average tendency to anxiety, shyness, sensitivity, intelligence, and aesthetic abilities. But this is speculation. To date, researchers have not yet sought to identify these factors with scientific rigor.
What the majority of respected scientists now believe is that homosexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social, and biological factors.
From the American Psychological Association
"[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."{6}
From "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay
"At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role."{7}
From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist:
"Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."{8}
From Sociologist Steven Goldberg
"I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."{9}
As we have seen, there is no evidence that homosexuality is simply "genetic"--and none of the research itself claims there is.
Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.
http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
Still talking out of your ass instead of your brain:dead:, Hearsay? Still don't understand why even your own evidence points to it not being a choice for the individual but many factors including possibly genetics and almost definitely biology to some degree? Well, that's because you are incapable of being rational. :dead: