The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Fourth estate in fine state > Comments

Fourth estate in fine state : Comments

By Jim Wallace, published 20/4/2012

The Press Council is supposed to guarantee journalistic standards, not undermine them.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
Unfortunate timing, Jim.

Perhaps you hadn't read the news when you penned this piece. In a pretty major development last week, American psychiatrist Dr Robert Spitzer declared that the findings of his famous 2001 research showing ‘highly motivated’ people could change from gay to straight were false.

Yes. Robert Spitzer's findings. False. He has said so himself. At last.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/11/4406240/dr-robert-spitzer-renounces-infamous.html

Spitzer’s findings had certainly conflicted with other scientific knowledge, such as from the animal kingdom which concluded long ago that same-sex orientation was normal, healthy, non-contagious and confined to a small proportion of the community. And they were contradicted by almost all other psychiatric research.

But the Pray-the-gay-away groups have always had old Bob to rely upon for their 'conversion' therapies. But, alas, no longer.

Margaret Court is simply wrong. So was Dr Spitzer. So is Prof John D'Emilio. And so are you, Jim. The Press Council is correct. The claim by mainstream science that sexual orientation is a fixed, unchangeable, God-given gift now has overwhelming support.

And the amazing thing for us theists - Christian and Jewish - is that this is what Scripture has taught us all along:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13472
Posted by Alan Austin, Friday, 20 April 2012 8:37:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jim is right on the money but only with this comment "whether an aggressive minority can impose" yes Jim should we let the aggressive minority far right christians such as yourself determine modern Australia's values.

Jim we have limited free speeach in this country and I don't think we need to change one way or the other.
Posted by cornonacob, Friday, 20 April 2012 12:10:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems to me that when Jim uses the phrases "aggressively intolerant which does not line up with their views" and "aggressive minority can impose a (new) definition" he is actually making an auotobiographical description of himself, and a manifesto of his own applied politics (of intolerance)
Posted by Daffy Duck, Friday, 20 April 2012 12:15:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jim

sorry but I don't follow you. You are saying the press council was wrong for requiring its judgement to be inserted in the online version?? that's the travesty of free speech you are complaining about?

You're also saying that homosexuality is a choice, that gays actively choose such a lifestyle? From the way the article is written I initially had exactly the opposite impression of your arguments.

If my second impression is correct, do you have any evidence that choice is possible? Do you know of any cases where gay people have switched sides? I don't know of any such case, but if you can think of an example let's hear it.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Friday, 20 April 2012 12:29:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'God-given gift'

hohohoho that's gonna hurt:-)
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 20 April 2012 2:20:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As the Doug Pollard in question I find it very amusing that Mr Wallace could not be bothered to Google the very extensive research that is available online that does indeed provide the scientific evidence he prefers not to seek: reference has been made to the now repudiated Switzer research and Rachel Maddow yesterday dealt with this issue inn two excellent items here http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/rachel-maddow-how-the-ex-gay-movement-has-harmed-every-gay-persons-life/politics/2012/04/19/38259

As I pointed out in my Herald Sun rebuttal, almost every posterboy the 'gay cure' lobby has ever put up as 'proof' has eventually either admitted that nothing changed and they are still gay (see the Maddow link above) or been sprung cruising gay bars in their spare time.

It would be a joke if this holy rubbish didn't do severe psychological damage to the poor souls caught up in the cycle of self-hatred and despair these people promote.

One Australian man who was trapped in this horror freed himself and now helps others: Paul Martin http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/gay-psychologist-sees-the-light/2008/12/17/1229189662679.html

Anthony Venn-Brown is another, who was an evangelical preacher before he too faced facts and now helps people reconcile their homosexuality and their faith. Now THAT'S a REAL Christian.
Posted by Doug Pollard, Friday, 20 April 2012 2:26:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What "outrageous travesty of free speech"?

An imagined one by the Press Council that allows you to write an article complaining, containing a link to the original article to make sure that a lot of people who never saw it in the first place get to read it…

Faux indignation of the first order.

This intrigued me… "Never mind that the Genome Project mapped the genetic makeup of the whole human body without finding a gay gene" but I would have been more impressed if you'd told us where they found the heterosexual gene – it would be fun to look it up online. Unless you have indisputable scientific evidence not available to the rest of us?
Posted by WmTrevor, Friday, 20 April 2012 2:54:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Do you know of any cases where gay people have switched sides?"

Two that come to mind immediately:

. Elton John, who was in a traditional marriage and divorced , but is now in a relationship with a man;

. Senator Penny Wong, who had a five-year relationship with the current South Australian Premier during their Young Labor years, but is now in a relationship with a woman.
Posted by Raycom, Friday, 20 April 2012 5:15:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gay activists are known to dislike the publicising of gays with bisexual history, as it debunks the claim that homosexuality is innate. They oppose any suggestion that sexual preference comes down to choice.

Consequently, it is not widely reported that certain professional therapists and counsellors offer 'sexual reorientation therapy' to help people overcome unwanted same-sex attractions. The study of sexual-orientation change efforts to date, shows that some people can indeed move from homosexuality to heterosexuality, and that harm is unlikely to result from such efforts
Posted by Raycom, Friday, 20 April 2012 5:36:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wrong Raycom it doesn't effect it at all it just means one or two things. That not only are there hetro and homo there is also bisexual, two that people can have trouble coming to terms with their sexuality.

The point you missed though is so what! As long as it is between consenting adults then I don't care what people do. Good luck to them.
Posted by cornonacob, Friday, 20 April 2012 6:38:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom,
Elton John was probably gay before he entered a heterosexual marriage.

It is possible there is a slight difference between gay men and a small % of gay women as to choice; and of course bisexuality is on the wide continuum of human sexuality.

Jim Wallace,
Jim, you are right to say there is no gay gene; or, more correctly, there is no known set of alleles that form a locus or loci of genes for gayness or non-gayness.

Human sexuality is a continuum with physical variation such as intersexes physically or physiologically or both.

There are, or have been, hypotheses about intra-uterine events that occur as part of the mechanism of sexual differentiation and development of characteristics of sex.
Posted by McReal, Friday, 20 April 2012 6:48:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.
A key point is that

the testament of almost all homosexual persons is their homosexuality is Not a choice.
.
Posted by McReal, Friday, 20 April 2012 6:57:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Raycom, are you a psychiatrist or even a psychologist, as you are talking a load of ignorant bulldust, in other words put up or shut up with evidence to prove your nasty antigay comments.
You may not respect people who are gay, but your comments contribute to the ongoing stigma, bullying and bashing, that gay people have to live with daily.
I respect that you are of rightwing thinking, but when you denigrate fellow human beings for who they are. You lower yourself to the level of a facist.
I truely believe has a person, you will never be happy until you accept the diversity of life.
Posted by Kipp, Friday, 20 April 2012 7:28:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> "The study of sexual-orientation change efforts to date, shows that some people can indeed move from homosexuality to heterosexuality, and that harm is unlikely to result from such efforts" <<
Posted by Raycom, Friday, 20 April 2012 5:36:15 PM

Some ... perhaps. But, such as small %, and usually within a strongly religious family/community, as not to be a universal claim.

Historically, before it was OK to "come out", most entered the clergy.
Posted by McReal, Friday, 20 April 2012 7:53:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RE human genome project - it sequenced the genome of humans from blood samples from initially 6 people, nothing to do with "whole body" or sexuality. It found genes but it was not a study designed to determined what is the function of those genes. That is subsequent research that is still ongoing and for sexuality it would require sequencing a large number of people representing various diversities and some fancy mathematics called genetic linkage disequilibrium AND a very large amount of public funding. The evidence for the genetic contribution to homosexuality indicates that it is polygenetic - the idea of 1 or 2 gay genes was dismissed a long time ago - and the technology is only now being developed to be able to do this type of study some time in the future.

Why is Jim Wallace so off track on this, quoting a social historian who has never published any science, using old ideas and misrepresenting the Human Genome Project that a yr 12 biology student would be expected to be able to refute? I think he has a log in his eye (Matthew 7:3). You shall know them by their fruits.

Survivor of suicidal ideation trying to resisit homosexuality, distraught that I was not even bisexual.
Posted by Eric G, Friday, 20 April 2012 10:36:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Would Raycom send Jesus for a gay cure? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/apr/20/was-jesus-gay-probably?
"Jesus was a Hebrew rabbi. Unusually, he was unmarried. The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong.

"After much reflection and with certainly no wish to shock, I felt I was left with no option but to suggest, for the first time in half a century of my Anglican priesthood, that Jesus may well have been homosexual. Had he been devoid of sexuality, he would not have been truly human. To believe that would be heretical.

Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual: Jesus could have been any of these. There can be no certainty which. The homosexual option simply seems the most likely. The intimate relationship with the beloved disciple points in that direction. It would be so interpreted in any person today. Although there is no rabbinic tradition of celibacy, Jesus could well have chosen to refrain from sexual activity, whether he was gay or not. Many Christians will wish to assume it, but I see no theological need to. The physical expression of faithful love is godly. To suggest otherwise is to buy into a kind of puritanism that has long tainted the churches."
Posted by Doug Pollard, Saturday, 21 April 2012 5:46:16 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No one in their right mind would choose life long discrimination or gay bashing. Or permanent harmful estrangement from family and friends. Little wonder the suicide rate is the highest in young men facing a future void of all happiness, human warmth, companionship or common human decency, or parenthood!
No normal heterosexual could choose to switch sides or bat for the other team, unless a gun were held to their head or it was the only way they could survive.
Even then the skin would fairly crawl with horror, self loathing and disgust! Choice? Preference? What a ridiculous idea!
There is plenty of evidence of natural selection, but those never ever looking for it will never ever find it? If they ever did then maybe they would no longer be able to justify their mindless hate-filled attitude and all the various forms of harm that spring from it. Basic physiology informs us that there are four tiny centres at the base of the brain, which control all our sex responses, arousal and or attraction.
They are not like light switches that we can simply switch on or off at will. Every foetus starts out as female and some are adjusted by hormones, incubation temperatures and other factors to change sex. Around half?
Sometimes this starts but is not properly completed, hence we have some that are naturally attracted to the same gender. Not every child born of water and the spirit, exits the womb fully formed and or normally functional. No one would now seriously question being left handed as a product of choice, yet as a young boy attending school I can remember being rapt over the knuckles on many occasions, by some seriously ignorant imbeciles merely masquerading as elementary teachers.
We really must go beyond judgment, but simply focus on ourselves and fixing our own perceived flaws!
Why if we did just this much there'd be no wars, no want or poverty, no homeless demographic and no holier than thou blithering idiots. There are none so blind---- Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Saturday, 21 April 2012 9:03:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The replies in this thread suggest that people value the right to criticise an idea (no shortage of bashing the Bible-bashers for instance; not quite sure how that works in a secular society that is not supposed to be prejudiced about what people believe in, but anyway). So I think the Press Council is definitely not acting impartially.

However, on the issue of a "gay gene", should it be found, you move from the realm of "free choice" and slide down the slippery slope of "medical affliction". Proving genetic disposition will do nothing to help the gay community particularly in the area of ridicule; it will make it worse ("poor dears can't help themselves, they've got 'the gene'"). It also won't stop it being monopolised by drug companies wanting to patent gene therapies (any combination of to or from orientation being possible). But it will put more pressure on unborn children who are already culled for simply being the undesired gender (like that was *their* fault). And there'll be no shortage of studies linking 'the gene' (or whatever markers forms the "proof") with any number of positive and negative health effects (you think the battle between scientists about climate change is bad? - pfft). That's going to do wonders for self-esteem, hetero and homo alike. So be careful what you wish for ... Gattaca anyone?
Posted by AI, Saturday, 21 April 2012 5:41:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
and of course all this research that says 'gays'were born that way even though many lived for years in normal marriages denies that paedophiles were born that way. More pseudo science to justify the unjustifiable. Why am I surprised. The media was hijacked long ago by the homosexual lobby. Look at Jones disgraceful demonisation of Abbott. What a sick bunch.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 21 April 2012 11:12:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Same sex marriage has been a part of Christianity - Adelphopoisis - and that may account for the ill-defined relationships of various characters in the Christian narrative -

>> "Adelphopoiesis (or adelphopoiia; from the Greek &#7936;&#948;&#949;&#955;&#966;&#959;&#960;&#959;&#943;&#951;&#963;&#953;&#962;, derived from &#7936;&#948;&#949;&#955;&#966;&#972;&#962; (adelphos) "brother" and &#960;&#959;&#953;&#941;&#969; (poie&#333;) "I make") literally "brother-making" is a ceremony practiced at one time by various Christian churches to unite together two people of the same sex (normally men)."" <<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelphopoiesis

>> "It was argued by the late Yale historian John Boswell in his book 'Same-sex Unions in pre-modern Europe' (also published as 'The marriage of likeness') that the practice was to unite two persons in a marriage-like union.

"The ceremony was mainly practised in Eastern Christianity, but not exclusively. Boswell gives text and translation for a number of versions of the "fraternization" ceremony in Greek, and translation for a number of Slavonic versions " <<

British historian Alan Bray, in his book 'The Friend', gives a Latin text and translation of a ... Latin Catholic Rite (from Slovenia) entitled 'Ordo ad fratres faciendum', literally "Order for the making of brothers".

One of the Biblical uses of the term 'brother' is .. "a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection"
Posted by McReal, Sunday, 22 April 2012 8:46:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oops, the "revision" did not like the atypical characters -

Adelphopoiesis (or adelphopoiia, from the Greek 'adelphos' - brother - and 'poieo' - I make) literally "brother-making" is a ceremony practiced at one time by various Christian churches to unite together two people of the same sex (normally men).
Posted by McReal, Sunday, 22 April 2012 8:51:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Was Jesus Gay?" ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/apr/20/was-jesus-gay-probably
Posted by McReal, Sunday, 22 April 2012 9:07:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here we go with the silly gay = pedophile slur again.
So what if pedophiles and gays are both born the way they are? Or zoophiles?
Pedophilia is wrong because it involves sex with a person not yet sexually or emotionally mature enough to consent. It is damaging to the child.
Zoophilia is wrong because the animal cannot consent.
Homosexuality is not wrong, because both parties can consent and both desire the relationship.
All the science showing that sexual orientation cannot be changed (whether its genetic or not is irrelevant)to date has been rigorous, peer reviewed, and consistent.
All the 'science' purporting to show the oppposite has been shown to have been falsified, or is now discredited or repudiated. A handly shortlist is here http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths.
More than a few women and men get married and function in heterosexual marriages before throwing in the towel and admitting they were gay all along because:
They are bisexual, which can means that they are gay for a while, then straight, then gay again. They fall in love with a person, not a set of sexual equipment.Women's sexuality is more fluid than men's;
Many succumb to family pressures to marry and raise a family, or because they hope it will 'cure' them, or both. When they find out it doesn't work, and it never does, they come out - like Elton John. The relationship they are NOW in is normal, not their former forced heterosexual one;
They are situational heterosexuals. Being gay does not mean that one cannot function sexually with a member of the opposite sex, just as being straight does not mean one cannot function sexually with a member of the same sex. Many prisoners in jail are situationally homosexual: gays hiding in marriages are likewise situationally heterosexual.
This is how most married gays and ex-gays cope: they imagine a hunky man while doing their marital duty, or nip out for a quickie at the local beat while the wife is out. Most of the men who pick up others for quick sex in public toilets are married, and often Christian, gays.
Posted by Doug Pollard, Sunday, 22 April 2012 9:35:43 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Doug by quoting Elton John all you are doing is showing how confused you are. You write

'All the science showing that sexual orientation cannot be changed (whether its genetic or not is irrelevant)to date has been rigorous, peer reviewed, and consistent. ' and pigs might fly
Posted by runner, Sunday, 22 April 2012 9:47:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Experience: I tried to 'cure' gay people

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/apr/20/i-tried-to-cure-gay-people

'It never occurred that maybe you are gay because that's just the way you are'
.
Posted by McReal, Sunday, 22 April 2012 10:44:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner its Sunday, should'nt you be in your tabernacle, wailing to the sky fairies!!
Posted by Kipp, Sunday, 22 April 2012 1:31:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>and pigs might fly<<

Might? They probably do: a lot of other non-winged animals fly. Just not under their own power. What does porcine aviation have to do with research on human sexuality?

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Sunday, 22 April 2012 4:46:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan Austin said:
"... conflicted with other scientific knowledge, such as from the animal kingdom which concluded long ago that same-sex orientation was normal"

It is also be observed that it is normal and healthy for the animal kingdom to partake in acts of murder, rape, incest, cannibalism, neglect and general savagery, to name but a few. Maybe the "Hunger Games" are not too far from reality if our moral benchmark is to be reduced to what is practiced in the wider animal kingdom. Though, one can argue in the absence of moral objectivity, any of those aforementioned acts are completely acceptable.
Posted by AI, Monday, 23 April 2012 8:14:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the forth estate...is a sham
freedom of speech the lie

i posted this for a new topic here
\CAUSE IT WAS REFUSED AT ABC

it must be how i ask questions
i visited abc q and a program..last week
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/ask-question.htm

and asked 5 questions off mr dawkins/and the priest
strong questions...perhaps...but never the less..i filled in the link

5 times for 5 questions
none apeared on the board..[nor the program]

so i thought...get in early..WITH BOB..brown[on on monday]

i only posted the one question[this time]
but didnt get it on the site

thus know it wont be asked

the question is quite simple[maybe i phrased it wrong]

HELP*

bob..were you briefed..on the speaker issue
before you resigned

followup questions ?

what did i do wrong?

yes i know
johan..we dont like your questions..
but if not there why not here?..if not where can i ask

bob a question?

not
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/ask-question.htm
Posted by one under god, Monday, 23 April 2012 8:20:14 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
another question for bob
[and his mate][part ner][wife?]

mate..homosexauls have more spending money than things to spend it on

bob
would you be willing to put up dna
to test the gene theory for gay

if its true
why dont you put the money down..get the proof..and live knowing your blood freed..more people from the war..on homo sexuals..than

nope its too long
thus wurd limits

durn

print medium is so limitating
\but its better than mindless tv education..in just wurds

seriously..i rekon if qna..did their job properly
as long as iut takes..much can be fixed[by a long over night talk festr..in real time..[on a forum..where we are known and trusted/respected and cared for
\

heck sorry
i was only dreaming..media does the same the commie media did perfect
just like the jews subveted the natzi movies media..to sell its version of his story..

bah
money talks
bulls ssshhhh it rules
Posted by one under god, Monday, 23 April 2012 8:30:31 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Science ? Proof? Not very intelligent things for a christian to demand, Jim, when your life is built on the faith that there's a fantasy figure in the sky telling you to spend your time obsessing about homosexual people and their attempts to have the same rights as you.

I mean, I understand WHY anti-gay christians have to push the 'choice' wheelbarrow :

Because if it's in our nature, then you'd be behaving as badly as the christians who opposed mixed-race marriages .... i.e misguided, intolerant, about as far from your Jesus as your ill-conceived misinterpretations can throw you. You don't want to think that you might have this one wrong.

Well sorry Jim - that's the way that it's going to go.
Your grandchildren will grow up embarrassed to be related to you.
Your picture will not be in their houses.

Hope you work this one out during your lifetime.
All the best.
Posted by Simon666, Monday, 23 April 2012 11:36:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Straw man argument, Al. Poor logic.

No-one is claiming that because a behaviour is observed in the animal kingdom it must therefore be morally acceptable for humans. No-one.

The observations from animal science are that same-sex couplings occur in virtually all gregarious bird and animal societies and are generally healthy, accepted by the community, non-contagious, confined to a small, fixed proportion of the community and pose no threat to its continuation.

This tends to undermine the claim that same-sex orientation in humans is the result of an evil moral choice, doesn't it?

Whether or not any behaviour is acceptable for human society we determine by other processes. All these are increasingly leading to the conclusion that same-sex orientation and activity are just like opposite-sex orientation and activity, though significantly less prevalent.

Exactly what genetic or other benefits there are to any species of the intriguing spectrum of variations in sexual orientation is a matter of ongoing research.
Posted by Alan Austin, Monday, 23 April 2012 11:41:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan Austin said:
"Straw man argument, Al. Poor logic."

I know what a straw man is and I don't believe I presented one. My logic is as follows:

1. The scientific method upholds falsifiability. Scientific study is supposed to challenge existing ideas no matter the outcome. That Spitzer did that is irrelevant to highlight.

2. The acts of the animal kingdom are judged in a positive, negative and neutral light. But, you need to establish and anchor a moral framework in order to judge that certain animal acts are right or wrong for humans.

3. That animals exhibit acts of homosexuality does not mean they are "gay" in the human sense. I'm sure it would be simple to show that a dog that has an affinity for trying to mate other male dogs will be overcome by instinct when placed in the company of a female on heat. However, if the subject male dog didn't, and he was found to have a genetic disposition that caused it to be uninterested in mating a female, natural selection would dictate that, in the absence of artificial influences, the gene would be quickly bred out in that generation (i.e., no offspring).

The point is that both humans and animals engage in heterosexual or homosexual behaviour (with any number of partners) and it is irrelevant to considering changes to the marriage act.

As far as "non-contagious" goes (in the context of 'indoctrination'), that's a different story. It is right that children are taught to be accepting of all people regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation, and not poke fun at the kid with two mums, the one with red hair or the one with a lisp. But we are seeing school lessons flooded with homosexual content that goes far beyond "be accepting of people how they are" and our kids are being exposed to sexualisation in the classroom at increasingly younger and inappropriate ages.
Posted by AI, Wednesday, 25 April 2012 9:04:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Simon666 said:
"Science ? Proof? Not very intelligent things for a christian to demand, Jim, when your life is built on the faith that there's a fantasy figure in the sky telling you to spend your time obsessing about homosexual people and their attempts to have the same rights as you. "

I'm wondering, is your assertion about a "fantasy figure in the sky" based on the scientific method, or a faith position? Sounds no more improbable than finding a multi-universe building machine to explain the fine tuning of this reality for life.

Whatever the case, the point is all science proceeds from a faith position of some kind (assumptions and presuppositions). In fact, you have to have faith in the scientific process for it to work at all, and then you have to have faith in the interpretations scientists assign to their observations. Further, when you go outside the realms of observable, operational science (stuff you can do an experiment for), you are completely in "faith" territory. Fortunately the scientific method can be enacted regardless of your theist beliefs, skin colour or preference for Coke over Pepsi.

However, none of this has anything to do with changes to the marriage act, nor the right for people hold an opinion about whether it should or should not be changed.

And I think Jim's grandchildren will grow up just fine ;) I'm sure he appreciates your concern though.
Posted by AI, Wednesday, 25 April 2012 9:53:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your ideas on science as faith are all based on the moment of experimentation; but ignoring the slam-dunk that religion receives whenever there's a result - that's a little too convenient, sorry.

Oh I have no fear about Jim's grandchildren growing up fine - if there's one thing that scientific analysis does show us, it's that each succeeding generation is both turning away from superstition and embracing the idea that gay and lesbian people deserve the same rights as other citizens, including marriage.

It's Jim I'm concerned about - he's the Leon M Bazile of his generation :
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

In regards to your reply to Alan :

".... our kids are being exposed to sexualisation in the classroom at increasingly younger and inappropriate ages."

The sexualisation of children in our society is a heterosexual problem. 12 year old girls on fashion catwalks. Child actors in TV commercials mimicking desire for each other in order to sell products. Yes, it's a concern, but it has nothing to do with homosexuality. If you're saying that there should be different standards for the way that heterosexuality and homosexuality are taught in the classroom, then you're using an important issue to push an agenda. That doesn't help kids
Posted by Simon666, Wednesday, 25 April 2012 10:23:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> "... the point is all science proceeds from a faith position of some kind (assumptions and presuppositions). In fact, you have to have faith in the scientific process for it to work at all, and then you have to have faith in the interpretations scientists assign to their observations." <<
Posted by AI, Wednesday, 25 April 2012 9:53:42 AM

A faith position is, however, different to having "faith in" something.

Moreover, one need not have faith in scientists individual interpretations, nor no faith in them, as the discussion and conversation around scientific observations is an open and philosophical one for all to see and participate in.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 25 April 2012 11:08:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Re: ".... our kids are being exposed to sexualisation in the classroom at increasingly younger and inappropriate ages."
This is completely untrue. By the time kids get to school, girls have been on the pink-purple brick road to being a princess for most of their lives. And boys have been shoved down the green-blue brick road to being emotional thick-heads. They are already reacting to stigma of being different and are adjusting themselves to meet the expectation of their parents and the adults around them. TV and pop culture are the issues. Schools are left to try to encourage rational thinking and deconstruction of the barriers already put in place. We have a culture that unnaturally pushes apart the genders and schools are the last who should be blamed.
Posted by Eric G, Wednesday, 25 April 2012 1:11:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm sorry Al, perhaps you didn't intentionally create a straw-man to destroy but you did because you argue about things you don't understand. Re Gattaca: it was insensitive of you to not realise we GLBTI have had that type of judgmental unrealistic discrimination for all of our lives. You still don’t get it that you must carry some of the homosexual alleles that polygenetically determine sexuality. It isn’t gay people who need to fear genetic testing but bigots who refuse to be honest and responsible for their or their family’s genetic contribution to the next generation.

You don't need faith in science -just contemplate the wonders it has produced like your computer. People love their technology and their medical care but when it comes to climate change, sexuality and anything else they don’t like they run away to the refuge of religion and dare to call it faith.

Do you know the scientific method? Blind faith is the antithesis of science. The whole idea is NOT to require faith but to look for the answer. From my career in genetics and molecular biology and lecturing on the scientific method, the worst scientists that I worked with were those who had too much faith in their own abilities and ideas and consequently did not check if their methods worked correctly every time or test other ideas to see if they were better explanations.
Posted by Eric G, Wednesday, 25 April 2012 3:15:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Al, regarding your logic 1) Spitzer’s results falsified themselves but he wouldn’t admit it until now and then he didn't have the guts to publish a formal retraction. Despite scientific opposition it was used by the ‘moral’ religious right. Like you keep referring to 'the gay gene'. Media morality should now dictate that his retraction is mentioned whenever his work is. To say it is "irrelevant to highlight" is immoral within my moral framework.

Logic 2) Judge the animal kingdom (which does include us)? You are trying to get everything to fit your judgement. It is rather embarrassing when other animals without much thought can cope with diversity but we struggle because of blind judgment.

Logic 3) Clearly you are wrong because homosexuality has persisted for millions of years and grown through the mammalian lineage. If bisexuality isn’t in your argument then you are definitely off track. Obviously many who are homosexual do breed and they do it well. Take gulls where a third of the colony can be lesbian - great for boom-bust ecosystems as you can share the males for a quickie. But our clever judgmental society has separated homosexuals from family - not very long ago many more of us would have had our own kids or would have looked after that of our extended family – with low life expectancy, often this would have been as parents. The latter fits with polygenetic determination of homosexuality - whilst not reproducing ourselves we assist the persistence of the gene pool that made us. Rather like an asexual worker bee. Perhaps the evolutionary benefit is extensive bisexuality, with very few absolute heterosexuals, that stops men from killing each other – history doesn’t look good on that does it?

What connects this to the marriage debate is that the prohibition is based on lies about biology (you haven’t even read about it Al), morality and the consequences of stigma and discrimination. The presence of this schism proves to me, and increasingly others, that there is no divine inspiration, just bad culture and lack of religious freedom for GLBTI.
Posted by Eric G, Wednesday, 25 April 2012 3:43:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eric G, regarding Gattaca, yes, my point was exactly that there would be people that would abuse it if you could find it and test for it.

Regarding people being judgemental against your way of life, I actually have a better understanding than you think because secular society is quite intolerant towards the religious nut jobs (you'd never get that opinion from some of the comments in this thread I'm sure). As an example, the animosity we received just asking to hire a public hall for 2 hours a week (when it wasn't being used) was quite incredible. Some time after I read an article in the paper about a "gay night" at one of the bars. Had I not gone through our hiring experience, I would have had the usual disdainful reaction, but all I felt was compassion because "I got it" - all they wanted was a "safe" place to meet free from prejudice and persecution.

Just as I'm sure the GLBTI community doesn't like to be stereotyped, to suggest that many Christians don't feel the same way about how their beliefs are portrayed or deliberately misunderstood is an understatement. And don't get me wrong, some Christians need a serious attitude adjustment in terms of their response to gay issues, but my fundamental concern is that, as we've seen in other countries, the Church is going to be hit vexatious discrimination claims. Persecuted becomes the persecutor is not a good solution.

For what it's worth, I have trans friends and gay relatives (and secular, atheist, agnostic and those of other religious persuasions). As people we respect each other, but we have different world views and we don't agree on everything.

Regarding evolution, that's a topic for another day, maybe over a beer :)
Posted by AI, Thursday, 26 April 2012 9:45:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Posted by Eric G,/quote..""Do you know the scientific method?
Blind faith is the antithesis of science.""

yes an interesting point
how do you explain..the claim..'evolution'[macro..]
;as in mutating..*out of one genus
and creating..[evolving]..into other genus

DO YOU HAVE ONE..fully faulsafyable witness
[let alone any 'science proof.!
of a change of genus..

[as postulated..by many
by faith in..the THEORy of evolution}

i have asked many
but you make this high claim

""The whole idea..is NOT to require faith
but to look for the answer.""

so have you the proof of even one genus
evolving into any other genus

like that postulated..by the now busted..THEORY
[the tree of life project]..and the destruction of taxonomy..as being 'science'

see..as you know
many genus..are loosing their claimed genus relations
[via dna not validating gene linkage[let alone evolution..exta genus

seems many divergent mutations create..a phenotype[looks like]
but..*we now KNOW..their dna..isnt validating the genetic's evolving[as the theory..*would need..to be science]

most hold theory
but you claim fact

please lets get serious..

if you dont got the science
the theory is void..[based on fossil;ie.lookslike..
not genomic linkage proof for genus evolution..by actual[not theoretical..[genotype]

the tree of like..is more a forrest
please..name the first ';life..[by genus]
and what it evolved into[by genus][..with dna..to link fact with fact

not faith with theory

""From my career in genetics and molecular biology..and lecturing on the scientific method,..the worst scientists that I worked with were those...*who had too much faith!!

""in their own abilities and ideas
and consequently did not check if their methods worked correctly every time or test other ideas..to see if they were better explanations.""

i dont want a better story
I WANT SCIENCE PROOF..the dna linkage[genotype]

not looks like..[phentype]
[what are the bounds..of genus]

where is evolution..out/of[from]..parental genus..
in mendelic ratio's..
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13479&page=0
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 26 April 2012 10:31:19 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"one under god" your question is disrespectful to everyone because it is such an unintelligible mess. You want to be serious, then try editing before posting including deleting your other 2 posts that were off topic garbage dumped in this forum.

What you seem to be asking is for someone to have witnessed events that take thousands of years. That is as silly as saying you will only believe in Jesus and his 'miracles' if you can firstly meet Noah, Moses and King David in their home country not heaven. You seem to suggest some theories have been busted when they have had a new lease of life. You are asking for a thesis of what would be off topic.

Ps. A falsifiable witness would be a false witness, ie wrong not right
Posted by Eric G, Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:55:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
great one eric
you make claim to knowledge but cant find a few questions
'let alone reply them

mate that 4 th estate used to have 'the latest mising link'' etc[claims it made life..lol..and then that absurd claim of evolution]

but your reply give me all i need to know
pretenders dwell ammoung us[make high claim..then run and hide]

have a nice life avoiding truth
don t claim science if you cant validate genus changing

what was this cold/blood fish...fins scales COLD BLOOD
non mammal..that evolved into a warm blood fury critter[mammal]

half cold/half hot
its insane..not one change of genus has..been recoded EVER

you say over time...lol
thats science?

mate have you even botherd looking at the theory
it works within its genus..[specie microvevolving..within their genus

like lomngbeaked finches..or short[dependent on weather]
dry= more short beaked..wet=more long beaked[both..still finches]

your nates lie to the press
they think you lot know

itsa not the media
its you

present fact[science
the theory is fraud]

the emporer [evolution out of genus]..wears no clothes

tell me cleveer guy
how many..*f1..not non parental genus you breeed

not one
billions of mutations within genus
not one ever proof of evolving into new one

stop lying to the press
[their to sucked into the scam to care]
but i need the facts*..the proof..[and there aint none]

you got none
or you would look so clever ...presenting it
instead of critiqing my spelling..[i was too busy breeding critters..not one was not,.*the same [parental genus]..

the same as what you have[nuthing]
its a lie..sold by the 4 th estate/mate
u got nuthin

stop lying to yourself..and the forum
you made claim..back it up
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 26 April 2012 3:22:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
one under god, your replies are way off topic, but more than that, completely unintelligible (Google translate?).
Posted by AI, Thursday, 26 April 2012 3:28:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ericgee/quote..""Ps. A falsifiable witness
would be a false witness,..ie wrong not right""

mate faulsify[to those who know science]
is that deefinitive statement..that if refuted..refutes the theory

to talk banalities of faulsifyable witness
that could be a witness..WHO IF REFUTED..refutes his words

none have been refuted
now give science

no one likes
those who avoid revealing fact
when fact is called for...they righfully or wroingfully
think no fact...no proof..distyraction..is this claim from liars?

and who could blame them
clearly you made claim..but refused to offer proof

to wit even willing to betray
the high measure for proof..you claim science is held to

not

its revieuwed by peers
your afraid of peer..revieuw?
how about the deciete you not correcting lies puts on your soul?

your post...provides no faulsifiction
PLEASE NAME THOSE FOR EVOLUTION OUT OF GENUS*
[which is sciences big claim..

*with not one ever witnessed./..or observed..

lol''evolving...*away from...their parental genus
what area you study?

we had a guy here did..JUST Eucalypts
another JUST microbes..[NEITHER reported not to genus]

cause thats a faulsifyable [to me]
present one..!..just one..

[not miss named...or revised.
.just any old..lol..[NEW* .genus]

with proof
name names
1st life=genus?
2de life-genus?

you got nuthin..except..FAITH..in a theory*

admit i
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 26 April 2012 3:51:49 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jim, even "Under one God" has no idea what your argument is towards homosexuals, your antisocial attitude towards others that do not conform to your belief; makes you truely unchristian.
Posted by Kipp, Thursday, 26 April 2012 8:19:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
eric/quote//""You seem to suggest..some theories
have been busted//when they have had a new lease of life..""

ohcdear taxomony is frraud
phenotype DONT MEAN geno=type
or indeed and gene relatgion..[taxonomy is dead..hung on its own lies]

try these two[links]
horible deformities

[survival of the fittest ..ensures none shall survive]
they cant breed fertile young..outside their genus limit/bounds

but tell me
see the pictures?

any new genus there?
phenotypically?

we know the genotype.=same genus
BUT*?

i don the mutation thing too
still ...*only got the same..genus as parents

oh the links
sorry
http://enenews.com/state-officials-shut-down-shrimping-in-gulf-amid-scientists-finding-deformities-and-horrifying-creatures-media-attributes-closure-to-lesions-then-retracts

but wait
whats this eating bacterie..resistant to poisen
give resistance?
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/bugs-pick-up-pesticide-resistance-from-pesticide-eating-bacteria.ars

or this
mutations following fucisheema
all yet the same genus
http://enenews.com/japan-tv-news-program-films-plant-life-mutations-in-tokyo-fasciated-dandelions-reported-very-often-video

mutations or sports...can only mutate within their genes
[unless a virus add's in info[what evolution maxum defines that?]

there is..method for gene duplication..[by polymidy][poly morph]
ok its still all..!with the egsisting gene..

[within the genus averages/limits..
held by their parental genus]

then there is that co opperation...
[symbiology...did these co-evolved from what?
[they both co need each other specificly..[linked to death[death of one will kill the other]

evolution lol

essentialy we are a mouth an anus..and a stomach
with nerves to tell good from waste[one end from the other]
plus..logic/logus...light sustaining life to life to love[see it even in the worst beast..the parents [generally love em]

just like we trust vile bad wrong theories

but proof...and it becomes fact
makes facts[validates facts]..not misssrepresnt
randomised joinders of facts..into a likely theoretical fiction

which is what..your theory has
it has solid bits..of divergent origen
BUT the big clue..is it restas on..feet of clay~

you know less than ten corperations control everything we can buy
http://www.businessinsider.com/these-10-corporations-control-almost-everything-you-buy-2012-4

that is devolution
to the extreme..thats where lies lead!
Posted by one under god, Friday, 27 April 2012 9:37:17 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy