34
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 48:
Line 48: + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Homosexuality and Genetics (view source)
Revision as of 00:18, April 24, 2009
, 00:18, April 24, 2009no edit summary
I want to know why a cited section on this page has been deleted by [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. It is backed up by a quote from a conservative homosexuality therapy site which says that homosexuality is not genetically hardwired. The only reason that Conservative gave for his [[censorship]] was that homosexuality is not genetic, but the article plainly agrees with him, and provides scientific evidence that genetics have a minor influence on homosexuality. I am confused as to why this section and the truth it cited has been removed, as it does not disagree with Conservative or with the attitude of this wiki, it in fact reinforces and supports the article. If it was removed because it suggested that genetics do have an influence, however minor, then I still do not understand why it had to be censored. As this page says, a genetic link to homosexuality does not cause homosexual behaviour, only choice does. The truth removed by Conservative only supports this article, and gives it necessary scientific backing to shut down [[liberal]] denials. Yours in Christ, --[[User:JWeatherman|JWeatherman]] 18:55, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
I want to know why a cited section on this page has been deleted by [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]. It is backed up by a quote from a conservative homosexuality therapy site which says that homosexuality is not genetically hardwired. The only reason that Conservative gave for his [[censorship]] was that homosexuality is not genetic, but the article plainly agrees with him, and provides scientific evidence that genetics have a minor influence on homosexuality. I am confused as to why this section and the truth it cited has been removed, as it does not disagree with Conservative or with the attitude of this wiki, it in fact reinforces and supports the article. If it was removed because it suggested that genetics do have an influence, however minor, then I still do not understand why it had to be censored. As this page says, a genetic link to homosexuality does not cause homosexual behaviour, only choice does. The truth removed by Conservative only supports this article, and gives it necessary scientific backing to shut down [[liberal]] denials. Yours in Christ, --[[User:JWeatherman|JWeatherman]] 18:55, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
:::It is not surprising that Dr. Collins, who emnbraces pseudoscience like the evolutionary position, embraces the notion that homosexuality is partly genetic in origin despite a lack of solid evidential support. Furthermore, if you check out the NARTH website you will find that they say a person can choose to leave homosexuality but entering into homosexuality is not a choice. Furthermore, NARTH strongly supports [[Reparative therapy|reparative therapy which has very limited results whereas people who choose to leave homosexuality via the empowerment of God have excellent results]].
:::It is not surprising that Dr. Collins, who emnbraces pseudoscience like the evolutionary position, embraces the notion that homosexuality is partly genetic in origin despite a lack of solid evidential support. Furthermore, if you check out the NARTH website you will find that they say a person can choose to leave homosexuality but entering into homosexuality is not a choice. Furthermore, NARTH strongly supports [[Reparative therapy|reparative therapy which has very limited results whereas people who choose to leave homosexuality via the empowerment of God have excellent results]].
::::But the removed link [[http://www.narth.com/docs/nothardwired.html]] explicitly says '"Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired," Concludes Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head Of The Human Genome Project'. Who is more qualified to make a conclusion about the human genome than the leader of the human genome project? Regardless of his pseudoscience positions, he has flatly said that genetics do not cause homosexuality. Also, NARTH's website may advocate an inferior treatment for homosexuality, but it still advocates treatment of it. It is still anti-homosexual, and therefore conservative. I would like to know how these statements are in any way biased and untruthful liberal deceits.
:::::"there is an inescapable component of heritability to many human behavioral traits. For virtually none of them is heredity ever close to predictive." Heredity does not mean causation.
:::::"research cites 30% as the estimate of heritability for homosexuality as well, though he views the estimate as a maximum." There is a very low likelihood of inheriting homosexual traits.
:::::"free will determines the response to whatever predispositions might be present." Self explanatory.
::::The NARTH article does nothing but support the position of this wiki in a way that liberals are unable to deny. It not only quotes the head of the human genome project, who is more qualified than anyone else to make these claims, it also cites specific studies that support its conclusion that genetics have a minor influence on homosexuality, which can be easily overcome with [[Essay:Quantifying_Mental_Strength|mental strength]]. You are undermining the quality of this encyclopedia by removing vital proof of its positions, and leaving it vulnerable to liberal [[deceit]]. Yours in Christ, --[[User:JWeatherman|JWeatherman]] 20:18, 23 April 2009 (EDT)