Re: Re: RELIGION POLITICS: Homosexuality (was Ron )

[Guest guest]

On 1/8/08, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> >>> >> I'm sure I'm going to get flak for this but , there's no way you

> >>> >> can equate homosexuality...a behavior, with race!!!!

> >> > This is a scientific issue, and I didn't want to bring it up because I

> >> > was sure it would somehow get mired up with the religious and

> >> > political issues, but, nevertheless:

> > Ok ­ let¹s be clear that you are talking specifically on the issue of

> whether

> > homosexuality is a behavior, and consequently cannot be compared with

> race, as

> > a quality in people that can be discriminated against.

I'm not talking about any political application, but whether the

degree to which it is hardwired and whether it is analogous to race or

sex in this sense.

> >> > The concordance rate for homosexuality between identical twins is far

> >> > below 100%, varying between 20 adn 52% depending on the study. (See

> >> > note 1.) Although this rate is higher than that for fraternal twins,

> >> > thus clearly showing a genetic association, it makes it quite clear

> >> > that there is some factor or factors in addition to the following:

> >> > genes, nutritional and hormonal exposure in utero, nutritional and

> >> > hormonal exposure during lactation. Differences in life experience

> >> > are probably the least likely to be a factor between two identicial

> >> > twins than any other two people, though they may play a role.

> > Says absolutely nothing about whether it is a Œbehavior¹ rather than a

> quality

> > of a person that can be freely chosen.

Enlighten me: what are the factors that determine this state of being

completely beyond any choice, if they are not genes, or some type of

early nutritional or hormonal epigenetic programming? If you do not

know which factors they are, what is the evidence they exist?

[snip]

> > there¹s really no need to go on. Your views/ based on religious morality

> are

> > quite clear, though you try to obfuscate them with Œscience¹. BAD science.

That is a complete copout. I don't have any religious views that

necessitate this argument, not that it would matter if I did because

it would not prevent you from pointing out the flaws in the logical

argument.

If the concordance rate is, say, 30% between identical twins, to which

factors do you ascribe the lack of concordance?

[Guest guest]

> On 1/8/08, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

>

>>>>>>> I'm sure I'm going to get flak for this but , there's no way you

>>>>>>> can equate homosexuality...a behavior, with race!!!!

>

>>>>> This is a scientific issue, and I didn't want to bring it up because I

>>>>> was sure it would somehow get mired up with the religious and

>>>>> political issues, but, nevertheless:

>

>>> Ok ¡© let©ös be clear that you are talking specifically on the issue of

>> whether

>>> homosexuality is a behavior, and consequently cannot be compared with

>> race, as

>>> a quality in people that can be discriminated against.

>

> I'm not talking about any political application, but whether the

> degree to which it is hardwired and whether it is analogous to race or

> sex in this sense.

>

So, in other words, the way in which I actually analogized is irrelevant -

you are making up your own sense? Clearly, if you believe that one can be

bigoted against people because of race as well as sexual preference, then my

analogy is relevant.

>

>>>>> The concordance rate for homosexuality between identical twins is far

>>>>> below 100%, varying between 20 adn 52% depending on the study. (See

>>>>> note 1.) Although this rate is higher than that for fraternal twins,

>>>>> thus clearly showing a genetic association, it makes it quite clear

>>>>> that there is some factor or factors in addition to the following:

>>>>> genes, nutritional and hormonal exposure in utero, nutritional and

>>>>> hormonal exposure during lactation. Differences in life experience

>>>>> are probably the least likely to be a factor between two identicial

>>>>> twins than any other two people, though they may play a role.

>

>>> Says absolutely nothing about whether it is a ¨«behavior©ö rather than a

>> quality

>>> of a person that can be freely chosen.

>

> Enlighten me: what are the factors that determine this state of being

> completely beyond any choice,

WTF? Am I supposed to be the one being on earth that can list these factors?

Because we cannot list them does not mean that to be homosexual is a choice.

>if they are not genes, or some type of

> early nutritional or hormonal epigenetic programming? If you do not

> know which factors they are, what is the evidence they exist?

Ah - this is ingenious reasoning. Because we don't know what exactly are the

factors that determine whether someone is homosexual, it MUST be a

behavioral choice? So, for instance, you have someone who only has sexual

desires for the opposite sex, but will CHOOSE to be homosexual? This is

nonsense - I'd go so far as to say quite abhorrent nonsense - misuse of

science in the same way you critique those who uphold the dietary

propaganda.

>

> [snip]

>

>>> there©ös really no need to go on. Your views/ based on religious morality

>> are

>>> quite clear, though you try to obfuscate them with ¨«science©ö. BAD science.

>

> That is a complete copout. I don't have any religious views that

> necessitate this argument, not that it would matter if I did because

> it would not prevent you from pointing out the flaws in the logical

> argument.

Not a copout at all. On the one hand you claim that your religious belief is

that homosexuality is wrong, and on the other you cite scientific 'evidence'

for the fact that homosexuality is a behavioral choice. You are obviously

influenced by your prejudices.

>

> If the concordance rate is, say, 30% between identical twins, to which

> factors do you ascribe the lack of concordance?

>

I don't give a f**k