34
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 59:
Line 59: + + + +
Talk:Homosexuality and Genetics (view source)
Revision as of 03:03, April 24, 2009
, 03:03, April 24, 2009→Censorship on this article
:::::P.S. it is spelled "embrace." Please sign your comment as well, I was not aware that I was responding to you until I checked the edit history, Conservative. At first I thought it was a liberal parodist and responded perhaps too harshly. I apologize if I have offended you in any way. Yours in Christ, --[[User:JWeatherman|JWeatherman]] 20:21, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
:::::P.S. it is spelled "embrace." Please sign your comment as well, I was not aware that I was responding to you until I checked the edit history, Conservative. At first I thought it was a liberal parodist and responded perhaps too harshly. I apologize if I have offended you in any way. Yours in Christ, --[[User:JWeatherman|JWeatherman]] 20:21, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Does NARTH say that a person does not enter into homosexuality as a result of choice? If you do your research you will find out that is NARTH's position. Secondly, the material says that homosexuality is PARTLY a result of genetics and that is simply not true. I do recall Dr. Satinover claiming that boys who are "clutzy" are found somewhat more likely to become homosexuals because they supposedly are less likely to be socialized into manhood but even if this is true (and I believe there are professional football players who are homosexuals) that would not mean homosexuality is genetic in origin. In short, you have not shown that genetic theories are not better explained by environment and volition. Show me all the Amish and ultra orthodox Jews who are homosexuals and your arguments would be far more compelling. :) NARTH and Dobson are often psychobabble pushers when it comes to homosexuality and their position that a person does not enter into it by choice is errant and unbiblical. Engaging in sin is always a choice. It is not surprising that Reparative therapy has such poor results which even the Baptist Press reporting on it revealed. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:45, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Does NARTH say that a person does not enter into homosexuality as a result of choice? If you do your research you will find out that is NARTH's position. Secondly, the material says that homosexuality is PARTLY a result of genetics and that is simply not true. I do recall Dr. Satinover claiming that boys who are "clutzy" are found somewhat more likely to become homosexuals because they supposedly are less likely to be socialized into manhood but even if this is true (and I believe there are professional football players who are homosexuals) that would not mean homosexuality is genetic in origin. In short, you have not shown that genetic theories are not better explained by environment and volition. Show me all the Amish and ultra orthodox Jews who are homosexuals and your arguments would be far more compelling. :) NARTH and Dobson are often psychobabble pushers when it comes to homosexuality and their position that a person does not enter into it by choice is errant and unbiblical. Engaging in sin is always a choice. It is not surprising that Reparative therapy has such poor results which even the Baptist Press reporting on it revealed. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:45, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::You must cite your claims that homosexuality is 100% uninfluenced by genetics. As it stands, the head of the human genome project is a far greater authority on the human genome than you are, and he says that there is a minor influence of genetics on homosexuality:
::::::::::"As Dr. Collins would agree, environment can influence gene expression, and free will determines the response to whatever predispositions might be present."
::::::::::"Dr. Collins noted that environment, particularly childhood experiences as well as the role of free will choices affect all of us in profound ways. As researchers discover increasing levels of molecular detail about inherited factors that underlie our personalities, it's critical that such data be used to illuminate, not provide support to idealogues."
:::::::::Dr Collins himself says that environment and upbringing are more important than genetics, and even though inheriting "gay genes" does not necessarily trigger homosexuality, it still has some minor influence. Amish and orthodox Jews who have an anti-homosexual upbringing would naturally exercise greater [[Essay:Quantifying_Mental_Strength|mental strength]] than latent homosexuals who have a lax upbringing. You cannot disprove the science of genetics by pointing at extremely well disciplined societies that would, according to Dr. Collins, be able to repress homosexual traits with ease. You are actively damaging the Conservapedia by repressing the fact of homosexual latency and the more important fact that it is "not to be confused as inevitability" (quoted from Collins). This information is more important than your minor quibble with NARTH, and it is essential to liberal-proofing this encyclopedia, and destroying the core dogma of the [[Homosexual Agenda]]; "we were born this way and we can't help it". Please, unlock this page and reinstate the removed section. If necessary, I will rewrite it to emphasize the flimsiness of the genetic determination argument. Yours in Christ, --[[User:JWeatherman|JWeatherman]] 23:03, 23 April 2009 (EDT)