Chris Broussard is for lack of a better word a bigot

[Scoobay]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Ultimately, I don't care what terms you want to apply to any of this. But putting down someone's genetic qualities is in my mind different from (and worse than) denouncing any beliefs they may have. Your point from the beginning is that they are somehow the same.

sorry hope this isn't too off topic but since you put it in this way i was just curious... I am reading your argument as calling homosexuality a sin is "putting down someone's genetic qualities". am i correct that this is what you are saying?

I am wondering what the evidence is that sexual orientation is genetically determined. i know some feel that there is conclusive evidence to such but i can't say that i've come across anything that is all that convincing. any help would be appreciated.

i think this is an important question. If you believe orientation is genetic then i can begin to understand the position that calling homosexuality a "sin" can be taken as offensive because if it's genetic then you have no choice. however i don't think everyone feels that way.

furthermore i think you always have a choice - is there genetic predisposition for other sexual behaviors? animals? objects? sorry don't mean to delve into too many specifics but it just starts to get really complicated for me thinking about all the implications...

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Scoobay

sorry hope this isn't too off topic but since you put it in this way i was just curious... I am reading your argument as calling homosexuality a sin is "putting down someone's genetic qualities". am i correct that this is what you are saying?

I am wondering what the evidence is that sexual orientation is genetically determined. i know some feel that there is conclusive evidence to such but i can't say that i've come across anything that is all that convincing. any help would be appreciated.

i think this is an important question. If you believe orientation is genetic then i can begin to understand the position that calling homosexuality a "sin" can be taken as offensive because if it's genetic then you have no choice. however i don't think everyone feels that way.

furthermore i think you always have a choice - is there genetic predisposition for other sexual behaviors? animals? objects? sorry don't mean to delve into too many specifics but it just starts to get really complicated for me thinking about all the implications...

Well not necessarily genetic but it is congenital. It is believed for whatever reason that too much or too little androgens produced by the fetus OR mother causes the fetus' sexual orientation to switch. It could have nothing to do with the fetus itself but with the mother. There have been many studies on estranged siblings showing that younger brothers are much more likely to be gay than older brothers. This would mean that the first brother had an effect of the mother's body's response to testosterone.

Anyhow, regardless of what caused it, It is a scientific fact that it is biological. There have been multiple studies on gay and straight brains showing a difference. Here is one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Anyhow, regardless of what caused it, It is a scientific fact that it is biological.

It's a theory, not a fact - conducting a few studies is hardly conclusive evidence of anything whatsoever. Don't let your agenda muddle the vocabulary laid out by science.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Underdog

It's a theory, not a fact - conducting a few studies is hardly conclusive evidence of anything whatsoever. Don't let your agenda muddle the vocabulary laid out by science.

Unfortunately the "the science is decided" has become the latest way of shouting down opposition. It is screamed without anything being "decided" but it allows the folks on the correct side of the argument another shouting point.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Unfortunately the "the science is decided" has become the latest way of shouting down opposition. It is screamed without anything being "decided" but it allows the folks on the correct side of the argument another shouting point.

Yep, no different than invoking "God" to win a debate... It's a shortcut to actual discourse, where one can revel in the smugness of thinking they know something rather than actually learning something.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Yep, no different than invoking "God" to win a debate... It's a shortcut to actual discourse, where one can revel in the smugness of thinking they know something rather than actually learning something.

Gotta agree...

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Yep, no different than invoking "God" to win a debate... It's a shortcut to actual discourse, where one can revel in the smugness of thinking they know something rather than actually learning something.

The difference being that scientists allow science to correct itself, while fundamentalists refuse to consider that their understanding of their deities might ever grow or change.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

The difference being that scientists allow science to correct itself, while fundamentalists refuse to consider that their understanding of their deities might ever grow or change.

Scientists aren't the problem with science - half-educated people are... Idiots like SeanL stating that a few studies conducted in a lab equate to "scientific fact" are no different than fundamentalist Christians citing cryptic rabbinic passages in the Old Testament as a reason to treat gay people with intolerance, when it completely contradicts Christ's message of tolerance. Neither one of them has any idea of what they're talking about, yet they're determined to wield their ignorance as a political tool.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Underdog

It's a theory, not a fact - conducting a few studies is hardly conclusive evidence of anything whatsoever. Don't let your agenda muddle the vocabulary laid out by science.

It is as much as a fact as anything else. There has been tons of studies on this subject.

On a completely separate point - this is a pet peeve of mine - I'm sure you mean hypothesis and not theory. Hypothesis and theory in the scientific field have two very different meanings.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SeanL

It is as much as a fact as anything else. There has been tons of studies on this subject.

No it isn't... The studies are inconclusive, as admitted by the researchers themselves. You have no idea what a "fact" is, do you?

On a completely separate point - this is a pet peeve of mine - I'm sure you mean hypothesis and not theory. Hypothesis and theory in the scientific field have two very different meanings.

So who are you parroting now? I know scientists and the intellectual elite love to bitch about the misuse of "theory" vs. "hypothesis," but my usage was 100% correct... A hypothesis is an idea built upon an observation, whereas a theory is a hypothesis that has been tested in the field... And you just posted links to lab tests studying the gay gene, so why would you call it a hypothesis? Hmmmm, maybe because you have no f*cking clue what you're talking about???

(or maybe you just love peeving yourself off...)

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Underdog

No it isn't... The studies are inconclusive, as admitted by the researchers themselves. You have no idea what a "fact" is, do you?



So who are you parroting now? I know scientists and the intellectual elite love to bitch about the misuse of "theory" vs. "hypothesis," but my usage was 100% correct... A hypothesis is an idea built upon an observation, whereas a theory is a hypothesis that has been tested in the field... And you just posted links to lab tests studying the gay gene, so why would you call it a hypothesis? Hmmmm, maybe because you have no f*cking clue what you're talking about???

(or maybe you just love peeving yourself off...)

Actually I have multiple scientific degrees, so I do know what I am talking about. The fact that you are bashing scientists just shows that people who tend to vote Republican or at least favor their policies more are backwards and anti-science.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Actually I have multiple scientific degrees, so I do know what I am talking about.

If you have multiple scientific degrees, then I'm the Queen of England. You've repeatedly displayed that you don't even possess the most basic grasp of scientific vocabulary, as you obviously can't recognize the difference between a "hypothesis" and a "theory," nor do you know what a "fact" is.

The fact that you are bashing scientists

I never bashed scientists - if anything, I've defended science from being manipulated by ignorant tools like yourself who invoke "because science" to win a political debate... No different than people who invoke "because Jesus" to win a debate... Oh, and winning a debate has nothing to do with Science's sole purpose of discovering truth.

just proves my point that people who tend to vote Republican are anti-science neanderthals.

Nice try, but you've decided to paint me as your opposite, rather than paying attention to anything I've tried to communicate to you... The last person I voted for in a presidential election was John Kerry... The time before that? Ralph Nader.

It's kinda hard for you to discredit me when you don't know a damn thing about me. Stick to the issues.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Actually I have multiple scientific degrees, so I do know what I am talking about. The fact that you are bashing scientists just shows that people who tend to vote Republican or at least favor their policies more are backwards and anti-science.

jeez dude.. you just love to dig holes (and fall in them) dont you?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Actually I have multiple scientific degrees, so I do know what I am talking about. The fact that you are bashing scientists just shows that people who tend to vote Republican or at least favor their policies more are backwards and anti-science.

Heh...such a hata'...