Fred Phelps Anti-Gay Preacher Was a Democrat

[SepiaAndDust]

I guess to a liberal it just seems that way. Sorry, don't have time in my precious schedule to watch silly youtube vids.

Now let's get back to the OP: Fred Phelp's was a Democrat, sad but true.

Sorry, I don't have time in my otherwise empty schedule to entertain silly arguments.

 

[Cute Tink]

Bottom line: if you can't refute the nature of the argument, attack something else or the poster. Whichever.

Some irony from one page to note:

I guess to a liberal it just seems that way.

What page of the Liberal Playbook is this on? I need to grab my copy.

Straight out of the Liberal Playbook.

 

[Armoured]

Fred Phelp's was a Democrat, sad but true.

So what's your point?

 

[Savior2006]

What page of the Liberal Playbook is this on? I need to grab my copy.

LOL, I need to figure what a Liberal Playbook is. Is it something by that famed bogeyman Saul Alinsky?

Tell me, where in the Conservative Playbook does it say you can make thread after thread on CF, making a claim that gets slapped around for the first few pages, abandoning thread like its the Titanic, and then posting yet another thread with yet another claim that gets slapped around.

You say people couldn't argue against the point of your thread. Dozens of pages in, I honestly can't see what the point is.

Freddie was a registered Democrat...
And?

Even in your own OP, it mentions that Democrats have changed above and beyond what Freddie excepts.

Do we really want to count the Republicans/conservatives against gay marriage, Bachmann, Romney, Jerry Falwell, Santorum, Bryan Fischer, Limbaugh, Coulter. Shoot, if I actually cared, I could go down the list of Republican Congressman, and I bet not more than ten support gay adoption.

And unlike Freddie, these religious morons get support from their side. I don't even have to go outside of CF to prove this. Start a topic about gay marriage and you'll have South Bound saying that it will lead to people marrying objects, Habbit Animal saying that Satan is tallying up people for hell, and Garfield being Garfield.

And what does your side have? One man from a church with no more than a handful of people, who gets for all practical purposes ZERO support from Democrats.

Thanks for the chuckle.

 

[Grizzly]

Did you notice the date on all the studies you linked to? They are all old and have been refuted. They were also deeply flawed. Some scientists have been trying desperately to prove that homosexuality is genetic. This is known as "confirmation bias". It simply means that you have a particular view and then seek to prove it by constructing and manipulating studies. It's done all the time. But it's not science. It's bunk. The latest twin studies show that there is no genetic component to homosexuality any more than there is to heterosexuality.

Ok. I have to jump in. Getting lectured by Veritas on "confirmation bias" is like being lectured by Machzer0 on the evils of partisanship.

Since I happen to know quite a bit about behavioral genetics, I thought I would jump in. First, almost every single complex human behavior has been shown to have both genetic and environmental influences. Homosexuality is no different. There are both heritable and environmental influences on the expression of homosexuality in our population.

A genetic study of male sexual orientation. [Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1991] - PubMed - NCBI

The study I pasted above has a MZ (identical twin) proband concordance rate of 52%, 22% for DZ (fraternal) twins, and 11% for adopted sibs (who share no genetic material). This indicates substantial genetic influence of genes in the expression of homosexuality.

But, as it has been noted, the influence of genes is not 100%. If that were the case, the MZ's would have a much higher concordance rate. But even if it homosexuality were 100% genetically determined, we still wouldn't expect 100% concordance. There are also strong environmental reasons why someone who is homosexual to report that they are not. And its also possible for someone to claim they are homosexual when in fact they may not be.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Ok. I have to jump in. Getting lectured by Veritas on "confirmation bias" is like being lectured by Machzer0 on the evils of partisanship.

Since I happen to know quite a bit about behavioral genetics, I thought I would jump in. First, almost every single complex human behavior has been shown to have both genetic and environmental influences. Homosexuality is no different. There are both heritable and environmental influences on the expression of homosexuality in our population.

A genetic study of male sexual orientation. [Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1991] - PubMed - NCBI

The study I pasted above has a MZ (identical twin) proband concordance rate of 52%, 22% for DZ (fraternal) twins, and 11% for adopted sibs (who share no genetic material). This indicates substantial genetic influence of genes in the expression of homosexuality.

But, as it has been noted, the influence of genes is not 100%. If that were the case, the MZ's would have a much higher concordance rate. But even if it homosexuality were 100% genetically determined, we still wouldn't expect 100% concordance. There are also strong environmental reasons why someone who is homosexual to report that they are not. And its also possible for someone to claim they are homosexual when in fact they may not be.

Hi Grizzly.

Thank you for confirming Veritas's statement about dated studies by providing the results of a 25 year old study.

Got anything new?

 

[Grizzly]

Hi Grizzly.

Thank you for confirming Veritas's statement about dated studies by providing the results of a 25 year old study.

Got anything new?

NHE,

The human genome, twin study methodology, or homosexuality haven't changed since the 1990's. The passage of time doesn't invalidate the study.

If you are worried about a manuscript being dated because its 25 years old, what does that say about the veracity of a 2,000 year old manuscript

 

[Armoured]

NHE,

The human genome, twin study methodology, or homosexuality haven't changed since the 1990's. The passage of time doesn't invalidate the study.

Cheers

Although, of course, there ARE dozens of more recent studies that also support the idea of a genetic component to homosexuality.

 

[Savior2006]

NHE,

The human genome, twin study methodology, or homosexuality haven't changed since the 1990's. The passage of time doesn't invalidate the study.

If you are worried about a manuscript being dated because its 25 years old, what does that say about the veracity of a 2,000 year old manuscript

 

[NightHawkeye]

NHE,

The human genome, twin study methodology, or homosexuality haven't changed since the 1990's. The passage of time doesn't invalidate the study.

If you are worried about a manuscript being dated because its 25 years old, what does that say about the veracity of a 2,000 year old manuscript

I take that to mean you're not attempting to refute the newer studies on identical twins which Veritas posted about ... showing very low correlation of homosexuality in identical twins.

Did you notice the date on all the studies you linked to? They are all old and have been refuted. They were also deeply flawed. Some scientists have been trying desperately to prove that homosexuality is genetic. This is known as "confirmation bias". It simply means that you have a particular view and then seek to prove it by constructing and manipulating studies. It's done all the time. But it's not science. It's bunk. The latest twin studies show that there is no genetic component to homosexuality any more than there is to heterosexuality.

Identical twin studies prove homosexuality is not genetic | Life In HD - The Official Website For Pastor Holland Davis :: Calvary Chapel San Clemente

“Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”

Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. “No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.”

The first very large, reliable study of identical twins was conducted in Australia in 1991, followed by a large U.S. study about 1997. Then Australia and the U.S. conducted more twin studies in 2000, followed by several studies in Scandinavia, according to Dr. Whitehead.

“Twin registers are the foundation of modern twin studies. They are now very large, and exist in many countries. A gigantic European twin register with a projected 600,000 members is being organized, but one of the largest in use is in Australia, with more than 25,000 twins on the books.”

A significant twin study among adolescents shows an even weaker genetic correlation. In 2002 Bearman and Brueckner studied tens of thousands of adolescent students in the U.S. The same-sex attraction concordance between identical twins was only 7.7% for males and 5.3% for females—lower than the 11% and 14% in the Australian study by Bailey et al conducted in 2000.

 

[Queller]

I guess to a liberal it just seems that way. Sorry, don't have time in my precious schedule to watch silly youtube vids.

Now let's get back to the OP: Fred Phelp's was a Democrat, sad but true.

Fred Phelps was a Christian, specifically a Baptist. Sad but true.

 

[SolomonVII]

Fred Phelps was a Christian, specifically a Baptist. Sad but true.

And a Democrat.
Which only makes sense.

 

[Armoured]

So what's your point?

Still waiting

 

[Queller]

And a Democrat.
Which only makes sense.

Only if you have no idea what the Democrat Party platform is.

He was the Democratic contribution, which was not one of policy but one of pure hatred and emotion, as per usual.

Oh please. Name one thing Phelps has had in common with Democrats in the last 30 years other than the name.

Still waiting.

 

[Jessica01]

I disagree. It would be a cheap shot if the shot actually hit. Not only did the shot not hit, the bullet never even came back to Mother Earth on the way down.

Well, that is true.

 

[Jessica01]

The people in this thread trying to use the Fred Phelps paintbrush on the democratic party don't seem to realize that this brush can also be used on Christians in general (and baptists in particular). Do we also think Fred was an exemplar of Christianity or Protestantism? In fact, I don't remember Fred protesting at funerals with his THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HATES FA** sign.

The point is - I don't see Fred Phelps representing either Christians or Democrats. He was his own special brand of nutjob.

I agree. Yet some are trying to use him to insult Democrats.

 

[Jessica01]

Some irony from one page to note:

I noticed that too.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Because it's so embarrassing. I'd feel that way if in fact he were a conservative republican. But he wasn't.

As I already pointed out, it's not embarrassing; it's surprising. If Phelps were a Republican the unfortunate truth is that no one would be surprised by his views.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I agree. Yet some are trying to use him to insult Democrats.

And they disparage Christianity in the process, well -- that's just collateral damage.

After all, these folks are Republicans first, and Christians... well, somewhere down the list...

 

[RedDead1981]

I guess to a liberal it just seems that way. Sorry, don't have time in my precious schedule to watch silly youtube vids.

Now let's get back to the OP: Fred Phelp's was a Democrat, sad but true.

Yes. Yes, that is the OP.

So what? Are you trying to make some kind of point here?