http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/0...ivist-says-theres-no-proof-lgbt-people-exist/ Why did no one tell me? Or them, for that matter?
link but I suppose there is proof of god right? So, does anyone support what she said? From what I'm reading, she's out there by herself
Go away figment of our imagination!! Anyways, this seems more likely to suggest right wing christians with brains don't exist. And that now has more proof to back it up....
Are they any different creatures then you and I.? The only difference is those people have a different behavior then the main stream population
Sure, good for a laugh but then attacking a phrase out of context usually backfires since it's just pointed out by those attacked that if you had a real argument you would use that and not go for the cheap shot. And it is a cheap shot because clearly that literal interpretation is not what she's claiming at all. The message from her site is that the inate condition of homosexuality doesn't exist because there is no "gay gene", ie. that Homosexuality is a choice and one could, if one just wanted to, choose to be straight. http://www.missionamerica.com/ A few links from her site: http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/02/13/MN87077.DTL http://web.archive.org/web/20050305150039/bcn.bi.org/issue12/gene.html The rational adult response is to find research that shows that she is wrong. That homosexuality is in fact genetic and/or the result of early brain development and is thus inate and not something one can change by conscious action. That's the real issue. Arthur
Research findings are valid only until new research comes in. So they cannot serve as a permanent basis for judgments and actions.
No According to the link you posted it says: She made the comments during her weekend broadcast A Broadcast is clearly not a soundbite. But the article didn't include the whole broadcast, just this little piece that appears to be taken out of context. Again, while it may be fun to make fun of comments taken out of context, it only cheapens your position because the logical retort is that if you actually had an argument against her position you would use it. Arthur
I prefer the prenatal hormones hypothesis myself. BTW, ladies, I’m not gay, but I have enough estrogen to make me a pretty boy. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
We have to make judgements and actions based on the best available knowledge, so your argument is pointless. Besides some things are definitive. The world is not flat. And if a gene was found that if present always resulted in homosexuality than that cause would be established just as clearly as the genetic basis for hemophelia has been established. Arthur
Even if science were to find such a gene and be reasonably sure of how homosexuality is genetically/biologically determined, it is not likely that those Christians would accept those findings. Ideology can only be fought with force, or more ideology, but not with reason and science.
Is it not? I suppose it was an in-depth discussion? Oh, wait, it wasn't. Apparently not. And if she had an argument she'd make one. No mention of genes in the broadcast and she also clearly claims that it is possible to become "not gay" by an effort of will.