Truth - the New Hate Speech

It's like the age old question, is it genetics or environment.

Why can't people understand it can be a combination of both.

Just ask those in ancient Sparta and Greece how culture influences gay behavior, unless they all had the gay gene, that is.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well given that you know about epigentics, it really shouldn't.

[b]You as a computer programmer should not pretend to know a hundredth of what I know in my very own field.
There is no pretending at all. I do know a little about genetics, and have made no claims beyond what I do know. I have no idea how it compares to what you know, nor made claims ...[text shortened]... really really really assuming that Ghost of Duke meant 'genetics' when he said 'born that way'?[/b]

Well, that was just... sad.

When someone hands you your hat, it's completely appropriate to simply say 'thank you.'

Originally posted by King Tiger
Let's first be precise with terms and concepts.

I am not putting forth 'my position' as if the data was up for interpretation. The [b]exact point I'm making is that we have no data to at best little data. Hence, to suggest that someone is born gay is an unsupportable position as is someone isn't born gay from a genetic's point of view. This ...[text shortened]... e influenced not by what I know in genetics but what I know elsewhere.

Help at all?

K.T.[/b]

I believe we all have a choice-to suggest we don't I feel fundamentally undermines our humanity. I actually find it far more respectful to say 'I chose to be gay' rather than 'I was born this way'. Own your choices and don't in some manner wear a badge of shame by seeking scientific validity.

Here your position seems to be that being gay (or more specifically, being sexually attracted to the same gender) is a definitely a choice rather than an orientation that a person is born with. On what do you base this? It doesn't seem that it can be based on your knowledge of genetics for as you posted earlier:

My point-to keep it short. We do not know the origin of most characteristics in the human genome. To say there is 'no gay gene' is as unsupportable and dumb as saying 'there is a gay gene'

As such, your position doesn't seem to be based upon your knowledge of genetics.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

Here your position seems to be that being gay (or more specifically, being sexually attracted to the same gender) is a definitely a choice rather than an orientation that a person is born with.

Yes, i think you have hit the nail on the head here. What it really comes down to is which sex 'floats your boat.' I struggle to believe that such a fundamental and basic impulse is a choice, but more a predisposition or innate orientation.

Somethings are not 'chosen' but just part of who we are.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem

The guy's channel's called "Mass Resistance" - but the reality is that you guys are getting your arse handed to you in the court of public opinion. You're all going to end up like the KKK, still stubbornly meeting in small little homes full of fellow bigots, refusing to admit you've lost, and lost bad.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your post underscores the point. Anyone not agreeing with the LBGT legalization agenda is labelled "bigot" and akin to the KKK.

You graphically demonstrate one main point of the video.

What did you think of The Black Book distributed to young boys advising them on how to have homosexual physical interaction with other boys? Parents who object are "bigots" ?

I don't know if you have school age kids but
remember fella - "What goes around comes around."

Originally posted by whodey
Just ask those in ancient Sparta and Greece how culture influences gay behavior, unless they all had the gay gene, that is.

Are you of the opinion that everyone in ancient Sparta and Greece was gay? Or are you telling porkies as usual?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Well, that was just... sad.

When someone hands you your hat, it's completely appropriate to simply say 'thank you.'

Maybe I would, if they did. They didn't.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Are you of the opinion that everyone in ancient Sparta and Greece was gay? Or are you telling porkies as usual?

Spartan soldiers often had a young male understudy of sorts serving with them. Part of that relationship went beyond teaching them how to fight. The older men also had sex with the younger men.

No, I did not get that from an evangelical Christian history book. It was regular "secular" history info.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
This video was just silly. OMG - they're telling kids about gay couples. Well, DUH! Marriages often have kids present. Did we think they weren't going to notice that it was two dudes up there sometimes now?!

The guy's channel's called "Mass Resistance" - but the reality is that you guys are getting your arse handed to you in the court of public opi ...[text shortened]... eeting in small little homes full of fellow bigots, refusing to admit you've lost, and lost bad.

I can't speak for all (or even most) Christians, because many of them have wisely chosen to keep their own counsel. And I can't blame many of them for being silent, because they either don't understand what has been happening or are protecting themselves from an increasingly litigious "court of public opinion".

When I first learned what the term 'homophobia' was supposed to mean it didn't make sense, because simply being in opposition to something doesn't mean the thing being opposed is 'feared'. Terms are best defined by how they are used... so the term 'homophobia' actually means fear of public opinion regarding homosexuality, and from what I've seen it appears the purpose of 'homophobia' is to create fear of being identified as a 'homophobe'.

In other words, the true definition of homophobia as evidenced by its use is not (as we have been told) fear of homosexuals or the homosexual lifestyle. Its purpose is to promote fear of being identified as a homophobe... it's actually a blatant attempt to control public opinion through the use of fear. I didn't want to say this is ironic but it can't be avoided, because this is highly ironic. The purpose of 'homophobia' [identifying someone as a 'homophobe'] is to create the sort of fear able to restrict (if not altogether eliminate) opposition to the homosexual agenda.

So in truth what are we really dealing with here, what actually is this phenomenon... homophobe-phobia?
fear of being identified as a homophobe?

This could be called a clever strategy if it wasn't so obvious, but the fact that so many people have fallen for it actually is cause for fear. Opposing public opinion isn't as problematic or dangerous as publicly speaking against a totalitarian regime (Hey there Hitler, you suck!) but here in the U.S. it's more problematic today than it was a mere 30 or 40 years ago. And I suspect it will become even more problematic than it is today, because that's how incrementalism works.

Overcoming majority opinion takes time and many small steps... no one becomes a two pack a day smoker from the moment they take their very first puff, it takes time for the body to get used to being assaulted by something unnatural or harmful. But it can be done, and I've noticed how many Christians have been seduced into going along with ideas that work directly against foundational Christian principles.

At one time the consequences of free speech when opposing public opinion used to result in the speaker simply being shouted down or mocked, but today it can result in punitive (legal) action impacting a persons reputation and ability to earn a living.



Truth - the New Hate Speech... the title of this thread pretty much says it all.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well given that you know about epigentics, it really shouldn't.

[b]You as a computer programmer should not pretend to know a hundredth of what I know in my very own field.
There is no pretending at all. I do know a little about genetics, and have made no claims beyond what I do know. I have no idea how it compares to what you know, nor made claims ...[text shortened]... really really really assuming that Ghost of Duke meant 'genetics' when he said 'born that way'?[/b]

Well you would be wrong. I have done several Harvard University courses on DNA, and have studied genetics elsewhere too.

🙄

I took some I.T. courses too in college years back. Therefore, I'm obviously fit to tell you how to write a script. 🙄

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Yes, that clarifies your position. My own assertion was more a case of reverse reasoning. I am not of the opinion that people become gay as a result of social factors or early life exeriences etc. It therefore leads me to conclude that people are born gay. I don't see a third option. (Excluding the ridiculous).

And i wasn't really talking genetica ...[text shortened]... e gay 'prior' to birth. I can do no more than speculate as to the mechanics or reasons for this.

My own assertion was more a case of reverse reasoning. I am not of the opinion that people become gay as a result of social factors or early life exeriences etc. It therefore leads me to conclude that people are born gay. I don't see a third option. (Excluding the ridiculous).

I do see a third option actually-choice. Why are we so slow to consider we have free choice to choose in this regard yet we are so quick to give choice elsewhere (need I cite the abortion campaign? The right to choose etc).

Well, I've heard probably 1000s personally and 10000 easily on media say, 'Gay gene'. I just nod my head in disgust.

What I can tell you is this, that at the moment we are not in a position to conclude genetics have anything to do with sexual orientation prior to birth or even after birth. As I said before, epigenetics seems more convincing here-something twhitehead, who is obviously an authority because he took a few course on DNA from Harvard somehow twisted to his own machinations and schemes. 🙄 I refuse to play his game.

I was responding to a prevailing view of many that genetic determinism is the primary and even sole factor sometimes in determining sexual orientation. Those who claim this are speaking out their *ss and have no more scientific verification for it then they do for a belief in the tooth fairy (well, that might be a little hyperbole).

Hold your opinion lightly though. There is no evidence in genetics to suggest it. That opinion will have to rest on other beliefs. I am curious to know, if you are willing, what those beliefs are that drive you to this conclusion?

Originally posted by King Tiger

Hold your opinion lightly though. There is no evidence in genetics to suggest it. That opinion will have to rest on other beliefs. I am curious to know, if you are willing, what those beliefs are that drive you to this conclusion?

As i stated above:

'I struggle to believe that such a fundamental and basic impulse is a choice, but more a predisposition or innate orientation.'

I don't believe i chose to be straight, but rather that was the sexual orientation i was born with. Why then would i presume that a gay person had any more choice over their orientation than i did?

I rather suspect that 'some' Christians struggle with the idea that gay people didn't choose to be gay, as this would mean they were 'created' that way, which of course is perceived as contrary to biblical teaching which often interprets homosexuality as an unnatural and sinful act.

My knowledge of genetics is weak. I can only base my opinion on observation, experience and logic. (Which i have in abundance).

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
As i stated above:

'I struggle to believe that such a fundamental and basic impulse is a choice, but more a predisposition or innate orientation.'

I don't believe i chose to be straight, but rather that was the sexual orientation i was born with. Why then would i presume that a gay person had any more choice over their orientation than i did?
...[text shortened]... k. I can only base my opinion on observation, experience and logic. (Which i have in abundance).

Choose we give into every impulse that we feel we were born with?

Suppose someone feels that he was born with an innate desire to physically attack gay people. Should he give into that impulse simply because he is sure he was born with that basic impulse to bash gays?

Originally posted by sonship
Choose we give into every impulse that we feel we were born with?

Suppose someone feels that he was born with an innate desire to physically attack gay people. Should he give into that impulse simply because he is sure he was born with that basic impulse to bash gays?

I'll humour you a while Sonship, but you'll need to come up with a more thoughtful example than that, and elaborate perhaps on your earlier statement that gay people were pretending to be so.

The conciseness of your post though is acknowledged and appreciated.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
As i stated above:

'I struggle to believe that such a fundamental and basic impulse is a choice, but more a predisposition or innate orientation.'

I don't believe i chose to be straight, but rather that was the sexual orientation i was born with. Why then would i presume that a gay person had any more choice over their orientation than i did?
...[text shortened]... k. I can only base my opinion on observation, experience and logic. (Which i have in abundance).

predisposition is not a causation, just sayin.