ShadowsofHope said:
Yes, and tend to make claims on such that have no evidences to them whatsoever either way. (heterosexual relationships better than either same sex or single parent)
An interesting admission, considering that quite a number of legislative changes have been made based on studies, which have been poorly done, in ways that a junior researcher can spot; poorly matched control groups, poor follow up, poor statistical analysis. A breakdown of these studies used, and their flaws, can be found in this article,
http://www.marriagewatch.org/publications/nobasis.pdf
The article can be summarised in the following paragraph from the conclusion:
"The answer to the question of how the media has portrayed same-sex parenting studies can be summed up in the following terms: an overwhelming majority (85 percent)of the articles have an overall tone suggesting, and often stating, that the results of these studies are beyond criticism. Only a small minority (15 percent) suggests that the studies could be flawed. Not only do most of the articles present only one viewpoint, the majority of them (74 percent) do so with broad generalizations, rarely referring to any specific studies. Of those articles that do cite a particular study (26 percent), almost a third follow it with a general claim that all other studies are in agreement. Further, these articles were most often written simply to discuss gay and lesbian issues and used the studies as evidence that gay and lesbian families are the same as heterosexual families. It is ironic that a media that prides itself on its critical acumen would treat same-sex parenting studies with such extraordinary deference. We leave the reader to speculate as to why this is the case."
An agenda to push perhaps? Heaven forbid.
ShadowsofHope said:
To your interpretation, yes. This is all just interpretation until anything conclusive is made, yes.
That's how evidence works. You can never be 100% sure, and there's no such thing in science as a "digital" conclusion, reflected in the statistical concept of probability of being statistically significant.
ShadowsofHope said:
http://sites.google.com/site/taoismnet/home/articles/homosexuality-as-seen-through-the-tao
And alternative religious view on it, not anti-Christian at all. (Infact, it makes reference to Jesus in a positive light at the bottom)
Nice, but a misrepresentation of Jesus. Jesus preached more on judgement and hell than any of the Old Testament prophets, and preached a Gospel which was Good News to sinners, but it was not permissive and not accepting of other "points of view."
"I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."-Jesus, in John 14:6
"But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him." - Jesus, in Luke 12:5
Jesus was loving, yes, but not permissive. If this doesn't fit with your picture of "gentle Jesus, meek and mild" then you have a picture of Jesus that has nothing to do with how he describes himself.
ShadowsofHope said:
http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm
Not an anti-Christian site, simply scientific data and explanation.
And even in that discussion, makes the ineresting observation that environment can change behaviour ("straight" fruit flies acting "gay" in the given circumstances). And it's a whole can of worms there - the white-eye gene is a gene that codes for a lack of pigment, and is considered a loss of information (a deleterious mutation). And this gene is associated with homosexual behaviour? The article rightly goes on to highlight the risk that, as our understanding of the human genome increases, what happens if the gene is found, and present in more than the gay population? I might carry the gene. What then? What if people decide to have gene therapy to remove the gene, or stop it from expressing, and homosexuality becomes a "disease", like Rogue seeking treatment in the X-men movies because she wanted a "normal" life. The outlook is Orwellian, that's for sure. In truth, as is discussed in one of those links, there is a range of population who are always straight, who are always gay, and there are some who flip flop. The gene will probably make you more likely to be homosexual, but environmental factors will almost certainly be triggers. And, yes, this is speculation, but it is a theory that allows for those individuals who do seek healing in this area of their lives, and achieve it, rare as those cases may be. The analogy, although people won't like it, is that if there is a gene for agression or addictive personality, that doesn't excuse the person from punching random strangers (or non-random homosexuals) or developing a cocaine addiction. We are still responsible for our actions and will be held to account.
. I think there are some people out there that simply assume they are straight because of how their environment fashioned them. That's pretty obviously with the many staunchly anti-gay, conservative people out there that later got caught committing homosexual acts with male prostitutes, or in gay extramarital relationships. They were raised in an environment that basically said that you must be straight, and homosexual thoughts or acts were sinful, a mental disease, almost like one would resist the urge to act violently when really angry at someone. They want to do it, but know/think it's wrong, so they refrain.
