Fred Phelps Anti-Gay Preacher Was a Democrat

Status
Not open for further replies.

Grizzly

Enemy of Christmas
Supporter
Jul 6, 2002
13,036
1,674
57
Tallahassee
✟46,060.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.


:wave:

NHE - I was the only person in the discussion who posted a study. The Orwellian-named Veritas posted a website that talked about other studies. The website she posted named two studies (ironically both of then were published in the same time period as the study I linked to). The first study I cannot locate (Bearman and Bruecker - although I believe they meant Bearman and Brucker) and the second study (Bailey et al) reports much higher correlations

http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/JMichael-Bailey/Publications/Bailey et al. twins,2000.pdf

If you look at table 3, it reports the heritiablity estimates for sexual orientation for males and females separately. For males, 45% of the variation seen in sexual orientation is due to genetics. 0% is due to common environmental efffects, and 55% were due to specific environmental effects . It should be noted that specific environmental effects also inclue the error due to measurment.

In no way would one conclude that genes don't have an influence in this population.

Edited to add.

I just noticed the difference between the male MZ correlation (.51) and the DZ correlation (-.11). Two things come to mind. First, when the MZ correlation is more than twice the DZ correlation, it implies that some kind of genetic dominance is occurring. The models they are using to estimate heritability don't handle genetic dominance.

Secondly, the DZ correlation for males is abnormally low. Way lower than I would expect for sexual orientation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PersephonesTear

Junior Member
Jul 14, 2013
471
66
✟9,344.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
As far as I understand, Fred Phelps denounced ALL political parties, as well as anything else related to our government and the running thereof.

He may have been a Democrat at some point in the past, but it is dishonest to try to insinuate that he supported the Democratic platform simultaneously with the advent and continuation of his church's picketing history.

I don't have information on whether he, until he died, and his family are registering themselves when they register to vote... But I do believe that they are verbally outspoken against both Democrats and Republicans. The letter next to your name on the ballot is meaningless if you publicly denounce the party.
 
Upvote 0

Grizzly

Enemy of Christmas
Supporter
Jul 6, 2002
13,036
1,674
57
Tallahassee
✟46,060.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
out of curiosity, are you being intentionally disingenous or did you get this off some agitprop website? You know bailey wasn't able to reproduce his results, and subsequent studies found it at rates of 20% or lower for MZ twins compared to 13% for DZ.

Not being disingenuous at all - and everything I've written is my own writing. I was just responding to the study that Veritas posted. If you are familiar with another study by Bailey that shows that his initial results were in error, I would love to see it.

I can only evaluate studies that I know about.
 
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
NHE - I was the only person in the discussion who posted a study. The Orwellian-named Veritas posted a website that talked about other studies. The website she posted named two studies (ironically both of then were published in the same time period as the study I linked to). The first study I cannot locate (Bearman and Bruecker - although I believe they meant Bearman and Brucker) and the second study (Bailey et al) reports much higher correlations

http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/JMichael-Bailey/Publications/Bailey%20et%20al.%20twins,2000.pdf

If you look at table 3, it reports the heritiablity estimates for sexual orientation for males and females separately. For males, 45% of the variation seen in sexual orientation is due to genetics. 0% is due to common environmental efffects, and 55% were due to specific environmental effects . It should be noted that specific environmental effects also inclue the error due to measurment.

In no way would one conclude that genes don't have an influence in this population.
I wasn't arguing that genes didn't have an influence, Grizzly, simply that you hadn't refuted the data Veritas presented earlier. Thanks for subsequently attempting to do so. :thumbsup:

I hasten to point out that the authors of the study offer the following conclusory remarks on their study. http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/JMichael-Bailey/Publications/Bailey et al. twins,2000.pdf
The most striking difference between our results and those of past twin studies of sexual orientation concerns the probandwise concordance rates. In a recent review the lowest concordances for single-sex MZ samples were 47% and 48%, for men and women, respectively. In contrast, our MZ concordances were 20% and 24%, respectively, for the strict criterion that is most similar to those used in prior studies. These rates are significantly lower than the respective rates for the two largest prior twin studies of sexual orientation: for men, 52% ... and for women, 48% ... This suggests that concordances from prior studies were inflated because of concordance-dependent ascertainment bias. In those studies, twins deciding whether to participate in a study clearly related to homosexuality probably considered the sexual orientation of their co-twins before agreeing to participate. In contrast, both the more general focus of our study (i.e., on sexuality in general) and its anonymous response format made such considerations less likely. We are less confident of this explanation for women because prior studies had a preponderance of women with Kinsey scores of 5 and 6 and because there were relatively few such women in our sample (e.g., only 7 MZ twins in complete pairs had scores that high). It is conceivable that female homosexuality (indicated by Kinsey scores of 5 or 6) has a higher true probandwise concordance than does female bisexuality (indicated by Kinsey scores of 2–4). Larger studies will be necessary to determine if this is so.
Although this study indicated a much lower genetic contribution to homosexuality than earlier studies, the authors concluded that the study's results were still overtly biased in that direction.

Like you I don't find the low numbers that Veritas posted, but in general the observations she reported appear to be substantiated by this study. :wave:
 
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I think the greater point is that homosexuals deserve the same rights as heterosexuals, that includes being permitted to legally marry the person he/she loves.
Claim from the peanut gallery that they already have the same rights as everyone else, what they want is special rights in 3...2...
 
Upvote 0

Grizzly

Enemy of Christmas
Supporter
Jul 6, 2002
13,036
1,674
57
Tallahassee
✟46,060.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Claim from the peanut gallery that they already have the same rights as everyone else, what they want is special rights in 3...2...

I once argued that the parallel argument would be if prison's only allowed the Koran for all its prisoners. That would also be just as fair, because everyone would have the same rights to read the Koran as everyone else...
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
28,243
12,997
Seattle
✟895,643.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
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.

Wait, to disprove the studies I linked to (which have not been refuted BTW, though they have been refined) you link to someone who claims both that twins have 100% matching DNA and that because there is not complete concordance in sexual expression that this disproves any genetic COMPONENT? I hope you will forgive me my incredulity after having just been lectured on "confirmation bias". Here, you find the Daily Mail to be a reliable source do you not?

Being gay could be in your DNA, researchers claim in controversial new study | Mail Online


As far as I am able to tell, that some blacks find it offensive because they feel it minimizes the difficulties they faced is the only reason. Certainly it was the only reason I was able to identify from these articles. Anyone else get another reason?


In your opinion.

Yes, in my opinion words are defined by their common meaning and they change over time. Apparently you think word definitions are set in stone.

And before you know it, a parent could marry a child or someone could marry their dog. Progress, I tell you!

The sky could very well be falling I tell you!


Spare us the slippery slope, it's was just a falling nut.


Their civil rights aren't being "refused" . They both have great jobs at Boeing, sit in the front of the bus, never refused service at a restaurant, etc. I've been on vacation with them and have never once seen their civil rights violated.

True, in this state they can get married. They don't have to hide and no body is currently trying to lobotomize them. They just have to listen to people tell them how they are trying to destroy the basic fabric of society by taking part in the basic fabric of society.

So now you're calling me both a racist and bigoted homophobe. Nice.
You might want to work on your reading comprehension since I called you neither. I pointed out the parallels in your statements.

No, you just simply disagreed.

If by "simply disagreed" you mean refuted with actual evidence then yes.

Of course, if he were a republican you'd never do that. :doh:Besides, you do know that the democratic party was founded in part to oppose black civil rights and establish the KKK, right?


No, I don't know that. Feel free to substantiate it.
 
Upvote 0

Queller

I'm where?
May 25, 2012
6,446
681
✟45,092.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
I once argued that the parallel argument would be if prison's only allowed the Koran for all its prisoners. That would also be just as fair, because everyone would have the same rights to read the Koran as everyone else...
Hmmm, I like that analogy.
 
Upvote 0

RedDead1981

Prayer is beautiful when it's sincere
Jul 4, 2010
2,806
168
✟14,181.00
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Of course, if he were a republican you'd never do that. :doh:Besides, you do know that the democratic party was founded in part to oppose black civil rights and establish the KKK, right?

https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=ww...0CBgQ1S4#q=democratic party founding&safe=off

Google said:
1792
Democratic Party, Founded

And the modern version of the Democratic party...

Democratic Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Tracing its origins back to the Democratic-Republican Party, the modern Democratic Party was founded around 1828.

And the KKK was founded when?

Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki said:
The first Ku Klux Klan flourished in the Southern United States in the late 1860s, then died out by the early 1870s. Members adopted white costumes: robes, masks, and conical hats, designed to be outlandish and terrifying, and to hide their identities.

The second KKK flourished nationwide in the early and mid-1920s, and adopted the same costumes and code words as the first Klan, while introducing cross burnings.

Wow. They must have been planning ahead with that one!

:o

What's it like viewing the world through chain emails?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
I'm not going to bother going through all the non-sense anti-gay twin studies being posted, but for those posting those links you might want to know Neil Whitehead is a member of NARTH. His studies are not at all legitimate.
Just to head off confusion, I hasten to point out that Bailey's study posted by Grizzly comes from the "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology" and is not related to Whitehead.
 
Upvote 0

Needing_Grace

Chief of Sinners
May 8, 2011
3,350
146
Los Angeles, CA
✟11,799.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=ww...0CBgQ1S4#q=democratic party founding&safe=off



And the modern version of the Democratic party...

Democratic Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)


And the KKK was founded when?

Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Wow. They must have been planning ahead with that one!

:o

What's it like viewing the world through chain emails?

In the alternate universe, the Democrats have time machines and are fighting a Temporal Cold War against the Repulbicans. ^_^^_^^_^
 
Upvote 0

1000Flames

Gloria Perpetua
Jul 27, 2011
1,012
303
USA
✟108,022.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Veritas

1 Lord, 1 Faith, 1 Baptism
Aug 7, 2003
17,038
2,806
Pacific NW USA
Visit site
✟109,662.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
I think the greater point is that homosexuals deserve the same rights as heterosexuals, that includes being permitted to legally marry the person he/she loves.

https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=ww...0CBgQ1S4#q=democratic party founding&safe=off



And the modern version of the Democratic party...

Democratic Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)


And the KKK was founded when?

Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Wow. They must have been planning ahead with that one!

:o

What's it like viewing the world through chain emails?

The Party of Civil Rights | National Review Online#!

The democratic party has a long history of opposing civil rights and forming the KKK. Ignore it if you wish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Subdood
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Bedford

Newbie
May 10, 2013
4,842
161
✟13,490.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
But not founded in order to form the KKK as was claimed.

The whole problem with her argument is that she claims the Democratic party started the KKK. That is completely untrue. Those who started the KKK may have been Democrats in their day, however they were also people of the defeated Confederacy. The Democratic party did not start the KKK.

Regardless, the Democrats then are not the Democrats today, and southern gentlemen today tend to vote republican.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Veritas

1 Lord, 1 Faith, 1 Baptism
Aug 7, 2003
17,038
2,806
Pacific NW USA
Visit site
✟109,662.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
I'm not going to bother going through all the non-sense anti-gay twin studies being posted, but for those posting those links you might want to know Neil Whitehead is a member of NARTH. His studies are not at all legitimate.

Whitehead didn't do the studies. :doh:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Subdood
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Are you going to retract your statement that the Democratic party was founded to establish the KKK or are you going to keep pushing that lie?

"Keep pushing that lie" is the odds-on favorite.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.