The wingnut reactions are a-startin’ to trickle in! Oh look, it is the Family Research Council, a known and certified hate group, so designated because they have a policy of spreading fear, hatred and lies about LGBT people, chiming in:
Apple’s old logo was colored by the rainbow–and it looks like their business philosophy still is! In a stunning decision, Apple withered under pressure from the gay community and censored an application that offers help to people struggling with homosexuality.
No, they removed an app that demonizes an entire community and lies to people who have already been demonized and damaged into thinking that the way they are is either not good enough, evil or both. Nice try with the joke-making and the rainbow comment, though.
Even though Apple’s own store gave Exodus a thumbs-up for content, the app vanished overnight–another victim of the growing campaign to silence Christianity in America.
Yes, we are trying to silence you. I mean, right now, on the blog of Truth Wins Out, we are “silencing Christians” by repeating your words verbatim!
“There is no place for ‘ex-gay’ therapy on the Apple platform,” said Mike Jones, whose fringe group started the uproar.
You hear that, Mike? Change.org is a “fringe group.”
Ironically, there seems to be plenty of room for applications like the Gay/Lesbian News Reader, HRC Buying for Workplace Equality Guide, Jack’d gay “social network,” Grindr “gay, bi & curious guy finder,” or Gay Dance Radio. What about the millions of Americans who are offended by those apps?
They don’t demonize or lie about people. You do, though. And so did the Exodus app.
Would 146,000 signatures be enough to rid iTunes of them?
Nope. See above. Plus, closeted fundamentalists would die without Grindr.
In this instance, all Exodus does is offer compassion and help for people who choose to seek it.
No, they offer lies and false hope to people who are pressured by their society, their families, their churches and their communities into believing that they are sick and in need of a cure, even though every grown-up medical and mental health association agrees that homosexuality is normal, while reparative therapy is harmful. Try again!
Jeff Buchanan of Exodus is tired of the app being misrepresented in the press. “It’s being touted as a ‘gay cure’ app,” he says, “and nothing could be further from the truth. We present a redemptive, Biblical worldview on sexuality… it’s a message of love and acceptance of those [who] are struggling with same-sex attraction.”
Oh, Jeffers. We know you don’t change gay people into straight people. God, everybody knows that by now. You’ve been consistently moving the goalposts for years on that one! But no, your “worldview” for gay people is loneliness, shame, isolation, self-hatred, etc. You don’t even know the meaning of the words “love” or “acceptance,” because you’ve been brainwashed with such a disgusting, transmogrified version of them for so long. Cha-ching, though, right?
In other words, Apple’s censorship has nothing to do with “tolerance.” This is about silencing anything and anyone who challenges homosexuality.
No, it is about a private corporation following its own policies and responding to its customers.
Americans need to wake up and realize that religious liberty is heading in the same direction as Exodus’s app–toward extinction! In this environment, it doesn’t matter what the facts are.
Well, that should be a comfy environment for the Family Research Council!
Meanwhile, liberals are on a crusade to end bullying–when the biggest bullies are the ones in their own movement!
Yeah, all those gay teenagers killed themselves because of us. Right. I often wonder whether the talking mouths at groups like FRC will ever have a moment in their lives when the pain they’ve caused to innumerable people and families, all in the service of their disproven, patriarchal, anti-scientific worldview, will suddenly dawn on them. I’d hate to be there for that moment.
What do you call 146,000 people ganging up on a company because they don’t like someone else’s point of view?
Petition-signers.
Bullies!
Oh, oops, we’re bullies. Let me know when anti-gay extremists start jumping off bridges because the gays have bullied them so much. Maybe then we’ll talk about how badly you have been “bullied.”
I guess they still don’t understand why we started the petition, even though we’ve said it clearly, in English, for days. But let’s not be cute about people’s “points of view.” It would be the same if the Ku Klux Klan [another SPLC-certified hate group] wanted an iPhone app. I mean, certainly the KKK has a “point of view,” and their app would be rejected because their “point of view” is eliminationist against an entire minority group. Just like the Family Research Council’s point of view. Just like Exodus’s point of view. That is sort of the point that wingnuts are missing, I think.
They also know that if they had to debate conservatives out in the open on issues like marriage and morality, they’d lose!
Uh, we do it all the time, and we win. There was this thing called “The Prop 8 trial,” and the Religious Right brought its best and brightest [I know, I'm using that phrase very loosely], and they ended up being used for floor-mopping purposes by the plaintiffs. It would’ve been must see teevee if the very same Religious Right hadn’t been so afraid of the general public seeing what they look like when they have to defend themselves by the standards of a court of law.
Anyway, that’s about it. It must be comforting for Exodus to see hate groups rising up to defend their honor. Until the next wingnut crying spell, I’m signing off!










Bruce, another thing of note is that even identical twins have different genotypes.
ESP claims to be an atheist but keeps justifying the oppression of gayness (and resultant suicides) on the basis of acquiessing to religious beliefs. I don’t believe ESP is an atheist.
And correct me if I’m wrong, guys, but the twin studies…those were based on self-reported sexuality, yes? Let us not forget to factor in Le Closet.
@Priya, yea, he’s probably lying about being an atheist. It’s sad, but it’s a new trick among Christian bigots.
Another (and I think the best) explanation for how evolution selects for gayness:
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_homosexuality.html
I’m not sure the “Super Uncle” theory is necessary. It can be just a simple matter of having a few members of the tribe, in their physical prime, not attached to their own children who are then available to see to the needs of the tribe as a whole…care for the sick and the orphaned, care for the elderly…in pre literate times your old people are your history books. The tribe that has that better ability to care for its own looks better to outsiders and so its members get more dating and mating opportunities. I wrote up my own thoughts on this ages ago after I saw a news item about a study about peacocks of all things, and referenced it, and riffed at the end about a little something in human male anatomy that’s hard to explain without there being some evolutionary advantage to homosexuality on my blog a while back…
http://brucegarrett.com/brucelog/1276
You’re right, Priya, they have not reversed the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM. But they have more recently made an exception for those with strong religious beliefs.
The 40 or 50% twin percentages are just more bogus numbers propagandized by the gay agenda (just like the ridiculous 10% number). The Australian study was the best showing it close to the more reasonable 20%. Regardless, it would need to be a significant majority to even suggest heredity. Do you guys really still believe that people are “born gay”? That’s crazy!
Evan, that’s just an obnoxious comment. Happily married with child and another on the way. I just find the whole gay-agenda thing absurd from a rational point of view.
It’s obviously silly for me to come here and put forth facts and reason. Most here are too vested in the outcome to have a rational perspective.
Oh esp….I am so glad your side is losing this debate (lost most of it already).
you are guilty of everything I thought you would be.
And deluded to boot!
Every trend, even those commnented on by arch conservative homophobes like Al Mohler, point (as he himself points out) to an ever growing acceptance of gay people and our EQUAL rights…including the EQUAL right of marrying the person we love of the same gender.
Just curious…I REALLY am curious…how old ARE you?
Evan nailed you on the evolutionary science at issue, and you ARE so SO off base on the stats. Where do get this stuff? People CHANGE sexual atractions? Even the FUNDYS dont claim THAT anymore!!! lol.
This chat began about the appropriate removal of a bigoted app that was not backed up by science, and supported by a group that is fronted as an excuse for bigoted people to say “see, they dont need equal rights, they need treatment, and if they wont be gilted into it, they need to sit quietly with no recognition of the families and lives in the closet”
The APP is gone ESP
just like the belief, mistaken as most (even conservatives) now see, that you hold the ethical and moral high fround on this issue. Apple, the American Public, and the business community know bigotry and prejudice when they see it afterall.
In summary, we win. You lose. The app is gone.
Society will continue to grow more and more welcoming to us. People who do not, or see equal marriage rights for us as “special” rights, or who think we need are defective in some way, or needing “therapy” will be more and more classed with Klansmen and anti semites. That will include you. And, you know it.
Your arguements are weak, and you have only served to entertain us more than anything (in an insulting manner, and sometimes hurtful I should add).
Its over. The app is history. Much like your world view.
Oh, and nice addressing of the suicide data presented in the link Evan gave you…and polite brushing aside of data (the particular suicides I mentioned…and my own attempt based purely on being so picked on for being gay I did not want to live) I gave you.
You reacted EXACTLY as I predicted you would in post 40! SOOOO predicatble.
you have lost, both this battle, the larger war, and in any way changing either the facts you have read here, or the minds of those of us posting.
You have been funny…and for that, thanks
Bruce, were you laughing when you wrote that? Do you realize how ridiculous that would sound to someone not vested in the outcome? Why not just acknowledge the obvious: homosexuality is not hereditary or genetic or immutable.
It’s okay if you’re gay, esp. You can talk to us. You’re not even using a real e-mail address to comment, so we don’t even know who you are.
The 40 or 50% twin percentages are just more bogus numbers propagandized by the gay agenda…
The gay agenda… The gay agenda… The gay agenda… So I hear Glenn Beck was claiming on the radio today that he’s loosing advertisers because of the conspiracy to stop him from talking about conspiracies…
Bruce, were you laughing when you wrote that?
Yes. At you. I should be ashamed I suppose.
Yeah, y’all, he’s lying about being an atheist. And if he’s not, he’s a disgrace to atheists everywhere.
And he’s a moron who doesn’t understand science.
The moron also probably believes the following things, as wingnuts are never stupid/misled about just one thing:
1. Barack Obama was born in Kenya.
2. The government is poisoning us with chemtrails.
3. Planned Parenthood is a front for black genocide.
4. The new healthcare bill is socialist.
And so on. Stupid people are simply stupid people. That’s all.
It’s unfortunate that a side product of TWO’s expanded presence is that we are becoming more of a magnet for the lowest common denominators of the internet, but that’s just how it is.
Stop feeding the troll, as it would obviously argue with a wall, and the wall would win.
Oh, oh! let me translate post 62 (response to Bruce) into plain English!!!
“Bruce, do you get it that I DONT LIKE IT? Dont you realize that your comments only make sense to those people who believe in science, and those who approach this with pre determined outcomes, like me, who are DESPERATE to believe that being gay is not hereditary or gentetic or immutable just DONT LIKE YOUR (ick!!) facts ( eeeekkk) and are NOT happy when ALL the evidence otherwise is presented, so I have to ignore science, psychology, medicine and ethics and just keep saying, over and over what I WANT to believe, until I and other people believe its true!”
the APP is GONE….its history, just like the idea that most of America shares your world view.
Folks, at this point, he is just a source of wonderous, if sad and dark, humor!!
LOL!!!!!
Esp, there has to be a reason why you are are so fired up about the gays. If you are an atheist, as you indicated, then I assume you are not highly infected with the crazy Christian crap – although some attitudes may certainly be contagious to non-believers. So why exactly does the existence/acceptance of gay people upset you so much. Unless you can document how you or others are being tangibly harmed by gay people having social acceptance, then what exactly is your problem? The FACT is that the social acceptance of gays benefits many, and harms none. And many of those who benefit are straight.
I strongly suspect that you are fighting an internal battle with yourself. Yes, I’m suspecting that some degree of homosexuality is part of your makeup. The reason many of us would suspect that is because we’ve seen it all before – repeatedly. Think George Rekers for a high-profile example.
Why don’t you tell us the real reason why you are are so fired up about the gays.
Richard, you are wrong. I’m just fed up with the gay agenda. I think people should be able to decide on their own if they want heterosexual-affirming treatment and I dislike the obstacles that outfits like TWO put up to prevent or discourage these choices. The main effect on me is the generally undesirability of such a strong gay influence in everyday life, but that’s certainly manageable. But I certainly want to do everything I can to give my children the option to live a heterosexual life. You want to prevent me from doing that which I find outrageous.
Evan, I disagree with 1 (very strongly pro-choice if that wasn’t already obvious) and 3. I’m not familiar with 2. And I think Obama are is a little too centralized for my taste. I’m especially annoyed that it will erase catastrophic health insurance which is really what most people should have since that is after all what insurance is all about.
Atheism makes one very strongly evolutionist which is the foundation for my views on homosexuality. It is simply incompatible with evolutionary theory which is why I strongly believe it is a psychological development that takes place during adolescence. Which can of course be “undeveloped”. Not saying it’s easy or even possible for some. But that’s no reason to avoid it altogether.
Basically all your theories about me are wrong. I’m a very rational, atheistic, heterosexual with little vested in the outcome and a strong deference to science over bluster.
@esp During adolescence?! I say again, you idiot. I would hate to be your gay family member or neighbor, because god, I bet you won’t STFU around them either.
Say this categorically, since you really did not:
I am not now, nor have I ever been, in thought, word, or deed, homosexual.
then we can move on.
Esp said “The 40 or 50% twin percentages are just more bogus numbers propagandized by the gay agenda (just like the ridiculous 10% number). The Australian study was the best showing it close to the more reasonable 20%”.
This just shows your ignorance and bias. The 50% figure is from a widely recognized study so you’re either ignorant or dishonest (or both). You have no basis on which to say the 20% number is more reasonable other than you want the number to be as low as possible. As one person noted, these numbers are based on self-reports and are almost certainly lower than reality. If I remember correclty the 20% number is from austrailia and it may be that people from that place and time were more likely to be in the closet and unwilling to state their real orientation.
ESP said Regardless, it would need to be a significant majority to even suggest heredity. Do you guys really still believe that people are “born gay”? That’s crazy!”.
Once again, you demonstrate your ignorance/dishonesty. To demonstrate heredity all it has to be is a percentage greater than the percentage of gays found in society. You believe that is less than 10% so by your own admission even the almost certainly undereported 20% figure is much higher than would be expected by random chance and a certain indicator of a significant degree of hereditability. Oh, and as far as the 10% figure goes, there is good reason to believe that is accurate. Many, perhaps most gays are in the closet and unwilling to reveal their orientation so surveys certainly underreport there prevalence. One survey got around this by questioning people on same sex sexual activity and found that many people claimed to be hetersexual but in fact had had only same sex sexual activity in the past year. The percentage of people in this wide survey who had same sex sexual activity was close to 10%:
http://www.webmd.com/sex/news/20060918/many-straight-men-have-gay-sex
ESP said “It’s obviously silly for me to come here and put forth facts and reason. Most here are too vested in the outcome to have a rational perspective.”.
We’re the only ones puttinf forth facts and reason. You’re here making one baseless claim after another.
I’m a very rational, atheistic, heterosexual with little vested in the outcome and a strong deference to science over bluster.
Science is your hobby is it?
ESP said “Why not just acknowledge the obvious: homosexuality is not hereditary or genetic or immutable.”.
Your baseless claim that your position is obvious doesn’t make it true. In fact there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest gayness is caused by upbringing and study after study after study that points to a genetic/biological cause. Each one taken individually isn’t conclusive, but as a whole they make it virtually impossible to argue that gayness isn’t biological and present at birth. There have also been many, many studies on attempts to change sexual orientation and none have ever demonstrated conclusive proof that it can be done. In fact those studies show that in virtually everycase people are completely unable to change same sex attractions into opposite sex attractions and the only “change” they achieve is a change in the label they apply to themselves, calling themselves “ex-gay” even though they remain same sex attracted.
ESP said “I’m a very rational, atheistic, heterosexual with little vested in the outcome and a strong deference to science over bluster.”.
That’s obviously no the case. If you had little vested in the outcome you wouldn’t be trawling gay blots and doing everything you can to promote the idea that gayness is not biological and should be oppressed.. You’ve demonstrated your irrationality with your repeated baseless and unsupported claims that gayness is caused by social influence in adolescence, your repeated claims that the APA has started to undo the decision to remove gayness from the DSM, and your lies about the twins studies.
The main effect on me is the generally undesirability of such a strong gay influence in everyday life, but that’s certainly manageable.
A gay influence? What is a gay influence? Is this about blaming us for metrosexuals? Disco? Perez Hilton?
ESP, you claim to be an atheist so once again, how about you explain on what basis you think its beneficial for gay people to attempt to become straight?
Its hard to believe you’re an atheist when you keep asserting that society should acquiesce to religion and turn a blind eye to religion demanding that gay people pursue a vain attempt to become straight.
Why feed this troll? It’s so boring.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, in thought, word, or deed, homosexual.
The whole gay-agenda propaganda that pro-heterosexual people are closet homosexuals is completely ridiculous. So silly.
Let’s move on, shall we?
“To demonstrate heredity all it has to be is a percentage greater than the percentage of gays found in society.” Priya, this is false and demonstrates your lack of understanding. But don’t feel bad, you’ve been propagandized. The studies you cite, like many, totally discount environmental influence. And further discounts that non-gay traits can welcome gay-affirming environmental influence. Can you at least agree that twins have a unique environment? And if genes were to play much of a role, the incidence would need to be much higher. I think even most pro-gay scientists would agree that genes play a small role. I believe there is no gay gene but I could see that there might be traits that lead to gender non-conformity or sexual confusion. But then, environment takes over.
Bruce, science is not really my hobby but I do like it. Thanks for checking.
Haha, actually @esp, a famous study was done that revealed that homophobic men’s dicks get hard when they see naked guys. It’s probably my favorite study ever.
ESP said “I certainly want to do everything I can to give my children the option to live a heterosexual life. You want to prevent me from doing that which I find outrageous.”.
Sexual orientation isn’t a choice, you get what you were born with. It’s none of your business if your children turn out to be gay, you don’t have a right to dictate who they have to be. Parents who don’t accept their child’s gayness result in gay children who have much higher rates of drug use, suicide, and depression. Don’t take the chance on harming your children with your bigotry.
ESP said “if genes were to play much of a role, the incidence would need to be much higher.”.
You’re demonstrating your ignorance once again. In twins raised apart they are much more likely to both be gay then would be expected by random chance given the rate of gayness in the population at large. This accounts for upbringing possibly being responsible for the much higher concordance rate of gayness in identical twins. No reputable scientist disputes that the twins studies prove that gayness is at least partly genetic.
You keep hiding from the question, ESP – If you are an atheist then on what basis do you say its beneficial for gays to attempt to change their orientation?
If you’re not religious, why do you repeatedly justify the attempts to convert gays and the resulting suicides with religion?
Evan, like I said, I’m pro-choice so I’m fine around friends, neighbors and strangers. Pro-heterosexual is probably the least politically correct and unfashionable position to hold these days, way worse than atheist.
Priya, my argument from an atheistic and evolutionary perspective is that same sex attraction is nurtured, not natured. But I guess it’s obviously beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint to be heterosexual.
Why is it so hard to believe an atheist finds homosexuality problematic from an evolutionary perspective? In fact, I think it makes perfect sense. That it leads to a similar overall view as religious people is meaningless. In fact, I think gay is as man-made as religion.
Also, @esp, if one of your children is gay and you encourage them to “pursue heterosexuality” or whatever the hell it is you believe, you’re an unfit parent, but then again so many straight people are. That’s why when you don’t control for straight people’s ability to make children at whim, our kids do better.
“Why is it so hard to believe an atheist finds homosexuality problematic from an evolutionary perspective?”
Because you’re, like, the only one, and scientists pretty much uniformly think you’re an idiot.
To clarify, ESP would likely say that around 3% of people are gay. By his estimates if genes had no effect then twins raised apart would both be gay no more than 3% of the time. Given that its up to 50% or more of the time clearly genes play a large role.
Priya, I don’t dispute that it could be partly genetic. I believe what is probably going on is that traits perceived as “gay” welcome environmentally-influenced psychological development in that direction.
I’m not saying that from an evolutionary perspective, it’s beneficial to change. I am saying that from an evolutionary perspective, humans are heterosexual, that same sex attraction is nurtured and that change is possible. Nothing too radical. Yes, I think people should be able to make their own decisions about their sexuality. You don’t. Shame on you.
Evan, would you want your kids to be gay?
“Evan, would you want your kids to be gay?”
Sure. Or straight. Or bisexual.
I want my kids to be HAPPY and HEALTHY, sweetheart. It’s called “having priorities.”
ESP said “Priya, my argument from an atheistic and evolutionary perspective is that same sex attraction is nurtured, not natured.”.
Yes, that was blatantly obvious from your first comments. Tell me something I didn’t already know right away, like:
If you are an atheist then on what basis do you say its beneficial for gays to attempt to change their orientation?
If you’re not religious, why do you repeatedly justify the attempts to convert gays and the resulting suicides with religion?
Why do you keep hiding from those questions? Is it because you don’t have a rational response?
ESP said “Why is it so hard to believe an atheist finds homosexuality problematic from an evolutionary perspective? … In fact, I think gay is as man-made as religion.”.
Athiests are generally knowledgeable about science. Those knowledgeable about science know that gayness is found in almost every animal species in which scientists have chosen to look. Given that the idea that gayness is “man-made” is preposterous. You’re ignorant of science and no atheist.
Thank you.
Priya, how many twins to you know? How many are both gay? I know at least 20 pairs and none are both gay. The problem with many of the twin studies is that they method in which they solicit does not always lead to a good representation. Which is why the Australian study which used the national twin registry, had the highest number of subjects and reported the lowest percentage of homosexual twin pairs has been the most credible to date.
And I have further clarified my views on how genetics can play a role (ie, there is no gay gene).
@esp To use the argument “there is no gay gene” makes it obvious that, as you said, science is not your career, it is definitely not your hobby, you don’t understand genetics, but that, as you said “ah lahke saaaaahnce.” Creationists say that too. They’re all like “dinosaurs, rawr!” and stuff. They LOVE science, or at least their conception of it.
ESP said “I believe what is probably going on is that traits perceived as “gay” welcome environmentally-influenced psychological development in that direction.”.
Not possible. In the most rejecting of social environments we still see about the same percentage of the population turn out to be gay. Pshchology obviously has no influence on gayness.
ESP said “I am saying that from an evolutionary perspective, humans are heterosexual,”.
As has been repeatedly demonstrated there are many ways in that gayness can be evolutionarily selected for. You can stick your head in the sand and ignore them, but that won’t change the reality.
Esp said “…that same sex attraction is nurtured and that change is possible.”.
There is no evidence whatsoever that same sex attraction occurs through nurtuer despite 100 years of people searching desperately for proof that it is. There is on the other hand dozens upon dozens of studies that show a genteic/biological etiology.
ESP said “Yes, I think people should be able to make their own decisions about their sexuality. You don’t. Shame on you.”.
You’ve got it exactly backwards. I fully support people making there own decisions about there sexuality, but bigots like you want to bombard them from birth with the idea that gayness is unacceptable, makes them bad people, is the reason why people abuse them, and that they will be eternally tortured for being gay. I want all that coercion to disappear so people can be free to make their own decisions, you support and encourage that type of cocercion – you’re an evil man who won’t let people be free to be who they want.
Priya, I really don’t understand your questions.
“If you are an atheist then on what basis do you say its beneficial for gays to attempt to change their orientation?” I think people should be able to pursue change efforts. I think it is generally more desirable to be heterosexual for a variety of internal and external reasons (procreation, male/female yin/yang, normalcy, etc).
“If you’re not religious, why do you repeatedly justify the attempts to convert gays and the resulting suicides with religion?” Again, I’m not sure what religion or atheism has to do with it. I think people should be able to make their own decisions and support groups and organizations should be available or even encouraged to help out. People commit suicide for lot of reasons. That should be addressed mostly separately (not totally, mostly).
That it is “found” in nature has no bearing one way or the other. It’s existence could be identical to that in humans (ie, environmentally influenced). And most of the observation is no more compelling than my dog humping my leg. What does that make me and my dog?
Why is it a preposterous thought that gay is man-made? It’s obviously not genetic like eye color or height. Step outside your bubble for a sec and try to see the unvested perspective.
ESP said “Priya, how many twins to you know? How many are both gay? I know at least 20 pairs and none are both gay.”.
You expect me to buy the b******t that you know 20 pairs of twins?! Girlfriend, Pulleeeze. In any event that’s utterly irrelvant – that’s not a random statistically significant sample and is not scientific even if it were true (which it isn’t).
ESP said “The problem with many of the twin studies is that they method in which they solicit does not always lead to a good representation. Which is why the Australian study which used the national twin registry, had the highest number of subjects and reported the lowest percentage of homosexual twin pairs has been the most credible to date.”.
That study showed a 20% concordance which is way higher than what you would admit is the percentage of gays in society. That in itself is solid proof that gayness is at least partly genetic, especially given that many, perhaps most gays are in the closet and the 20% figure must be greatly underreported.
Evan, do you think gay kids are happier and healthier than straight kids? Just a question.
Priya, once again, I did not dispute the possibility of it being partly genetic. And I don’t contend that my limited experience is to be taken as fact. But my personal observation does greatly influence my b******t detector (which is shattering the richter scale on this thread!). A lot of the gay myths outlive their utility from mindless citation.
When they’re raised in loving homes where they’re accepted for who they are, they’re just like any other kids. They have growing pains, they have hard times, they have good times, they have successes, failures, everything else.
When they’re raised by pig ignorant bigots like you? Totally different.
Priya, you’re going to have a tough time convincing me that same sex attraction is primarily genetic. I just don’t think the facts are in your favor. I’ll cautiously agree that genetics can play a role but not in the sense usually pushed by the pro-gay side. I don’t think it’s much more than attributes that welcome different environmental influences.
Evan, “pig ignorant bigot”? Wrong on all three counts. I have fairly simple views that I wouldn’t expect to be very controversial. But they are because groups like TWO are on a mission to squash even the slightest departure from the gay agenda (gay agenda being best reflected by Wayne).
ESP said “Priya, I really don’t understand your questions.”.
You mean you don’t want to understand my questions, there meaning is obvous. You are obviously deeply invested in promoting the idea that gays can change or you wouldn’t be here arguing so vigorously at great lenght, you’ve admitted that you’d do anything to prevent your children from being gay, you obviously think that people should not be gay.
ESP said “I think it is generally more desirable to be heterosexual for a variety of internal and external reasons (procreation, male/female yin/yang, normalcy, etc).”.
If you didn’t understand the question you wouldn’t have offered up that vague and ambiguous “reason”. We’ve already established that gayness is no impediment to procreation so how about giving me some concrete reasons why you think its beneficial for people to attempt to convert same sex attractions into opposite sex attractions? Tell me how this “benefit” outweighs the suicdes, drug use, depression, and social rejection that results from these vain efforts to convert? If you’re not religious, why do you repeatedly justify the attempts to convert gays and the resulting suicides with religion?”
ESP said “Again, I’m not sure what religion or atheism has to do with it.”.
You’ve repeatedly asserted that people should be allowed to promote “conversion” “therapy” for religious reasons, that’s what religion has to do with it. Atheists don’t find religious reasons for doing things to be valid, so why do you repeatedly bring up religion as a justification for the tolerance of “conversion” “therapy”. I’ts because you’re not really an atheist.
ESP said “I think people should be able to make their own decisions and support groups and organizations should be available or even encouraged to help out.”.
Those “support” groups and organizations spread the rejection and destruction of self-esteem that coerces people into trying to change their harmless orientation. That’s like a doctor assaulting people in public so he has clients to provide medical treatment. Those “support” groups and organizations use hate to create a demand for changing something that doesn’t need to be changed.
EsP said “People commit suicide for lot of reasons. That should be addressed mostly separately (not totally, mostly).”.
That’s a cop-out. Many people committ suicide after joining these organizations because they can’t change and are then told that it is because they didn’t try hard enough, or didn’t believe in Jesus enough. That leads them to despair and suicide. You can’t say suicides should be addressed (mostly) seperately from the very thing that caused them.
Esp said “That it is “found” in nature has no bearing one way or the other.”.
It proves that gayness is natural, not an artificial construction as you baselessly claim it to be.
ESP said Why is it a preposterous thought that gay is man-made?”.
Because it exists in nature, there is no evidence to support it being created by nurture despite a century of bigots desperately searching for evidence that it is, and dozens upon dozens of studies show a likely genetic/biologicy cause.
ESP said “It’s obviously not genetic like eye color or height. Step outside your bubble for a sec and try to see the unvested perspective.”.
You’ve presented no evidence to support your viewpoint, and even the twins studies alone prove that gayness must be at least partly genetic.
No, you’ve already expressed bigoted, misinformed views. This is my last reply. You’re obviously a child, so you’ll need to have the last word to make your pee-pee feel valid, so I’ll just let you do that.
Evan, why do you feel the need to get so vulgar? Are you really not capable of having a rational discussion? What a shame.
ESP said “Evan, do you think gay kids are happier and healthier than straight kids? Just a question.”.
Dozens upon dozens of studies from the 1950′s onwards have demonstrated that the vast majority of gay children are indistinguishable form heterosexual children on all measures of mental health. Higher rates of distress are due solely to the the social rejection and discrmination that people like you foster. You a*****e.
Priya, once again, I did not dispute the possibility of it being partly genetic. And I don’t contend that my limited experience is to be taken as fact. But my personal observation does greatly influence my b******t detector (which is shattering the richter scale on this thread!).”.
You are unable to detect b******t or you wouldn’t continue spouting it. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that gayness is caused by nurtuer despite a century of anti-gay bigots searching desperately for it and yet you continue to insist this is “obviously” and indisputably true when its obviously true nurture has nothing to do with it.
ESP said “Priya, you’re going to have a tough time convincing me that same sex attraction is primarily genetic.”.
I never said it was primarily genetic. What I said was that it is genetic/biological. There is much evidence to support this and none to contradict it.
Why are you putting so much effort into justifying coercing gays into the vain attempt to change orientations? Why is this so important to you. Are you same sex attracted and desperate to believe you can change?
ESP said “Evan, why do you feel the need to get so vulgar? Are you really not capable of having a rational discussion? What a shame.”.
We’re being rational with facts and logic, you’re hiding behind vague religious justifications and baseless assertions. Why do you think its a shame if people accept their gayness?
““Evan, would you want your kids to be gay?”
Good answer, Evan. But I would phrase it with areturn question:
Given that parents apparently have very little to do with whether their kids turn out gay or straight, if one of your kids were gay, is the world as envisioned by the anti-ex-gay industry what you would want for that child?
And if it is noyt what you owuld want for your own child, why owuld you want it for another person’s child?
esp said: Priya, you’re going to have a tough time convincing me that same sex attraction is primarily genetic.
I think he’s probably right here because he doesn’t have an open mind about this. He’s a bigot and nothing will turn him from his misinformed and prejudiced views.
Yes Daniel, I forgot to comment on that. Esp has decided in advance what he wants to believe (he’s prejudged, prejudiced) and then from their he searches for was to claim what he wants to believe is true. He didn’t arive at his bigotry through reason so reason won’t get rid of his bigotry. That’s also why he won’t give anything other than a vague, ambiguous reponse to the question of why he thinks its beneficial for gays to attempt to change orientation – he knows if he expresses the real reasons he thinks that way it’ll be apparent they aren’t rational.
Priya, I’m really trying to field your questions. Please have better faith. First, you’re twisting everything I have said. Yes, I think people can change their sexual attractions. I wouldn’t do “anything” to prevent my kids from pretty much anything. But I definitely will parent my kids. Yes, I think that humans are heterosexual creatures. I’m not justifying anything with religion. I still don’t really understand what that means. If religious people have reached the same conclusion I have, that doesn’t have any hidden meaning. I appreciate that religious people can choose religious-based therapy if they so desire. I guess I think it’s beneficial if people can successfully pursue their desire to have opposite attractions and relationships.
The religious aspect that I have brought up is that the APA now makes a special exception for religious people to get heterosexual affirming therapy. I guess I wasn’t clear about that. But I also think you might not have been paying the best attention. And yes, I emphatically believe that people and groups should be able to help people address unwanted same sex attraction. How much promotion that requires might vary. These days, with groups like TWO spread mis-information and shaming anything they can, it’s difficult for people to get the information and help they want.
Priya, animals are social beings with environmental influences just like humans. That homosexual behavior is observed in animals doesn’t prove anything (except that people can make incorrect assertions about animal and human behavior).
And, for crying out loud, I have stated at least 3 times that genes can play a role (albeit small, and not in the sense of a “gay gene” like TWO and others promote).