Forums | MacLife

DevoDoc wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Who cares if it's genetic? That's a totally irrelevant side issue. People want what they want.

Well, it's unfortunate that not everyone thinks that way.  The one thing that article did get right is that people's attitudes towards homosexuals differ depending on whether they think people choose to be gay or are born gay.

No.
People attitudes towards gays depends on whether they think being gay is an abomination or not. The whole choice/no choice debate is just juggling red herrings.
Completely meaningless to the real issue at hand.

D'Eyncourt wrote:

resedit wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

What is clear that you have no idea what "analogy" mean.

Or do you mean to say that there are some people who seriously argue that your language choice is genetically determined?

No.
What's clear is the part they snipped has nothing to support my personal point of view on whether or not there is gay gene.
You aren't very bright, are you?

Fixed that for you.

This post had nothing to do with my personal viewpoint on a gay gene.

My position is that man is born with a sinful nature, therefore whether there is a gay gene or not is irrelevant.

However, the APA changing their position on whether is a gay gene is significant, and the part of the APA pamphlet that was snipped is in fact completely irrelevant to the presence of a genetic influence on sexual orientation, hence why it was snipped.

resedit wrote:

However, the APA changing their position on whether is a gay gene is significant...

Did they actually change anything?  The APA has numerous writings on homosexuality.  The "pamphlet" is one of many.  Did the prior quote come from the same publication?

...and the part of the APA pamphlet that was snipped is in fact completely irrelevant to the presence of a genetic influence on sexual orientation, hence why it was snipped.

I'm not sure why you're going to such great lengths to defend a plainly dishonest article.  Their position, of course, is that homosexuality is chosen (they muddle the point a bit by claiming 'science' shows one can choose to not engage in homosexual behavior).  They are obviously quite insistent that one can 'choose' to change.  An assertion that homosexuals lack control over their orientation is obviously inconvenient to their story.

The notion that it was innocently omitted simply because that particular part of that short article wasn't specifically about 'choice' doesn't pass the smell test.

resedit wrote:

For example - I don't recall ever "choosing" to speak English.
Some people may have, but I didn't. I speak it due to cultural reasons, it is the language that was and is primarily spoken by my immediate family. Even though I didn't choose to speak English, there's no gene involved that makes me an English speaker.

Thus - my experiences have nothing to do with whether or not I have a genetic disposition to speak English.

Are you kidding me?  Let's bring salads and ice cream back into the discussion, why don't we?

bratboy wrote:

I'm not sure why you're going to such great lengths to defend a plainly dishonest article.

I'm not going through lengths to defend it.
The part they snipped wasn't relevant to their point, just like the part of the article I snipped wasn't relevant to my point.

You seem however to be going through great lengths to ridicule an article that from the start was already conceded by me as biased. I guess that's not good enough for you. Does the article hit a nerve? Are you just unable to deal with people who have a different foundational perspective on right and wrong?

Tallgeese wrote:

resedit wrote:

bratboy wrote:

Did they actually change anything?  The APA has numerous writings on homosexuality.  The "pamphlet" is one of many.

The pamphlet certainly is in contradiction to their earlier statement.

Show me.

It's quoted in the opening post.

Opposite isn't the right word.

The second (but earlier stated) states that they have considerable evidence.
The first (more recently stated) states that they don't have a clue despite much research having been done.

The first (more recently stated) does not rule out the possibility of a biological cause, but it does mean that they no longer consider their previous "considerable recent evidence" to be valid.

Last edited by resedit (2009-05-15 7:55 pm)

Yep, just says there's no consensus as to scientists being able to point to one single set of factors and saying, "yep, here's the cause."

Of course, if they did, social conservatives would simply change their stance from homosexuality being a choice to homosexuality being a birth defect.

Metacell wrote:

Yep, just says there's no consensus as to scientists being able to point to one single set of factors and saying, "yep, here's the cause."

Of course, if they did, social conservatives would simply change their stance from homosexuality being a choice to homosexuality being a birth defect.

From a Darwinian natural selection perspective, what purpose does homosexuality serve?

resedit wrote:

Metacell wrote:

Yep, just says there's no consensus as to scientists being able to point to one single set of factors and saying, "yep, here's the cause."

Of course, if they did, social conservatives would simply change their stance from homosexuality being a choice to homosexuality being a birth defect.

From a Darwinian natural selection perspective, what purpose does homosexuality serve?

None, but that does not mean that a genetic component cannot be passed on.

For example, my epilepsy is likely genetic.
It's a defect.

We certainly know how to handle a stick...