X Freaks Forum

News:

  • Welcome to the X FREAKS forum!
    Please read the rules :)
  • Please read and accept our Privacy Policy
  • XFF - Ad free since 2006 \o/

Oh, those crazy homophobes...(long ass article)

ferret · 6169

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ferret

  • Die-hard fan
  • *****
    • Posts: 3557
    • View Profile
on: June 02, 2008, 08:32:06 AM
Quote
Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Posted: Friday, March 02, 2007 at 3:40 am ET

What if you could know that your unborn baby boy is likely to be sexually attracted to other boys? Beyond that, what if hormonal treatments could change the baby's orientation to heterosexual? Would you do it? Some scientists believe that such developments are just around the corner.

For some time now, scientists have been looking for a genetic or hormonal cause of sexual orientation. Thus far, no "gay gene" has been found -- at least not in terms of incontrovertible and accepted science. Yet, it is now claimed that a growing body of evidence indicates that biological factors may at least contribute to sexual orientation.

The most interesting research along these lines relates to the study of sheep. Scientists at the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station are conducting research into the sexual orientation of sheep through "sexual partner preference testing." As William Saletan at Slate.com explains:

A bare majority of rams turn out to be heterosexual. One in five swings both ways. About 15 percent are asexual, and 7 percent to 10 percent are gay.

Why so many gay rams? Is it too much socializing with ewes? Same-sex play with other lambs? Domestication? Nope. Those theories have been debunked. Gay rams don't act girly. They're just as gay in the wild. And a crucial part of their brains--the "sexually dimorphic nucleus"--looks more like a ewe's than like a straight ram's. Gay men have a similar brain resemblance to women. Charles Roselli, the project's lead scientist, says such research "strongly suggests that sexual preference is biologically determined in animals, and possibly in humans."

What makes the sheep "sexual partner preference testing" research so interesting is that the same scientists who are documenting the rather surprising sexual behaviors of male sheep think they can also change the sexual orientation of the animals. In other words, finding a biological causation for homosexuality may also lead to the discovery of a "cure" for the same phenomenon.

That's where the issue gets really interesting. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA] has called for an end to the research, while tennis star Martina Navratilova called the research "homophobic and cruel" and argued that gay sheep have a "right" to be homosexual. No kidding.

Homosexual activists were among the first to call for (and fund) research into a biological cause of homosexuality. After all, they argued, the discovery of a biological cause would lead to the normalization of homosexuality simply because it would then be seen to be natural, and thus moral.

But now the picture is quite different. Many homosexual activists recognize that the discovery of a biological marker or cause for homosexual orientation could lead to efforts to eliminate the trait, or change the orientation through genetic or hormonal treatments.

Tyler Gray addresses these issues in the current issue of Radar magazine. In "Is Your Baby Gay?," Gray sets out a fascinating scenario. A woman is told that her unborn baby boy is gay. This woman and her husband consider themselves to be liberal and tolerant of homosexuality. But this is not about homosexuality now; it is about their baby boy. The woman is then told that a hormone patch on her abdomen will "reverse the sexual orientation inscribed in his chromosomes." The Sunday Times [London] predicts that such a patch should be available for use on humans within the decade. Will she use it?

This question stands at the intersection of so many competing interests. Feminists and political liberals have argued for decades now that a woman should have an unrestricted right to an abortion, for any cause or for no stated cause at all. How can they now complain if women decide to abort fetuses identified as homosexual? This question involves both abortion and gay rights -- the perfect moral storm of our times.

Homosexual activists have claimed that sexual orientation cannot be changed. What if a hormone patch during pregnancy will do the job?

As Gray suggests:

In a culture that encourages us to customize everything from our Nikes to our venti skinny lattes, perhaps it is only a matter of time before baby-making becomes just another consumer transaction. Already have a girl? Make this one a boy! Want to impress your boho friends? Make a real statement with lesbian twins!

More to the point, Gray understands that such a development would reshape the abortion and gay-rights debates in America:

Conservatives opposed to both abortion and homosexuality will have to ask themselves whether the public shame of having a gay child outweighs the private sin of terminating a pregnancy (assuming the stigma on homosexuality survives the scientific refutation of the Right's treasured belief that it is a "lifestyle choice.") Pro-choice activists won't be spared either. Will liberal moms who love their hairdressers be as tolerant when faced with the prospect of raising a little stylist of their own? And exactly how pro-choice will liberal abortion-rights activists be when thousands of potential parents are choosing to filter homosexuality right out of the gene pool?

The development of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis [PDG] is one of the greatest threats to human dignity in our times. These tests are already leading to the abortion of fetuses identified as carrying unwanted genetic markers. The tests can now check for more than 1,300 different chromosomal abnormalities or patterns. With DNA analysis, the genetic factors could be identified right down to hair and eye color and other traits. The logic is all too simple. If you don't like what you see on the PDG report . . . just abort and start over. Soon, genetic treatments may allow for changing the profile. Welcome to the world of designer babies.

If that happens, how many parents -- even among those who consider themselves most liberal -- would choose a gay child? How many parents, armed with this diagnosis, would use the patch and change the orientation?

Christians who are committed to think in genuinely Christian terms should think carefully about these points:

1. There is, as of now, no incontrovertible or widely accepted proof that any biological basis for sexual orientation exists.

2. Nevertheless, the direction of the research points in this direction. Research into the sexual orientation of sheep and other animals, as well as human studies, points to some level of biological causation for sexual orientation in at least some individuals.

3. Given the consequences of the Fall and the effects of human sin, we should not be surprised that such a causation or link is found. After all, the human genetic structure, along with every other aspect of creation, shows the pernicious effects of the Fall and of God's judgment.

4. The biblical condemnation of all homosexual behaviors would not be compromised or mitigated in the least by such a discovery. The discovery of a biological factor would not change the Bible's moral verdict on homosexual behavior.

5. The discovery of a biological basis for homosexuality would be of great pastoral significance, allowing for a greater understanding of why certain persons struggle with these particular sexual temptations.

6. The biblical basis for establishing the dignity of all persons -- the fact that all humans are made in God's image -- reminds us that this means all persons, including those who may be marked by a predisposition toward homosexuality. For the sake of clarity, we must insist at all times that all persons -- whether identified as heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, transsexual, transgendered, bisexual, or whatever -- are equally made in the image of God.

7. Thus, we will gladly contend for the right to life of all persons, born and unborn, whatever their sexual orientation. We must fight against the idea of aborting fetuses or human embryos identified as homosexual in orientation.

8. If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin.

9. We must stop confusing the issues of moral responsibility and moral choice. We are all responsible for our sexual orientation, but that does not mean that we freely and consciously choose that orientation. We sin against homosexuals by insisting that sexual temptation and attraction are predominately chosen. We do not always (or even generally) choose our temptations. Nevertheless, we are absolutely responsible for what we do with sinful temptations, whatever our so-called sexual orientation.

10. Christians must be very careful not to claim that science can never prove a biological basis for sexual orientation. We can and must insist that no scientific finding can change the basic sinfulness of all homosexual behavior. The general trend of the research points to at least some biological factors behind sexual attraction, gender identity, and sexual orientation. This does not alter God's moral verdict on homosexual sin (or heterosexual sin, for that matter), but it does hold some promise that a deeper knowledge of homosexuality and its cause will allow for more effective ministries to those who struggle with this particular pattern of temptation. If such knowledge should ever be discovered, we should embrace it and use it for the greater good of humanity and for the greater glory of God.


source

Hee, finally, my fellow christian friends  :D Finally they'll find the cure for gay (and therefore for HIV, obviously) and soon they'll find the cure for black and for single women  :!:

RIP


Offline mC

  • Big fan
  • ****
    • Posts: 895
    • View Profile
Reply #1 on: June 02, 2008, 09:09:29 AM
This thread could become...interesting. I say....it's wrong. Simple.



Offline Layla_Black

  • Rookie
  • *
    • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
    • http://www.fotolog.com/natsuko_koizumi
Reply #2 on: June 02, 2008, 09:36:36 AM
As Cervantes said: Con la iglesia hemos topado! (We've butted against the church)

Thanks God this "cure" doesn't exist some years ago and nobody change my lovely and wonderful gays friends.


Seriously, someone should stopped them...



PanthereNoire

  • Guest
Reply #3 on: June 02, 2008, 12:55:43 PM
I wonder how many of those wishing to "cure" homosexuals will notice the bolded part of this sentence:

2. Nevertheless, the direction of the research points in this direction. Research into the sexual orientation of sheep and other animals, as well as human studies, points to some level of biological causation for sexual orientation in at least some individuals.

Seems to me there are a great many qualifiers to the idea that everything might be as nice and easy as it is presented on first glance.

As for comments on the Christian Right's position on homosexuality, other "sinful deviancies" and even single women, this once I will pretend to be a US citizen and claim my rights under the 5th Constitutional Amendment (the right to remain silent, for those not familiar with the US constitution). Otherwise, I might have to ban myself and I don't feel quite like that. :evil:



Offline ferret

  • Die-hard fan
  • *****
    • Posts: 3557
    • View Profile
Reply #4 on: June 02, 2008, 01:29:34 PM
It's hilarious how it's sinful, yet animals are considered to be creatures who act by their instincts. Would they try to "turn them around", too? Make them more unnatural? But that's kind of the opposite of what they want for they always claim that it has to be like nature (and god) intended it to be (that Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve shit).

I often wonder which edition of the bible those guys are reading because it surely isn't the one I used to read and study.

RIP


PanthereNoire

  • Guest
Reply #5 on: June 02, 2008, 02:50:23 PM
Actually, I want a definition what they consider "the bible" (for the English world, I suppose that's the King James translation which is, to put it politely, highly edited to suit the time it was published in).

Since I doubt that the majority of those of those so knowledgable about what's in the bible people probably aren't able to read Aramaic nor have the sociohistorical knowledge to put into context why the various parts that make up "the bible" were written as they were written.

And to the best of my knowledge, there isn't any condemnation - or even any mentioning - of homosexuality in the four gospels.



Offline Hollywood

  • Die-hard fan
  • *****
    • Posts: 1492
    • View Profile
    • http://www.myspace.com/363181252
Reply #6 on: June 03, 2008, 05:36:43 AM
Quote
What if you could know that your unborn baby boy is likely to be sexually attracted to other boys?

1. Place pregnant woman near stereo speaker.
2. Play Barbara Streisand record.
3. Listen carefully through stomach to discern whether fetus comments that record is "fabulous".*

* May be difficult to discern in sheep.





I kid, just in case that wasn't clear. ;)

color=darkred]STAND UP!  FUCK UP![/color]


Offline Layla_Black

  • Rookie
  • *
    • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
    • http://www.fotolog.com/natsuko_koizumi
Reply #7 on: June 03, 2008, 08:51:44 AM
Quote from: "Hollywood"

2. Play Barbara Streisand record.
3. Listen carefully through stomach to discern whether fetus comments that record is "fabulous".*


In the film, In&Out it works perfectly  :wink:



Offline Hollywood

  • Die-hard fan
  • *****
    • Posts: 1492
    • View Profile
    • http://www.myspace.com/363181252
Reply #8 on: June 03, 2008, 09:12:04 AM
Quote from: "Layla_Black"
Quote from: "Hollywood"

2. Play Barbara Streisand record.
3. Listen carefully through stomach to discern whether fetus comments that record is "fabulous".*


In the film, In&Out it works perfectly  :wink:

Oh, seriously?  Never seen that movie, do they actually do that? :lol:

color=darkred]STAND UP!  FUCK UP![/color]


Offline Lucs

  • Die-hard fan
  • *****
    • Posts: 1479
    • View Profile
    • Xploson
Reply #9 on: June 03, 2008, 09:45:42 AM
You CAN'T cure something that is NOT a disease.


Offline ferret

  • Die-hard fan
  • *****
    • Posts: 3557
    • View Profile
Reply #10 on: June 03, 2008, 10:02:03 AM
Quote from: "PanthereNoire"

And to the best of my knowledge, there isn't any condemnation - or even any mentioning - of homosexuality in the four gospels.


Some passages in the Old and New Testament could be interpreted that way.

I guess an all time favourite is


"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination."

I always figured that meant men were not supposed to take advantage of younger men (who worked for them) or something of that nature. (and I remember reading youngling instead of man, as well).

RIP


PanthereNoire

  • Guest
Reply #11 on: June 03, 2008, 11:32:32 AM
Quote from: "ferret"
Quote from: "PanthereNoire"

And to the best of my knowledge, there isn't any condemnation - or even any mentioning - of homosexuality in the four gospels.


Some passages in the Old and New Testament could be interpreted that way.

I guess an all time favourite is


"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination."

I always figured that meant men were not supposed to take advantage of younger men (who worked for them) or something of that nature. (and I remember reading youngling instead of man, as well).


All that, but mixing different fibers such as cotton and linen is an abomination as well and so is eating shell fish, among a great number of other things. So far, I haven't seen "Red Lobster" been haunted because that's said somewhere in the Old Testament.

Furthermore, and I wish people would remember that, the bible isn't a monolithic work written by a single author. It a body of very different works that all address different issues at different historical times all of which are irrelevant for our current society, which has completely different issues.

And lastly, given the Jesus ate with a tax collector - who were considered lowest of the lowest scum in those days - a prostitute and himself was not considered desirable company by the establishment, my personal assumption would be he'd have no problems with gays (and other deviants) either.


Quote from: "Lucs"
You CAN'T cure something that is NOT a disease.


No truer words ever spoken, but unfortunately it seems impossible to get that simple truth into certain heads.



Offline VioletCamicat

  • Die-hard fan
  • *****
    • Posts: 1261
  • Beware of the toxic kitten!
    • View Profile
    • http://www.myspace.com/violet_camicat
Reply #12 on: June 03, 2008, 01:23:47 PM
Quote from: "PanthereNoire"
Quote from: "Lucs"
You CAN'T cure something that is NOT a disease.


No truer words ever spoken, but unfortunately it seems impossible to get that simple truth into certain heads.

Yeah, unfortunately some people will never get that this isn't even a disease. :roll:

My personal guess about homosexuality is, that it is just the plan of mother nature. Mankind is far away from dying out so there's no need to only fuck to get babies. Maybe homosexuality is simply to prevent overpopulation? :D
"Very good" that so many institutions blocked that... now we see the result: massive overpopulation...
Just a little theory of mine and not meant as insulting for gay people... far more the opposite. In my eyes it's just natural that there are queer folks. Damn, I even saw gay guinea pigs and cows! :lol: What's so wrong with that? I don't get how people can have problems with that... no one will be forced to be gay, so it's none of their business anyway.

mod mode

And out of the chaos I heard a voice telling me:
"Smile and be happy - it could have become worse!"
So I smiled and was happy... and it became worse


Offline zyymurgy

  • Rookie
  • *
    • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Reply #13 on: June 13, 2008, 01:28:54 AM
What I just don't get is how people call it "unnatural"...

There are so many animals that have homosexual individuals in their species. @__@;; Penguins stick out especially in my mind (mostly because they're just so damn cute!) and it never fails to make me go "aww" when I think about gay little penguins raising an egg together.

I love nature.


Offline leria83

  • Fan
  • ***
    • Posts: 269
    • View Profile
    • http://www.myspace.com/r1canmam1
Reply #14 on: June 13, 2008, 03:14:30 AM
This reminds me of the movie "But I'm a cheerleader". Anyways, I have gay family members. They're perfectly normal. I've also had my share but we won't go there. Love is love.



Offline MIHO

  • Die-hard fan
  • *****
    • Posts: 2104
    • View Profile
Reply #15 on: June 20, 2008, 04:38:28 PM
Things like these really piss me off. I am lesbian myself, and I thought that people finally started to accept "us"... guess not.
But oh well, as long as my friends accept me, I don't care what the rest of the world thinks.



Offline leria83

  • Fan
  • ***
    • Posts: 269
    • View Profile
    • http://www.myspace.com/r1canmam1
Reply #16 on: June 20, 2008, 05:37:33 PM
There's always going to be someone who disagrees. Most people just look at the sexual aspect of it instead of the whole picture. I really could care less that people don't like it but the bashing has to stop. Especially when someone gets killed over it.



Offline hideisgod

  • Sunday Listener
  • **
    • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
    • http://www.myspace.com/vanillasugarcube
Reply #17 on: June 20, 2008, 06:21:24 PM
Quote from: "Lucs"
You CAN'T cure something that is NOT a disease.


Amen.


I LOVE YOSHIKI :D


Offline leria83

  • Fan
  • ***
    • Posts: 269
    • View Profile
    • http://www.myspace.com/r1canmam1
Reply #18 on: June 26, 2008, 05:33:46 PM
Found this on another forum. Well 200 people missed the point of it and called in to get it yanked off the air. I'm sure you can figure out what part upset them. All the religious nuts are having a field day with this one.
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=nLNPdZPSII0[/youtube]



Offline hideisgod

  • Sunday Listener
  • **
    • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
    • http://www.myspace.com/vanillasugarcube
Reply #19 on: June 27, 2008, 03:23:31 AM
Quote from: "leria83"
Found this on another forum. Well 200 people missed the point of it and called in to get it yanked off the air. I'm sure you can figure out what part upset them. All the religious nuts are having a field day with this one.
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=nLNPdZPSII0[/youtube]


hahahahaha XD

and wow. people offended over that?
jesus christ.


I LOVE YOSHIKI :D


Offline Anna

  • Die-hard fan
  • *****
    • Posts: 1221
    • View Profile
    • Tsurezuregusa

Offline roseofpain84

  • Fan
  • ***
    • Posts: 429
  • [X Japan] and [Harry Potter] obsessed.
    • View Profile
Reply #21 on: July 11, 2008, 01:42:19 AM
Call me when they create a patch that will actually make your kids homosexual, k?..
Not that I intend to ever have kids but you never know...-.-

Also, the last ad was cute...^^



Yeah, I'm a Yoshiki fangirl. SUE ME.


PanthereNoire

  • Guest
Reply #22 on: July 11, 2008, 03:00:51 PM
Quote from: "MIHO"
Things like these really piss me off. I am lesbian myself, and I thought that people finally started to accept "us"... guess not.
But oh well, as long as my friends accept me, I don't care what the rest of the world thinks.


Actually, one sad problem with the "us" is that not all of "us" accepts all of "us."

Sorry if that's a confusing sentence, but as someone who's been involved in "infinite diversity in infinite combinations" (pardon me for not being more concrete) for the last 31 years, what annoys me most often is that people of are of one queer (in the largest inclusive meaning) turn on other "not supposed standard aligned" people for reasons I don't consider reasons at all. Or sheer selfishness along the lines of "I want MY particular groups issues solved, I don't give s*** about others and if including others makes getting what I want more difficult, then I want them out." Which is unfortunately still too frequent.

As for those religious nutcases, I'd be perfectly happy to et them cling to their opinion if they weren't trying to shape public opinion to suit their own egitistical desires. For that I have ZERO tolerance.



Offline ferret

  • Die-hard fan
  • *****
    • Posts: 3557
    • View Profile
Reply #23 on: November 03, 2008, 12:27:06 PM
I guess many people here (whether they want it or not) have heard/read about Prop 8. Here's the definition from wiki:

Quote
Proposition 8 is an initiative state constitutional amendment on the 2008 California General Election ballot, titled Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. If passed, the proposition would "change the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California." A new section would be added stating "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

There are also Prop 2, 4 etc for other states. Those have actually a good chance of being passed it seems and that's fucking sad.

Here's a comment from a bigot on youtube on the issue, just because:

Quote
"Let everyone marry"

Okay, tomorrow I want to marry a sheep. I'll call her Betty. And then next week, I'm gna want to marry my mom and then maybe my sister and then maybe my baby cousin.

Yes on Prop 8.
First it's homosexuality, then it's pedophilia, then it's bestiality.

I feel sorry for all the sane US citzens.


RIP