34
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 64:
Line 64: +
Talk:Homosexuality and Genetics (view source)
Revision as of 16:05, April 24, 2009
, 16:05, April 24, 2009no edit summary
:::::::::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)
:::::::::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)
:::::Your largely mere appeal to authority vis a vis Dr. Collins (whose judgment is certainly questionable given his support of the evolutionary position) is awfully thin porridge and I doubt even Oliver Twist would ask for more. Not going to make dubious factual claims that in an article based on mere speculation. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:57, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
:::::Your largely mere appeal to authority vis a vis Dr. Collins (whose judgment is certainly questionable given his support of the evolutionary position) is awfully thin porridge and I doubt even Oliver Twist would ask for more. Not going to make dubious factual claims that in an article based on mere speculation. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:57, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
::::::The human genome project is the leading authority on the human genome, and Collins is justifiably cited as a leading authority on genetics. If his authority cannot be trusted, then how can your authority be trusted, or the authority of your (nonexistent) cites? Do you tell your doctor that he is prescribing the wrong medication, just because he believes in evolution or Mormonism or supports abortion? Collins' support of the theory of evolution has absolutely no relevance here. He is not making claims based on evolutionary biology, which he would be unjustified in doing, he is making claims based on genetics, which he is a leading expert in. He is not making 'dubious factual claims,' he is citing the rigorous scientific studies (cited in the NARTH article) that demonstrate that the "gay gene" exists, but is trivial in determining homosexuality. Your trivial objections to this are damaging the Conservapedia, which exists for educational purposes. You are standing in the way of education, of teaching people the truth about latent homosexuality and how to deal with it. You are sabotaging this encyclopedia's ability to defend itself. I know that I am repeating my arguments, but it is because you have repeatedly failed to address them. It is obvious at this point that you have no interest in the truth, and would rather deceive the readers of this wiki. You should unlock this page so that it can be completely rewritten to take into account the truth; science has found a link between genetics and homosexuality, it is a weak link that is easily overcome with willpower, the head of the human genome project has debunked the "we were born this way" myth. Yours in Christ,--[[User:JWeatherman|JWeatherman]] 12:05, 24 April 2009 (EDT)