Examining the Myth of the Gay Agenda

[RocketRed]

Actually, I find in the gay right movement is where the differences matter the least. That is to say (as seen in the pedophilia and teaching thread), excluding the issue of gay marriage, many of the things homosexuals are fighting for are the same things I would think pedophiles would also want.

A very good point.

As to the comparisons you mention, I find comparing the fight for homosexual marriage similar to the fight for interracial marriage.

Agreed. I find that comparison infinitely more applicable.

Also, I do compare Obama and Hitler. They were (well, Obama is) great speakers. Besides for that, there is little of comparison that makes sense.

Which is kind of my point. In very few cases do these comparisons really hold up. Though you do make a good argument for further similarities between homosexuals and pedophiles in that aside from gay marriage, a pedophile would most likely want the same things.
I think one of the reasons the comparison rankles me so much is just that it feels like door-opening for the completely nonsensical comparisons between us. Like that if that stands, then it could lead to the common accusation that all homosexuals are child-molesters. This isn't a rational response, obviously, and it doesn't hold up at all, but I'm not sure how else to explain my general unease with it. I think it's just sort of a... scorch-the-earth style defense mechanism. Because we're compared to child-molesters so often, I get touchy when compared even to pedophiles (often interchanged with child-molesters).
I very much doubt there will ever be a P at the end of the Rainbow Alphabet. I'm not saying it's right necessarily, but there appears to be a general consensus that aligning the community with pedophiles would squander what little political capital we have.
There's also an attitude that it's just not our purview. The case has been made that the LGBTQ covers those that are attracted to the same sex to some degree and those that feel they were born into the wrong sex. The argument goes that to bring in anything else, even pedophilia, would be expanding to include something that doesn't really have anything to do with our community. This argument usually co-eixsts with the belief that it's not our responsibility to help all of the other "deviant sexualities." Their fight is theirs, ours is ours.
There's also the idea of too much too soon. That we should focus on gay rights primarily and then consider what comes next. The idea being that if we go for everything all at once, it'll take us even longer to get anything at all.

To be honest, I'm not sure where I stand on that one. I see the value in seeking better treatment for pedophiles who haven't molested children. But I also understand the points against including them. Neither arguments are without their merit.

 

[Beanieboy]

I had one of those semi-drunk conversations with one of my friends recently. You know the ones you have when you are in your late 20's and trying to figure out want to do with your life.

Anyway he said that he would like to adopt a child in about 5 years with his boyfriend. He wanted to be a father. I pointed out that is was illegal for him to adopt since he had a boyfriend and then we both felt slightly depressed.

It depends what state you are in.

 

[Beanieboy]

'Sokay.

If I were to say parents who molest their children, it would unquestioningly be most. But there are also mothers who molest and fathers who molest sons. If I were to push it out to children who are molested by family members, we'd be approaching 90%. If I were to push it out to children who are molested by family members or people trusted by the family, we'd be at about 99%.

Stranger Danger education was about as effective in preventing molestation as a baseball cap would be in preventing traumatic head injuries.

When talking about child molestation, one has to really look at the nature of the person sexually attracted to children, and not adults. Such men are usually attracted to children, as opposed to gender. Boys and girls look very similar before puberty.

In fact, often, when a child is kidnapped and kept for years by a molester, the molester loses interest once the child starts to mature, and then is clearly male or female.

Many male molesters may molest both boys and girls, yet be married, have their own children, and identify as heterosexual.

What troubles me is when someone says, "Gays are more likely to molest children." It implies that if a child is going to be molested, it would be far less damaging if it were an adult male and a small girl, or a woman and a small boy. Molestation is what should concern us. To think that men who are married don't molest boys or girls is naive. To think that female teachers have never had an affair with a 12 year old boy is also naive, because it has been in the news.

It is a matter of sexual propriety and appropriateness, not the sexual orientation of the molester. A gay molester is no better or worse than a heterosexual molester.

 

[Beanieboy]

No, actually, they haven't shared similar struggles. Unless, of course, you are raping people or otherwise engaging in sexual encounters without the benefit of the consent of the other party.

There is far more basis for the comparison to the civil rights movement, especially because the same arguments once used against interracial marriage (and still used, see - Interracial Couple Denied Marriage License By Louisiana Justice Of The Peace) are used to decry homosexual marriage.

I agree, and were this to be brought to a federal level, and the Supreme Court to look at the Constitution to see if gay people not being able to be married for civil reasons and protections are having their Constitutional Rights violated, we would see that it is. Heterosexuals get one right, homosexuals get another. One has protection under the law, the other doesn't, and sadly, as in the case of California, the majority dare think they have the right to vote on granting the minority the same rights that they enjoy, and dare call themselves American.

I think it is just a matter of time, and we will look back on the US as dragging its feet on the issue, of burdening gay people with debate and protest, Prop 8's and the like. We will look back on it and cringe, the way we do when we scratch our heads trying to figure out why the US was so opposed to interracial marriage, or why they wouldn't allow black people to vote until 1964. We will look back and wonder what was wrong with people, why they were so unable to treat their fellow citizens as neighbors, with the respect they deserve, because of their own selfish pride.

It became legal in Toronto in 2004, so, 6 years later, my coworkers hear the debates in the US, and mutter, "Are you still talking about that??" They see the society serving both the heterosexuals and homosexuals, and everyone lives under the protection of the law should they choose to marry, or under the law if they choose to register as domestic partners. They can share insurance, and benefits.

There are no men marry cows, no sisters marrying brothers, and no more poiygamous families than the US has in Utah.

It's a matter of time, and the more the US drags its feet, the more people will look back this time with shame, no understanding why a gay couple can't be understood as having similar emotional and legal needs a straight couple has in marrying.

Don't you look back on Burmingham, of the hoses turned on the peaceful protesters, dogs released and attacking a young boy, and see who the real "bad guy" is in the scene?

 

[Keres]

Once again: you are conflating the attraction (pedophila) with the action (child molesting). It's the same thing that others do when when they conflate the attraction (homosexuality) with the action (a**l s*x) and condemn all homosexuals as perverted sinners and "sodomites."

No, I'm not.

I'm pointing out that a homosexual is attracted to a consenting adult, and since what consenting adults do behind closed doors is nobody's business but theirs, there is nothing comparable between pedophilia and homosexuality.

An hun? Homosexuality isn't just about the anal sex. In case you missed it, women can be homosexuals too. Or are you of the belief that lesbians are okay because you find it kind of hot, but gay men are just wrong?


Again, the difference between pedophila and homosexuality is one word:

CONSENT.

Do not equate the two again.

 

[lawtonfogle]

A very good point.

Agreed. I find that comparison infinitely more applicable.

Which is kind of my point. In very few cases do these comparisons really hold up. Though you do make a good argument for further similarities between homosexuals and pedophiles in that aside from gay marriage, a pedophile would most likely want the same things.
I think one of the reasons the comparison rankles me so much is just that it feels like door-opening for the completely nonsensical comparisons between us. Like that if that stands, then it could lead to the common accusation that all homosexuals are child-molesters. This isn't a rational response, obviously, and it doesn't hold up at all, but I'm not sure how else to explain my general unease with it. I think it's just sort of a... scorch-the-earth style defense mechanism. Because we're compared to child-molesters so often, I get touchy when compared even to pedophiles (often interchanged with child-molesters).

Which I understand. Of course, if someone is trying to say all homosexuals are child molesters, I just like copying and pasting their post, with heterosexual instead of homosexual in it.

I very much doubt there will ever be a P at the end of the Rainbow Alphabet. I'm not saying it's right necessarily, but there appears to be a general consensus that aligning the community with pedophiles would squander what little political capital we have.

While I am not placing my money on it appearing in my lifetime, I am not going to place my money on it not appearing either.

There's also an attitude that it's just not our purview. The case has been made that the LGBTQ covers those that are attracted to the same sex to some degree and those that feel they were born into the wrong sex. The argument goes that to bring in anything else, even pedophilia, would be expanding to include something that doesn't really have anything to do with our community. This argument usually co-eixsts with the belief that it's not our responsibility to help all of the other "deviant sexualities." Their fight is theirs, ours is ours.

You gotta remember, I am a straight guy who feels obligated to help get rid the US of the bad treatment of homosexuals. While I know it is a much harder task, and it lower on my priority list in general, I feel the same way for any deviant sexualities.

That being said, I rarely hear that definition of the GLBTQ community, as they often talk about accepting everyone who is different. Of course, they rarely actually mean it.

There's also the idea of too much too soon. That we should focus on gay rights primarily and then consider what comes next. The idea being that if we go for everything all at once, it'll take us even longer to get anything at all.

I have wondered about this, and I still am not sure. For example, if the polygamist in the US start pushing hard for polygamy to be legal, people may very well stop fighting homosexual marriage and switch to fighting polygamy. Of course, I'm not the best judge of how people will react.

To be honest, I'm not sure where I stand on that one. I see the value in seeking better treatment for pedophiles who haven't molested children. But I also understand the points against including them. Neither arguments are without their merit.

I can understand that including certain groups, even if they have done nothing illegal, such as NAMBLA, or even being associated with them at all, can be quite damaging. But I find, in my own view, the attacks on pedophilia as being the same a child molestation, and even those in the GLBTQ movement who want to restrict rights of pedophiles (even when they understand the difference between pedophile and child molester) to be just as harmful. While I understand the hesitation to include pedophilia, the GLBTQ movement* should stop condemning pedophiles (of course, continue to condemn child molester all you want).

*of course, there is some distintion between the movement doing something, and just the many members in a movement doing something, but that distinction can become blurred.

 

[lawtonfogle]

When talking about child molestation, one has to really look at the nature of the person sexually attracted to children, and not adults. Such men are usually attracted to children, as opposed to gender. Boys and girls look very similar before puberty.

Are you sure of this?

In fact, often, when a child is kidnapped and kept for years by a molester, the molester loses interest once the child starts to mature, and then is clearly male or female.

A few points. First off, kidnapping is a sure sign of a child molester. I don't think it matters if he is abusing the child because he is a pedophile or because he takes sexual gratification in causing children pain.

Secondly, among pedophiles, there are those exclusively attracted to children, and those who attractions include children. In fact, it is possible to have a stronger attraction to adults, and only have a weak attraction to children.

Many male molesters may molest both boys and girls, yet be married, have their own children, and identify as heterosexual.

This gets into the part where research methods can be quite iffy. Some child predators may only identify as heterosexual as it puts them under less scrutiny, and thus allows them more access to children.

What troubles me is when someone says, "Gays are more likely to molest children." It implies that if a child is going to be molested, it would be far less damaging if it were an adult male and a small girl, or a woman and a small boy. Molestation is what should concern us. To think that men who are married don't molest boys or girls is naive. To think that female teachers have never had an affair with a 12 year old boy is also naive, because it has been in the news.

Anyone who claims either groups molest more than their percentage in the population at large has a burden of evidence. For example, if 2% of the population is homosexual, and 2% of molesters are homosexual, then a homosexual has the same chance to molester as a heterosexual. it is when you claim either has more of a chance you must start providing evidence.

It is a matter of sexual propriety and appropriateness, not the sexual orientation of the molester. A gay molester is no better or worse than a heterosexual molester.

I agree.

EDIT: Forgot what thread I was in for a moment.

 

[lawtonfogle]

No, I'm not.

I'm pointing out that a homosexual is attracted to a consenting adult, and since what consenting adults do behind closed doors is nobody's business but theirs, there is nothing comparable between pedophilia and homosexuality.

An hun? Homosexuality isn't just about the anal sex. In case you missed it, women can be homosexuals too. Or are you of the belief that lesbians are okay because you find it kind of hot, but gay men are just wrong?


Again, the difference between pedophila and homosexuality is one word:

CONSENT.

Do not equate the two again.

Until 2003, even that wasn't a difference. And I have already pointed out how they are the same.

If I look at a two difference cars, can I say they are completely different because they are two different models? NO. They are both still cars, they both have wheels, ect.

Just because two things are not identical does not mean they are completely seperate.

 

[OllieFranz]

No, I'm not.

I'm pointing out that a homosexual is attracted to a consenting adult, and since what consenting adults do behind closed doors is nobody's business but theirs, there is nothing comparable between pedophilia and homosexuality.

An hun? Homosexuality isn't just about the anal sex. In case you missed it, women can be homosexuals too. Or are you of the belief that lesbians are okay because you find it kind of hot, but gay men are just wrong?


Again, the difference between pedophila and homosexuality is one word:

CONSENT.

Do not equate the two again.
Bolding mine

I bolded part of your "rebuttal" because it does not refute my point. It is my point. The anti-gay crowd says the word "homosexual" and they all mean "a**l s*x." You said the word "pedophile" and meant "non-consensual s*x."

Pedophilia is the basic attraction, just as homosexuality is the orientation. And just as any other person can be happily married and not be tempted to action with others he might otherwise be attracted to, and in particular a bisexual not be tempted to those of the opposite sex as his wife, a pedophile can be happily married to an adult spouse and not be tempted to action with children.

You can be gay and never have sex. You can be attracted to children and never have s*x. In either case, there is nothing to consent to. Consent is not the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia. What it is the difference between is non-coerced s*x with adults and all s*x with children.

S*x with children is wrong and should be punished. But a pedophile (a person with the attraction) is no more necessarily guilty of that crime than a homosexual is.

 

[mpok1519]

Why are people still making the logical fallacy of comparing things that ultimately have little or nothing to do with each other?

 

[Keres]

Until 2003, even that wasn't a difference. And I have already pointed out how they are the same.

No, you haven't. You've tried to equate the two by leaving out what sets them apart in an attempt to inhumanize homosexuals.

As I used in another thread, you trying to equate the two is like equating me killing a turkey for Thanksgiving dinner and me killing you for Thanksgiving dinner.

It's interesting to note also, that the bible does not have anything to say against pedophilia.

You said the word "pedophile" and meant "non-consensual s*x."

Yep, because a pedophile desires to have sex with someone who is incapable of consent. A pedophile is like someone who can only get off while raping. Even if they don't actually act out their desires, they are still desiring to do something that involves a lack of consent.

A homosexual wants to have sex with another consenting adult. Just like a heterosexual.

What it is the difference between is non-coerced s*x with adults and all s*x with children.

And consent is that difference, consent is why non-coerced sex with adults is okay and sex with children is not. The non-coerced adult CONSENTED.

 

[OllieFranz]

Keres --

Again you are tarring all pedophiles with a broad brush. In exactly the same way that the anti-gays tar all gays.

Having (and wanting to have) s*x with children is always wrong. Having s*x with a consenting adult is not, subject to certain restrictions, and the gender(s) of the partners should not be one of those restrictions.

But being a pedophile does not equate with having or wanting to have s*x with children. Just like being born gay does not equate with having a**l s*x.

Yes there are a lot of known pedophiles who have had, or attempted to have s*x with children. But we do not know how many closeted pedophiles there are who have lived perfectly "normal" lives, never strongly tempted to take advantage of single child.

The whole modern homophobia scare began when Victorian newspapers planted the image of every "sodomite" prowling the street looking for young boys to "invert." That did not describe all homosexuals then, and it does not describe all gays today. Gays should be especially sensitive to the sensationalist way of using a more general, and somewhat inaccurate, term to describe those who commit certain crimes, and stirring up public sentiment against a larger group that is under the umbrella of the more general term, but in no way associated with the crime.

 

[No Swansong]

I have just read the entire thread. All I can really think to comment on the OP is that of course there is a homosexual agenda. Homosexuals desire and deserve to be treated as any other law abiding citizen of the United States. As far as I can tell their agenda is to secure this equal treatment under the law. I find this admirable.

As to the difference between pedophiles (wrongly titled I believe) and homosexuals I believe the point that some are trying to make is that they are very similar in that both of them have an innate sexual attraction that is looked upon by society in a negative light. The point is that the pedophile (offender and non offender alike) can no more change their attraction to children than can homosexuals change their attraction to people of the same sex.

What is most unfortunate is that those who struggle with these attractions, especially those attracted to children, are stigmatized to the point that they fear seeking help.

 

[lawtonfogle]

No, you haven't. You've tried to equate the two by leaving out what sets them apart in an attempt to inhumanize homosexuals.

You mean dehumanize?

And if comparing them dehumanizes homosexuals, it is only because YOU have already dehumanized pedophiles. I do not dehumanize either. And I compared the way they were treated, but I have NOT tried to equate them. They aren't equal.

As I used in another thread, you trying to equate the two is like equating me killing a turkey for Thanksgiving dinner and me killing you for Thanksgiving dinner.

But I am not trying to say they are the same thing. They are both attractions which society has many members who hate people for having said attraction. Is that sentence false?

It's interesting to note also, that the bible does not have anything to say against pedophilia.

Yeah... and it doesn't have anything against homosexuality. It may have some stuff against acting on homosexuality (but some will argue that point), but the Bible does not condemn anyone for just attractions, a trait many members of society need to really consider adopting.

Yep, because a pedophile desires to have sex with someone who is incapable of consent.

Except that is false.


Yes, in the USA, almost every single person who has not yet reached puberty is legally not allowed to consent. But you cannot rely on the law to say it is impossible to consent. As others have pointed out in many threads in the past, it is not impossible for a child to be able to consent, our society has just deemed that this is so rare, and the dangers of allowing it so high, to make it illegal.

But in the past, and in other countries, children of varying ages can consent. And if you want to get technical, in South Carolina, legally, some children can consent to sex. Said child must be 16 or 17 years old, but they are legally a child, and yet they legally can consent to sex.

And then you have the rare individuals who do not hit puberty until they have hit (legal) adulthood if not later. There is a case of someone who is pre-puberty who can consent.

A pedophile is like someone who can only get off while raping.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Wrong the first time because one can find sexual pleasure without involving another human. While some may consider masturbation immoral for religious reasons, I think we can agree that a pedophile who does it is in no way harming a child.

Wrong the second time because in some countries, it is legal. Of course, you may say that it they cannot actually consent, and that it is 'legalized rape', but if you are going to make that claim, you are going to need to use something other than another countries laws. In other words, you are going to have to get into the science of consent and maturity.

Wrong the third time because there are rare cases where a person is, even by US standards, allowed to legally consent, yet they have not yet reached puberty.

Even if they don't actually act out their desires, they are still desiring to do something that involves a lack of consent.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, wrong.

A homosexual wants to have sex with another consenting adult. Just like a heterosexual.

No, the homosexual (much like a heterosexual) want to have sex with an adult. That adult may be able to consent legally (they can be incapacitated). And even if they are legally able to consent, they may not want to. Not to mention, that less than a decade ago, an adult could not consent to homosexual activities. This just goes to show that because the LAW says someone cannot consent, it doesn't mean that they cannot consent.

And consent is that difference, consent is why non-coerced sex with adults is okay and sex with children is not. The non-coerced adult CONSENTED.

And it is possible for a non-coerced child to consent. Of course, depending upon how you define child (for example, using South Carolina's legal definition), many children can consent, by other definitions, it is pretty hard to find children who can consent.

Your argument attempts to be in the complete extremes, which fails.

 

[RocketRed]

Which I understand. Of course, if someone is trying to say all homosexuals are child molesters, I just like copying and pasting their post, with heterosexual instead of homosexual in it.

While I am not placing my money on it appearing in my lifetime, I am not going to place my money on it not appearing either.

You gotta remember, I am a straight guy who feels obligated to help get rid the US of the bad treatment of homosexuals. While I know it is a much harder task, and it lower on my priority list in general, I feel the same way for any deviant sexualities.

That being said, I rarely hear that definition of the GLBTQ community, as they often talk about accepting everyone who is different. Of course, they rarely actually mean it.

I have wondered about this, and I still am not sure. For example, if the polygamist in the US start pushing hard for polygamy to be legal, people may very well stop fighting homosexual marriage and switch to fighting polygamy. Of course, I'm not the best judge of how people will react.


I can understand that including certain groups, even if they have done nothing illegal, such as NAMBLA, or even being associated with them at all, can be quite damaging. But I find, in my own view, the attacks on pedophilia as being the same a child molestation, and even those in the GLBTQ movement who want to restrict rights of pedophiles (even when they understand the difference between pedophile and child molester) to be just as harmful. While I understand the hesitation to include pedophilia, the GLBTQ movement* should stop condemning pedophiles (of course, continue to condemn child molester all you want).

*of course, there is some distintion between the movement doing something, and just the many members in a movement doing something, but that distinction can become blurred.

I do want to clarify: it's not that the attitudes I mentioned are like.. the general feeling of the community. But those are present attitudes. As I said before, there is a wealth of political differences within the community. Many people believe many different things.
I also think that the condemnation of pedophiles is more the people of the movement rather than the movement itself. While I doubt the movement (as general and vague as it is) would come to include pedophiles, I think it's more than likely that it would at least speak against their condemnation. That seems infinitely more likely to me.

 

[RocketRed]

No, I'm not.

I'm pointing out that a homosexual is attracted to a consenting adult, and since what consenting adults do behind closed doors is nobody's business but theirs, there is nothing comparable between pedophilia and homosexuality.

An hun? Homosexuality isn't just about the anal sex. In case you missed it, women can be homosexuals too. Or are you of the belief that lesbians are okay because you find it kind of hot, but gay men are just wrong?


Again, the difference between pedophila and homosexuality is one word:

CONSENT.

Do not equate the two again.

Well, they're comparable in that they're both sexualities that have been put into the "deviant slot." In that regard, their struggles are comparable and that's all I was agreeing with before. My point later was that even though they have that in common (and that both groups want some of the same things), that the differences are too strong to be ignored, making the statement, "homosexuals are like pedophiles" kind of ridiculous. Though they have similar elements, they can't be equated in my opinion.
Not trying to say they're the same thing, but that they do share some things of note.

What I was trying to say was that plenty of things have comparable elements to them without being equated. I believe that's true of homosexuals and pedophiles and I also believe that's true of the gay rights movement and civil rights movement. There are important differences between these things that really stand in the way of comparison regardless of similar elements.

 

[AlAyeti]

For years, whenever fundamentalists decried the inroads of the "gay agenda," the rest of us have asked them to explain exactly what they meant. Other than vague warnings about gays taking over the government, we have been met with silence. Vague is a very good propaganda tool. A vague claim cannot be disproved.

But at last we have a debatable list of the goals of "the Gay Agenda," thanks to AlAyeti, who, in a recent post, linked to the Conservapedia article on The Gay Agenda.



Now we can look at each of these points and discuss them, and dismiss most of them.

1. Destroying Christian morals
* Changing the definition of marriage, even if doing so infringes on the religious rights of Christians not to recognize it as anything other than sin

​

The definitions of a marriage and a family have never been stable, it has always been evolving. Marriage by rape, by buying the bride as one would a slave, multiple wives, multiple husbands, male wives, all have been acceptable at one time or another.

Neither is there any attempt to infringe on any church to define a "Christian marriage." Government recognition of marriage is different from church recognition of marriage. The government recognizes Hindu and muslim marriages, even though they are not Christian marriages. It recognizes marriages performed in secular circumstances (officiated over by mayors, JPs, even (in Nevada) Elvis impersonators). It even used to recognize common-law marriages, and any whose partners are still alive are still considered married. Likewise, the church will often recognize marriages that the government does not. Some churches will marry a US citizen and an immigrant even if the government believes the marriage is only to allow the immigrant to stay in the US. Some Mormon sects recognize plural marriages, and some "liberal" churches recognize gay marriages even when the state does not.

Civil marriage is different from religious marriage, and each is free to recognize or not recognize any given marriage without consulting one another.

Part of the evolution of civil marriage is tying it to a list of rights, obligations, benefits, taxes, privileges, and duties. Many of the things on this list are the sorts of things that have been declared to be off-limits to restrict based on certain ways of dividing the population. If a white man is subject to a certain tax, a black man, or a white woman, or a black man, in the same circumstances must be subject to that same tax.

To tie the benefits, taxes, obligations, etc. to the condition of marriage is one thing, but to then deny a portion of the population equal access to them by denying recognition of their marriages is unfair and unconstitutional. A "separate but equal" institution (civil union) has been tried in some jurisdictions, but has been proven to be less than equal. And many places do not want to accord even that much equality.

A mass murderer is granted marriage rights; as are a serial rapist, and a child molester -- name the crime, they can still have their marriages recognized civilly (and usually by Christian churches as well). So any claim that the government should not recognize their marriages is not simply naming sin; it is nothing less than bigotry and hatred. Still, it is their right to believe that and to teach it, and hate-crime legislation does not infringe on that right, any more than incitement to riot laws do. In fact, hate crime legislation deliberately has a lot less "teeth" than incitement to riot laws.

2. Promote pseudoscience that legitimizes homosexuality, such as claims of a never-identified gay gene
* Censoring evidence that the "gay gene" is a hoax

​

No one has ever spoken about a "gay gene" other than fundamentalists who are either ignorant of genetics or are deliberately misrepresenting the claim that in many cases -- possibly most cases -- orientation has a genetic component. There is no "black gene" or "native American gene" but race, and skin color are clearly inherited through the genes.

I thought I'd challenge you right there:

First we will examine the “Hypothalamus Study,” conducted in 1991 by Dr. Simon LeVay, who worked at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California. The study analyzed size differences in the anterior hypothalamus of the brains of cadavers. LeVay publicized the study, in an attempt to convince the public that men that develop sexual desires for other men do so because of the size of the hypothalamus in the brain.

LeVay, it should be noted, had strong personal and political reasons to pursue research in this area. LeVay engaged in same-gender sex himself, and lost his partner to AIDS

- Born Gay Hoax: Studies Debunked « Conservative Colloquium

The search for a "gay gene" was certainly part of an agenda. A gay one at that. It is now rejected by some gay groups:

Acknowledging that some of us have chosen our sexual preferences does not require us to disprove any "gay gene" studies. None of the studies which have gained worldwide attention over the past several decades has even claimed to be able to find biological causes for all queer people's queerness. On the contrary—dozens of studies have found substantial numbers of identical twins who have different sexual preferences, so the very most that any biologists are even hoping to prove is that biology is one of multiple factors that may influence sexual preference. However, the current evidence for even the slightest direct biological influence on sexual preference is extremely shaky at best, and has been ridiculously overhyped by the homo and hetero media alike.

- The Implications of "Gay Gene" Research for Queer by Choice People


The rest of your treatise shows just how the gay agenda is implemented and justified.

But I'm glad I was of service to your advocacy towards gay rights. Wrong as they are, I'll defend your right to speak your mind.

 

[OllieFranz]

I thought I'd challenge you right there:



- Born Gay Hoax: Studies Debunked « Conservative Colloquium

The search for a "gay gene" was certainly part of an agenda. A gay one at that. It is now rejected by some gay groups:



- The Implications of "Gay Gene" Research for Queer by Choice People


The rest of your treatise shows just how the gay agenda is implemented and justified.

But I'm glad I was of service to your advocacy towards gay rights. Wrong as they are, I'll defend your right to speak your mind.

You make my point for me. It is anti-gay sources that you linked to because only anti-gay sources speak of a "gay gene." There is no "gay gene" just as there is no "black gene."

If you look at the actual research that your sources are "reporting" on, you will see that the evidence for a genetic component for homosexuality (which is not the same thing as a "gay gene") is just as strong the evidence of a genetic component for non-white racial characteristics.

Perhaps, if you had looked at the two previous threads that I linked to in the OP, you would not have embarrassed yourself.

 

[Keres]

Again you are tarring all pedophiles with a broad brush. In exactly the same way that the anti-gays tar all gays.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

Main Entry: con·sent
Function: noun
1 a : compliance in or approval of what is done or proposed by another; specifically : the voluntary agreement or acquiescence by a person of age or with requisite mental capacity who is not under duress or coercion and usually who has knowledge or understanding —see also [SIZE=-1]AGE OF CONSENT[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]INFORMED CONSENT[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]RAPE[/SIZE], [SIZE=-1]STATUTORY RAPE[/SIZE] b : a defense claiming that the victim consented to an alleged crime (as rape)
2 : agreement as to action or opinion consent of the Senate, to make treaties —U.S. Constitution article II> consent of the parties established through offer and acceptance —Louisiana Civil Code>; specifically : voluntary agreement by a people to organize a civil society and give authority to a government —consent intransitive verb —con·sent·er noun

 

[AlAyeti]

You make my point for me. It is anti-gay sources that you linked to because only anti-gay sources speak of a "gay gene." There is no "gay gene" just as there is no "black gene."

If you look at the actual research that your sources are "reporting" on, you will see that the evidence for a genetic component for homosexuality (which is not the same thing as a "gay gene") is just as strong the evidence of a genetic component for non-white racial characteristics.

Perhaps, if you had looked at the two previous threads that I linked to in the OP, you would not have embarrassed yourself.

- http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/born-gay-hoax-studies-debunked/

Yiou are nasty towards me and it's getting old.

Levay was a gay activist doing studies on the "born gay" gene to insert it into the gay agenda.

a·gen·da (

-j

n

d

)
n. pl. a·gen·das 1. A list or program of things to be done or considered: "They share with them an agenda beyond the immediate goal of democratization of the electoral process" (Daniel Sneider).
2. A plural of agendum.

The Hypothalamus Study

First we will examine the “Hypothalamus Study,” conducted in 1991 by Dr. Simon LeVay, who worked at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California. The study analyzed size differences in the anterior hypothalamus of the brains of cadavers. LeVay publicized the study, in an attempt to convince the public that men that develop sexual desires for other men do so because of the size of the hypothalamus in the brain.
LeVay, it should be noted, had strong personal and political reasons to pursue research in this area. LeVay engaged in same-gender sex himself, and lost his partner to AIDS. Further, according to a Newsweek cover story in 1992, he stated: “. . . if I didn’t find anything, I would give up a scientific career altogether” (Gelman et al., 1992). LeVay also seemed to understand the impact that his study would have on society. “It’s important to educate society. I think this issue does affect religious and legal attitudes.”

The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, asked LeVay if he thought “that grounding homosexuality in biology can help win political equality.” LeVay responded:

“All the civil rights legislation passed in the ’60s is based on the knowledge that there is a genetic and immutable difference . . .

It's time for you to start looking up the meaning of words.