Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Dywyddyr, Sep 28, 2011.
See Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin, Dawkins etc
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Oh wait, but it was.
In fact she specifically clarifies that comment:
There ARE people who are homosexually attracted and involved in homosexual behaviors. (about 1/4 way in)
Which is her argument, that homosexuality is not a "separate form of human", but is a learned behavior which can be unlearned.
She does. In her broadcasts and on her site.
Does she have to mention genes in every broadcast and every time she discusses the issue for you to not take her position out of context?
Which shows the article and your original post is just for laughs and not about her actual position because if she says someone can become "not gay" then she is saying that they must have been gay to start with.
But her claim is not that people don't live as homosexuals but that it's not genetic/biological but instead that it is a learned behavior.
Ah, right. A five minute or so broadcast where she also talks about other issues is "in depth".
Which she has no evidence for.
If she meant genes then she should have at least mentioned them, no?
In other words she doesn't know what she's talking about.
Then she should have said that. And supported it.
Sure, in fact I think it's pretty much the dogma of the Baptists and the Catholics and Muslims etc.
They consider homosexuality a sin.
It couldn't be a sin if you were stuck with it.
So the working theory is homosexuality is a behavior based on choices you make.
It is when she does one several times a week and also has a website with supporting information and numerous links.
Well she does provide numerous links in her web-site that supposedly support her position (I linked to a few earlier).
Not necessarily in every broadcast since she does so prominately on her web site (and that web site was linked to in the original story, so it's not like the original authors were unaware of what her REAL position was)
I've never claimed that she did, only that your attack on a snippet taken out of context is self-defeating.
She DID say that.
Support within that short broadcast, not so much, but again, she does do so at her web site (and I presume on other previous broadcasts (I think most radio hosts presume that most of their audience is generally "up to speed" on the basics, so to speak).
So your argument is basically "don't listen to what she actually said in THAT broadcast, go away, find and read her website and also find her other broadcasts".
My argument hasn't changed since my first post on the subject:
Oh, and from the excerpt I got and posted from the MP3 you posted, she was clear about what she meant in THAT broadcast, so no you didn't need to go anywhere else. It was the story in the link you posted that took her words out of context and which you repeated as if it was a valid analysis.
So what do you think they will say when we can prove that it is genetic ?
they will still call it a sin and seek out new evidence to support sexual acts as perverse. You see jacking off is just as much a sin is the thing and they all do it . So here is the question ? Do you have to have an orgasm for it to be called jacking off . Is playing with it until your wet/stiff jacking off and if it is only Jacking is that a sin too? Can you pull on your peeker just until it gets hard and have it not be a sin ? What about the thought you have while you pulling on it . Can that thought be construed as a sin ? That woman touches her vagina and has impure thoughts about it from a biblical sense I am positive . She would have a hard time proving it otherwise to Me . Lets not even get into the dreams she may have that are sexual in nature . You can control your dreams is the thing . I do so yes it can be done . It takes a lot of practice just to control what you think while conscious , much more for your night dreams . I doubt very mush she does and has had plenty of sexually explicit dreams in her life so on a religious bases being a foundation for it not to be socially excepted as normal behavior is totally not valid. The disturbing part for me is the insinuation that a behavior can be changed . It has a feel of we should to it and that is wrong . It is based on moral Judgment with no moral imperative to back it up . No dead body so to speak like murder . If it was sodomy of a child by a priest then yes we have the child abuse as a body to judge the moral fiber of that event , but 2 adults pleasuring each other for joy . There is no sin in that no matter how you try and twist it . It is based in prejudiced . So if what is spouted is true why not change everyone into Homosexuals . If you can do that why not ? It is just as morally valid
I'm sure they feel that even thinking about it is a sin.
I am not the worst sinner for sure, but am definitely a sinning beasterd. LOL. But at least I can admit it.
What would she think of Australia's decision to have three sexes to choose from on their passports...
If homsexuality is based on genetics, then the gene can only be transferred via reproduction, unless renewable/repeatable mutations are possible, where the same mutation appears again and again without the requirement of reproductive transmission.
If we go along with current science and say the latter is not possible, then, ironically, conforming homosexuality, to ways of heterosexual behavior, is the best way to keep the homosexual genes maximized; maximizes heterosexual reproduction.
If we totally accepted homosexual as its own behavior, and this is genetic, there would be far less transmission of gays genes via reproduction, by default, resulting in the genetic decline of homosexuality.
Ironically, the persecution of the homosexuals and being forced to live a lie as a heterosexual, helped keep the homosexual genes perpetual, via children and reproduction. The liberal acceptance of an independent lifestyle, by limiting sexual transmission of the genes, by default is thinning the homosexual gene pool since the genes will dead end.
If the gene argument is valid science, all those years of persecution. having to live like a straight person kept the homosexual genes alive. Once this was taken away, there is less sexaul transmission of the gays genes, and we should begin to see a decline in numbers over the next decades. If science was full of crap, there will be little change. This will tell us if science is corruptable.
Why are you so sure scientists will be able to prove that it is genetic?
Oh, sure you do. They will deny the science for as many years as possible until they would look like absolute fools not to accept it.
Many of them still wink wink to the fundies belief that evolution is a fraud and that all the bones are planted.
My point is they are taking that position because their first thought was to make it a sin because they didn't understand it, or at least the majority did not. Now that they have cemented their position it will be hell or high water to change. So they will fight it tooth and nail just as they have every other scientific discovery that has challenged their views in the past.
What makes me so sure we will be able to prove that it's genetic ?
It's more a question as to the thought process of this woman in the OP. Even if we have evidence one day of this she will deny it because they are incapable of changing their beliefs if it challenges their religion.
I'm not sure we will. But I think we will one day find the answers to many of these questions, it may not be in any of our lifetimes but that is not of concern to the truth now is it.
Human sexuality is controled by a gene? I think that is absurd. Let's say that someone is attracted to dark haired voluptous women. Is there a dark haired big hipped woman gene? It is silly. Sexuality is part enviroment, part genetic, part brain wiring and part experience.
If you think homosexuality is a learned behaviour that can be unlearned, then you must then believe that you can also learn to be a homosexual. Think that would be pretty easy to do? You may actually be able to be programed to be attracted to the same sex, or to be attracted to the opposite sex if you are homosexual. That is the problem though it is a programing and that would be the real perversion.
Geeze who freaking cares what peoples sexual orientation is as long as they are consenting adults.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Another example of a sheer lack of knowledge and an extreme presence of stupid... I feel embarrassed for America sometimes.
Oh, she probably would hate it...
I bet she's one of those people that insists on their right to call the transgendered "it."
I found a picture of Linda Harvey naked.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You have no idea how much I wish I could say I was sorry for that.
uh, that's not the same. They don't approve but they aren't saying they don't exist. I wondering is anyone backs her up by agreeing with her about their existence.
I really don't give a shit what wikipedia says the Catholic church says about it, you got it wrong. The Roman church thinks it is perfectly natural for every person to be just as god intended them to be, they only believe that the EXPRESSION of homosexuality is a sin. Just as it is sinful for women to preach the Gospel and head families, and it is sinful to masturbate and have sex before marriage. It is important to distinguish what is reality, and what humans decide to do with the outgrowth of that reality.
Frankly, I think all dogmas are just mankind's attempt to control the masses. However, it really isn't fair to mis-characterize ALL christian sects by the interpretations of some of them. Catholics and Lutherans generally believe that homosexuality in itself can be an a priori condition, and as a condition which is a test of character and a burden placed by god, not in and of itself, inherently sinful. It is only to act upon the desires of such a condition that would be sinful. Just as it would be sinful for someone that had a desire for pedophilia, incestuous or forced intercourse and premarital sex, to act upon these impulses would be a sinful act. In their view, these are the standards that keep a good "Catholic" or "Lutheran" community moral. Now from what I am told, around half of all Methodists not only accept homosexuality as being created by god, but accept the free acknowledgement and acting on that creation, and believe it is not sinful.
I am not really familiar with the Jewish position, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were very similar to the Catholic view. It is not a sin to be gay, just don't act on it. The Roman Church's interpretation of the Old Testament tends to rely heavily on Jewish interpretation.
And the Islamic view? I haven't looked into it much. I don't feel qualified to comment on this.
Only in the evangelical community do you get these "retreats" and "centers" designed to reprogram members of the gay community, telling them that there is something wrong with them and that they are sinful. In other religions? They tell them to become celibate and chaste, join nunnery or monastic order.
Too often in our modern world we seek fulfillment and validation of the individual. If people are worried about what their religion says about their sexual desires, they have missed the point of a spiritual life, or a reality that includes a higher consciousness, or a higher truth. A spiritual life is not about sexual desires and their intimate relationships with others. It is about the spiritual and intimate relationship with the consciousness with all of humanity, nature, and the cosmos, and how that relates to the self. Strong, obsessive, "romantic" attachment to ANYTHING, when it comes right down to it, distracts from that focus. To the true spiritual seeker who understands that unconditional love is the only thing of real importance, what difference does sexual orientation make?
In the end, I am sure that the scientists will never find any one gene or chromosome that is a key factor in determining sexual preference. Alternatively, what I wouldn't be surprised if they discover, it is that there are many environmental factors that interplay with various chromosomes that increase the chances that homosexual tendencies will be expressed.
I have a hypothesis of my own. None that I have done any research on mind you, however, just some curious observations which might be coincidental, or might be actual. Since I have been a youngster, there have been a steady increase in the media, in television, and in movies of "gay" literature, movies, books, etc.
Is this due to an increase in their numbers, an increase in awareness, a loosening in social standards, or are the media elites actively pushing an agenda? At first I thought it was probably a combination of all but the first. . . But I am beginning to actually think that there are more and more homosexuals in each generation. Do I think that it is because they have made a choice to be? Nah. . . not by a long shot. Maybe some do, b/c teens like to rebel against parents, and of course, like I said, the liberal cultural elites seem to be pushing that agenda, so it seems to be like the ultimate rebellion cool thing. But at it's heart, I don't think it is a choice. How many would really choose to be persecuted and discriminated against?
Some Food Additives Mimic Human Hormones
New research reveals that some common food additives behave like estrogen in the body
Homosexuality and Biology
Birth Order May Affect Homosexuality
Researcher Says Study Supports Idea That Sexual Orientation Starts Before Birth
I suspect the hormones in the mothers system, her emotional and environmental conditions, etc., has a lot more to do with the sexual orientation of the child than any genetic factors. This is just my hypothesis from the information I have gleaned.
Separate names with a comma.