Examining the Myth of the Gay Agenda

[OllieFranz]

- Born Gay Hoax: Studies Debunked « Conservative Colloquium

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

I apologize for the tone in my last post. And I forgive you for yours in this reply. However, you are still talking about "the gay gene," so it it is clear that you do not understand genetics, and likely that you still have not looked at my two previous threads.

Race is an inherited characteristic, but there is no "black gene." There are genes for a number of traits we recognize as black features. There are genes for traits overwhelmingly associated with Blacks, such as susceptibility to Sickle Cell Anemia. But there is no one gene that every Black person has. There is no one gene that only Black people have. And not every "black" gene that any person has is activated to produce the trait in that person.

Likewise, the evidence suggests that there are genetic traits that produce a "susceptibility" to growing up to be gay. Not everyone who has the genes will have the traits activated. Not everyone with the traits will be gay. But it is no less genetically certain for those facts.

 

[Letalis]

That's very interesting. What's the point of genetics then? To what does it aim if anything could or could not be the case, depending on whether it is activated or not. It doesn't really tell us a whole lot.

 

[lawtonfogle]

That's very interesting. What's the point of genetics then? To what does it aim if anything could or could not be the case, depending on whether it is activated or not. It doesn't really tell us a whole lot.

Well the point of genetics is many fold. But as to the area related to what is being discussed, it is in part to understand how much of it is caused by nature, how it is caused, and how much is caused by nurture, and then using this to help humans (and possibly other species). The fact it is much more complicated than a single gene does not change the goal, it only makes getting there far harder.

 

[OllieFranz]

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

So i guess all pedophiles should be killed because children can't consent to them quietly living their lives? Again, we are not talking about having, or even being tempted to have sex with anyone. We are talking about simply existing.

Of course, if sex or, even the remotest possibility, of non-consensual sex is involved it is wrong. I have affirmed that fact in every one one of my posts. But the person is not the act.

Please read what I wrote, and stop over-reacting to your own strawman.

 

[lawtonfogle]

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]

Hmm... are you saying it is IMPOSSIBLE for this to describe a child (how are we defining child again, because this is also important)? If you are, the ball is in your court, so show the evidence.

Also, is an adult who has not yet reached puberty able to consent? Yes. Have they reached puberty? No. Is someone attracted to them a pedophile? Yes. Can said pedophile engage in sex with a consenting adult whom they are attracted to? Yes. Is such an adult rare? Yes. So rare we should just ignore them? No.

 

[Letalis]

Well the point of genetics is many fold. But as to the area related to what is being discussed, it is in part to understand how much of it is caused by nature, how it is caused, and how much is caused by nurture, and then using this to help humans (and possibly other species). The fact it is much more complicated than a single gene does not change the goal, it only makes getting there far harder.

I can appreciate that, but if genetics is being used to answer something, for example (and I admit from the start I know nothing of genetics) if someone will grow up to be flat-footed or not, and the answer they may or may not (and I have no idea if that is true, just being used to demonstrate), depending on whether certain genes are activated, then what exactly is the purpose of appealing to genetics? It has already admitted it cannot provide the answers which are sought. I can understand it for the appreciation of knowledge itself, though.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I can appreciate that, but if genetics is being used to answer something, for example (and I admit from the start I know nothing of genetics) if someone will grow up to be flat-footed or not, and the answer they may or may not (and I have no idea if that is true, just being used to demonstrate), depending on whether certain genes are activated, then what exactly is the purpose of appealing to genetics? It has already admitted it cannot provide the answers which are sought. I can understand it for the appreciation of knowledge itself, though.

Well, there are two issues here.

Part of it is that, right now, we can't predict all genes that will activate. In the future, we may be able to tell that.

Also, we can use the understanding to try to keep bad genes from activating, or get good genes to activate. Also, if we learn what in an environment activates certain bad genes, we can find the people with those genes and warm them, protecting them from the risk of those genes activating.


BTW, I am not geneticist. I have only just happen to know a few and spend time talking with them about it as I find it interesting. Geneticist is somewhere around 8th place on what I want to be. Computer scientist/psychologist are far higher, so I am studying them in university.

 

[OllieFranz]

I can appreciate that, but if genetics is being used to answer something, for example (and I admit from the start I know nothing of genetics) if someone will grow up to be flat-footed or not, and the answer they may or may not (and I have no idea if that is true, just being used to demonstrate), depending on whether certain genes are activated, then what exactly is the purpose of appealing to genetics? It has already admitted it cannot provide the answers which are sought. I can understand it for the appreciation of knowledge itself, though.

First, not all genetic questions are this murky. The problem is really in defining traits. Mendel was lucky. He defined seven simple traits that he found in the pea plants in his garden. Each trait was carried by a single gene that only came in two forms (for example the gene for pea color has a form for green peas and a form for yellow peas). If a green form is present it always activates. If a yellow form is present, it does not activate if there is a green form, but it activates if there is not a green form. Every pea plant has two of these genes. It got one from its mother and one from its father. There are only four possibilities (I'll use G for the green form and Y for the yellow form, and a capital for the father's gene and a lower-case for the mother's gene) Gg--green peas; Gy--green peas; Yg--green peas and Yy--yellow peas.

So genetics can predict a lot about what traits an individual will develop if we define the traits carefully.

Second, certain troublesome genes can be tracked in families. So that if the family has a history of, say, Tay-Sachs disease, a doctor can check a person to see if he has the form of the gene that is associated with Tay-Sachs, and advise him. And give the likelihood that he will pass the disease on to his children and grandchildren.

Third, if the situation is as murky as the research into the genetic component of homosexuality is now, it may clear up some with more research.

And finally, if there are different possible causes for a given condition, being able to eliminate the genetic ones in a given person will help determine what the real one is.

 

[Keres]

So i guess all pedophiles should be killed because children can't consent to them quietly living their lives?

Wow, getting a bit ridiculous there, aren't you?

Of course, if sex or, even the remotest possibility, of non-consensual sex is involved it is wrong. I have affirmed that fact in every one one of my posts. But the person is not the act.

Eventually, you'll get my point. Here it comes again:

What the pedophile desires is to undertake an action with someone that is incapable of consent.

What the homosexual desires involves consenting adults.

Therein lies the difference between the two, and why one is fine and the other is wrong. Therein lies the difference between the two, and why they should not be remotely equated with each other. Therein lies the difference between the two, and why saying they are similar is a strawman based in bigotry, hatred, and ignorance.

Hmm... are you saying it is IMPOSSIBLE for this to describe a child (how are we defining child again, because this is also important)? If you are, the ball is in your court, so show the evidence.

Yep. A child is defined as someone who is physically and psychologically immature, therein by definition a child is incapable of consent. Why you actually require an explanation is bizarre, to say the least.

Also, is an adult who has not yet reached puberty able to consent?

How many adults do you know that have not reached puberty?

Can said pedophile engage in sex with a consenting adult whom they are attracted to?

Can you explain what this has to do with the conversation?

Most pedophiles engage in sex with consenting adults whom they are attracted to on some level. It's been cited that most children are molested by their own parents. Kind of ridiculous to even bring up the fact that pedophiles can engage in sex with adults.

 

[OllieFranz]

Wow, getting a bit ridiculous there, aren't you?

No, just trying to get through to you that the person is not the "desire" as you phrased it

Eventually, you'll get my point. Here it comes again:

What the pedophile desires is to undertake an action with someone that is incapable of consent.

What the homosexual desires involves consenting adults.

But I'm not talking about the desire, I'm talking about the person and how we (the rest of society) treat him. Do we take away his rights because we are afraid he may desire in the future? Even if should he happen to desire in the future he may never act on that predicted desire?

Therein lies the difference between the two, and why one is fine and the other is wrong. Therein lies the difference between the two, and why they should not be remotely equated with each other. Therein lies the difference between the two, and why saying they are similar is a strawman based in bigotry, hatred, and ignorance.

So would you want us to go back to jailing gays because of their desires? To denying them housing because they might at some time in the future, "desire" their (admittedly adult) male neighbors? Denying them jobs because they might at some time in the future, come on to their (admittedly adult) male co-workers?

You do not lose your humanity because I'm afraid that some time in the future you might have a stray thought, and that stray thought might lead to "desire," and that "desire" might lead to temptation, and that temptation might lead to sex. And we have fought hard get the law to acknowledge that fact even as much as it does -- we still have a long way to go.

I am not talking about a child molester or a sex offender. I'm talking about a person who has never done anything illegal or immoral (at least in this general subject matter). Granted, in the real world it might be impossible to find such a pedophile. He would too deeply closeted to ever confide his "failing" to anyone, and with good reason, if even someone who has faced the same unreasoning persecution turns around and heaps on him.

Yep. A child is defined as someone who is physically and psychologically immature, therein by definition a child is incapable of consent. Why you actually require an explanation is bizarre, to say the least.



How many adults do you know that have not reached puberty?



Can you explain what this has to do with the conversation?

Most pedophiles engage in sex with consenting adults whom they are attracted to on some level. It's been cited that most children are molested by their own parents. Kind of ridiculous to even bring up the fact that pedophiles can engage in sex with adults.

 

[Keres]

No, just trying to get through to you that the person is not the "desire" as you phrased it

And I never said it was. I just pointed out that the act the pedophile desires to engage in, that being child molestation, is wrong because it involves an individual incapable of consent, and thus is in no way comparable to homosexuality. I am just trying to 'get that through to you'. You are using a logical fallacy by equating homosexuality and pedophilia, and the only purpose to such a logical fallacy is to demonize homosexuals.

Also, nowhere did I ever suggest punishing pedophiles who do not act on their desires. That's a strawman you devised that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that homosexuality and pedophilia are incomparable to each other because of that wonderful little word, 'consent'. They share approximately the same relation to each other that you having sex with your wife has with you beating a woman into submission and then raping her.

So would you want us to go back to jailing gays because of their desires? To denying them housing because they might at some time in the future, "desire" their (admittedly adult) male neighbors?

What a completely ridiculous strawman you've crafted.

Go back to the word 'CONSENT'. There is a reason I keep using it. What the homosexual wishes to do involves CONSENTING adults. Which is why it is in no way comparable to pedophilia, which involves someone incapable of consent. And since homosexuality only involves CONSENTING adults, they should have the same rights and be treated the same as heterosexuals. And since pedophilia involves those incapable of CONSENT, it should be dissuaded and punished when acted upon. Again, homosexuality involves CONSENTING adults and it is nobody's business what CONSENTING adults do in their bedrooms, and nobody has the right to judge what CONSENTING adults do in their bedrooms. Pedophilia, again, involves those who are incapable of CONSENT, and those who are incapable of CONSENT need to be protected.

 

[OllieFranz]

And I never said it was. I just pointed out that the act the pedophile desires to engage in, that being child molestation, is wrong because it involves an individual incapable of consent, and thus is in no way comparable to homosexuality. I am just trying to 'get that through to you'. You are using a logical fallacy by equating homosexuality and pedophilia, and the only purpose to such a logical fallacy is to demonize homosexuals.

Also, nowhere did I ever suggest punishing pedophiles who do not act on their desires. That's a strawman you devised that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that homosexuality and pedophilia are incomparable to each other because of that wonderful little word, 'consent'. They share approximately the same relation to each other that you having sex with your wife has with you beating a woman into submission and then raping her.

Finally! Finally you admit of the possibility of pedophiles who are not child molesters. How can there an issue of consent to sex when there is no issue of sex to begin with?

Again, we may never see any in the real world, but to deny even the possibility that they exist was what I was getting at. Just as the homophobic claims about gays denied even the possibility that it might not be true that gays are all, to a man, just waiting for the chance to rape you in the shower.

What a completely ridiculous strawman you've crafted.

Go back to the word 'CONSENT'. There is a reason I keep using it. What the homosexual wishes to do involves CONSENTING adults. Which is why it is in no way comparable to pedophilia, which involves someone incapable of consent. And since homosexuality only involves CONSENTING adults, they should have the same rights and be treated the same as heterosexuals. And since pedophilia involves those incapable of CONSENT, it should be dissuaded and punished when acted upon. Again, homosexuality involves CONSENTING adults and it is nobody's business what CONSENTING adults do in their bedrooms, and nobody has the right to judge what CONSENTING adults do in their bedrooms. Pedophilia, again, involves those who are incapable of CONSENT, and those who are incapable of CONSENT need to be protected.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

As Lawtonfogle said, so did the heterosexuals.
And given that there have always been more of what we now refer to as heterosexuals than there are of what we now refer to as homosexuals, it would seem that the heterosexuals were more guilty of taking advantage of slavery for sexual purposes....

And it's not as if the only same sex sexual activity was between owner and slaves; Caeser was 'every woman's man and every man's woman', while Alexander the Great was 'ruled by Hephaestion's thighs'

I can't point to any examples of purely gay people- that concept didn't exist at the time. In roughly the same way I can't refer to a 13th century Dominatrix- the term just wasn't around.

People with a History: Suetonius: Julius Caesar 2, 45-53
Alexander the Great - Indopedia, the Indological knowledgebase.

I disagree, when you look at it on a per capita level you will see a great difference. For example, with STDS. Yes heterosexuals have a higher population of people who get STDS, however when you look on the per-ca-pita level(the amount of STDs to the percent of people) you will see homosexuals are extremely higher than heterosexuals.

 

[Archer93]

I disagree, when you look at it on a per capita level you will see a great difference. For example, with STDS. Yes heterosexuals have a higher population of people who get STDS, however when you look on the per-ca-pita level(the amount of STDs to the percent of people) you will see homosexuals are extremely higher than heterosexuals.

A)- What has this post to do with my post about people in the ancient world taking advantage of the slave trade? There is absolutely no way to work out the per capita percentage of 'gay' versus 'straight' people doing so! Especially since there were no terms for 'gay' or 'straight' at the time- words for the actions, yes, or what roles they might take, but not as a general identifier.

B)- Source for your claim, please, that homosexuals have a higher per capita rate of STD infection? It must be pretty spectacular, since it seems that roughly 1 in 4 teenage girls are getting infected-
High STD Rate for Teenage Girls

It's a tricky thing to research, granted. Especially since, in my personal experience, heterosexual men are less likely to go for regular check-ups that their homosexual counterparts. All my male gay friends with whom I am close enough to discuss these things (that's a pool of 8, BTW) get a check-up at least once a year; male straight friends of a similar level- not so much with the that.
Factor in the way that some STDs often don't show up in men, such as HPV and Chlamydia, and that gonorrhea in the throat is frequently asymptomatic, and you can see why it's possible for many straight men to go for years without being diagnosed. HIV also does not manifest with the obvious 'uh-oh' signs of discharge and burning.

Gonorrhea is often asymptomatic in women, BTW. There is a risk of STD transmission for lesbians, some more so than others, but it's not exceptionally high. This site covers the topic, but I wish they cited the evidence they refer to in the second paragraph.
Los Angeles County STD Program - Resources for Lesbian & Bisexual Women
A reason why lesbian STD rates are surprisingly high, given the generally low-risk activities involved, could be because there's a general impression that lesbians don't get STDs and so safe-sex is not considered to be particularly necessary.
This is an education problem, not a sexuality problem. Just as it is for the 1 in 4 heterosexual teenage girls.

There is, definitly, one group out there who is at great risk of contracting STDs- people who don't use protection! Gay or straight, male or female, they're the ones most at risk for catching not just a touch of the clap but the full round of applause.*

Sexuality is not a factor in being at risk of picking up an STD. Education is.




*Thank you, Gene Hunt!

 

[AlAyeti]

And I never said it was. I just pointed out that the act the pedophile desires to engage in, that being child molestation, is wrong because it involves an individual incapable of consent, and thus is in no way comparable to homosexuality. I am just trying to 'get that through to you'. You are using a logical fallacy by equating homosexuality and pedophilia, and the only purpose to such a logical fallacy is to demonize homosexuals.

Christian concepts about behavior is that they can be dealt with and curtailed. Your position on consent below is a good definition of what sinning actually is.

Also, nowhere did I ever suggest punishing pedophiles who do not act on their desires. That's a strawman you devised that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that homosexuality and pedophilia are incomparable to each other because of that wonderful little word, 'consent'. They share approximately the same relation to each other that you having sex with your wife has with you beating a woman into submission and then raping her.

That's a bit extreme. It's more like going out and commiting adultery. I can't imagine how many men and women "think" or have thoughts about it, but don't act on those inclinations. That is what the Christian life and theology deals with. We deal with it as a whole. A support group. It's just that trying to help with homosexuality is now virtually a crime. Because of the gay agenda.

What a completely ridiculous strawman you've crafted.

And one you have turned into a real person:

Go back to the word 'CONSENT'. There is a reason I keep using it. What the homosexual wishes to do involves CONSENTING adults. Which is why it is in no way comparable to pedophilia, which involves someone incapable of consent. And since homosexuality only involves CONSENTING adults, they should have the same rights and be treated the same as heterosexuals. And since pedophilia involves those incapable of CONSENT, it should be dissuaded and punished when acted upon. Again, homosexuality involves CONSENTING adults and it is nobody's business what CONSENTING adults do in their bedrooms, and nobody has the right to judge what CONSENTING adults do in their bedrooms. Pedophilia, again, involves those who are incapable of CONSENT, and those who are incapable of CONSENT need to be protected.

Hopefully you won't mind if I use that if I get a chance to preach at my Church. Sin only comes in the form of consent.

 

[Psudopod]

For one thing, homosexuality isn't a behaviour, and even if it was, why should it be curtailed in general?

 

[Shemjaza]

I disagree, when you look at it on a per capita level you will see a great difference. For example, with STDS. Yes heterosexuals have a higher population of people who get STDS, however when you look on the per-ca-pita level(the amount of STDs to the percent of people) you will see homosexuals are extremely higher than heterosexuals.

You know, I've never gotten a straight answer out of people like you... why doesn't this imply the virtue of lesbians? Homosexual women have less STDs then straight women and all men.

 

[Keres]

Finally! Finally you admit of the possibility of pedophiles who are not child molesters.

Uh, hun? Never claimed there wasn't. Perhaps you should try actually reading my posts.

And why exactly are you so keen on defending pedophiles anyway?

Just as the homophobic claims about gays denied even the possibility that it might not be true that gays are all, to a man, just waiting for the chance to rape you in the shower.

You have the consent issue confused again. Here, let me explain it, yet again:

Go back to the word 'CONSENT'. There is a reason I keep using it. What the homosexual wishes to do involves CONSENTING adults. Which is why it is in no way comparable to pedophilia, which involves someone incapable of consent. And since homosexuality only involves CONSENTING adults, they should have the same rights and be treated the same as heterosexuals. And since pedophilia involves those incapable of CONSENT, it should be dissuaded and punished when acted upon. Again, homosexuality involves CONSENTING adults and it is nobody's business what CONSENTING adults do in their bedrooms, and nobody has the right to judge what CONSENTING adults do in their bedrooms. Pedophilia, again, involves those who are incapable of CONSENT, and those who are incapable of CONSENT need to be protected.

Hopefully you won't mind if I use that if I get a chance to preach at my Church. Sin only comes in the form of consent.

Sure. Go ahead. It's always fun when your type tries to invent reasons why something is a 'sin' when completely unable to actually articulate what harm it does.

That's a bit extreme.

No, it's exactly correct. See the whole bit up there about consent?

What do you call non-consensual sex? Yeah, RAPE.

It's more like going out and commiting adultery

Adultery involves consenting adults. So, no, pedophila and adultery are also incomparable. Because adultery involves consenting adults, and pedophilia involves children who by definition cannot consent.

Your position on consent below is a good definition of what sinning actually is.

Sin is a creation defined as 'people who are doing something I don't like'. There is no such thing as sin. If it harms others, it is wrong. If it doesn't, it's not. Sin was invented as a means to control people by curtailing actions. A diehard vegan considers eating meat to be a 'sin', a member of PETA considers owning a leather wallet to be a 'sin', and they are just as ridiculous as you considering homosexuality to be a 'sin'.

People who accuse others of being sinful are just self-righteous control freaks.

 

[OllieFranz]

Uh, hun? Never claimed there wasn't. Perhaps you should try actually reading my posts.

And yet you keep harping on the issue of consent. Consent is only an issue (in this respect) if there is sex. A person is more than who he has sex with. This is especially true if he does not have sex in the first place.

And all along I have been asking about a hypothetically innocent pedophile. So your constant harping on consent was non-responsive, unless it was to deny the possibility of that hypothetical. In every single one of your responses the cornerstone of your argument was the issue of consent.

So either you were so caught up on the issue of consent that you were ignoring what I was actually asking, or you were indeed "claim(ing) there wasn't." I had to keep pushing to find out which it was.

And why exactly are you so keen on defending pedophiles anyway?

Usually when someone asks that kind of question, they are implying that the only reason to "defend" that type of person is because one is that type of person. I have no idea whether you meant it in that way or not, but what difference would the answer make anyway?

I'm not defending pedophiles, I am defending human dignity and human rights. Your dignity and your rights. You are repeating the same arguments that the homophobes use against you.

One does not have to be black to defend the human dignity of black humans, nor female to defend the human rights of women. Or homosexual to defend the humanity of gays.

 

[Keres]

And yet you keep harping on the issue of consent.

Yep.

Because a pedophile's desires involve someone who cannot consent, whether they act upon it or not. Therefore, the difference between a homosexual (who desires to have sex with a consenting adult) and a pedophile are clear, and the two should not be equated anymore than a heterosexual (who desires to have sex with a consenting adult) should be compared to a pedophile.

I've stated this already, several times. You should try actually reading my posts.

The desire to come to my house for a party is not wrong, whether that desire is acted upon or not. The desire to burn my house down is wrong, whether that desire is acted upon or not. The end result of the first desire does no harm, the end result of the second desire does.

Homosexual sex does not cause harm anymore than heterosexual sex, as both involved consenting adults.

Child molestation does cause harm, as one of the parties involved is not a consenting adult.

For the reason, pedophilia and homosexuality are incomparable to each other, even if the pedophile and the homosexual remain celibate throughout their entire lives.

And all along I have been asking about a hypothetically innocent pedophile.

Yes, a hypothetically innocent pedophile, who is a pedophile because they desire to have sex with someone who is, by definition, incapable of consent. Inherently different from say, a celibate homosexual, who is a homosexual because they desire to have sex with CONSENTING adults. The difference being CONSENT.

I'm not defending pedophiles, I am defending human dignity and human rights. Your dignity and your rights. You are repeating the same arguments that the homophobes use against you.

WRONG.

See, like a homosexual, I only want to have sex with consenting adults. I happen to like consenting adults of the gender opposite my own. I have absolutely no interest in sex with someone who does not or is incapable of consent. To have sex with someone who does not or is incapable of consent violates their dignity and their rights. Having sex with someone who is capable of and chooses to consent violates nobody's rights or basic human dignity.

One does not have to be black to defend the human dignity of black humans, nor female to defend the human rights of women. Or homosexual to defend the humanity of gays.

But you aren't defending homosexuals. You are demonizing and in-humanizing them by comparing them to pedophiles. You are violating the rights and dignity of homosexuals by such a comparison.