Republican Oklahoma County Commissioner makes Homophobic Comic Book ad

[Alcon]

ghostmonkey,

Respectfully, you need to cite instead of copy-pasting other people's meticulous work.  That article belongs to Johanna Krout Tabin, of Leadership University, an evangelical Christian institute.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/1995papers/tabin.html

Nothing more frustrating than responding to copy-pasted scientific information, and having someone go, "well, I'm not a scientist."  If you don't really understand the content well enough to paraphrase it, what's the point of arguing it?  You can't be sure that you aren't falling for pseudoscience, or inaccurate representation.  That would just be pasting whatever agrees with your pre-determined conclusion, and that wouldn't really be science. 

[Smash255]

Ghostmonkey,

Can you actually provide any examples that don't come the far right?? 

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I like how the first article you referenced uses gay in quotation marks, & even refers to a "Gay agenda." Good job hiding your biases.

     I also like your use of the strawman "gay gene." I NEVER claimed that there was a single gene that causes homosexuality. Rather, the evidence points to a weak genetic link, much like the one that underlies left-handedness. Then again, you probably think that left-handed people are unnatural & should be treated for their "disease," right?

     Before I take this any further though, what do you think homosexuality is? Do you think it's a lifestyle choice or a disease? Most extreme right-wingers take one or the other stance.

ghostmonkey,

Respectfully, you need to cite instead of copy-pasting other people's meticulous work.  That article belongs to Johanna Krout Tabin, of Leadership University, an evangelical Christian institute.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/1995papers/tabin.html

Nothing more frustrating than responding to copy-pasted scientific information, and having someone go, "well, I'm not a scientist."  If you don't really understand the content well enough to paraphrase it, what's the point of arguing it?  You can't be sure that you aren't falling for pseudoscience, or inaccurate representation.  That would just be pasting whatever agrees with your pre-determined conclusion, and that wouldn't really be science. 

     I checked out that site. Particularly articles on life sciences. They have at least 20 articles attacking Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Pseudo-science indeed.

Ghostmonkey,

Can you actually provide any examples that don't come the far right?? 

     I know. I at least have the common decency to get evidence from National Geographic.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     You know, at first I did not feel like dealing with your "debunking" of Odenwald & Zhang experiment (since according to you, it means nothing if a genetic link to homosexuality is found in animals). But it was just too funny to pass up. It basically said that they didn't engineer homosexual fruitflies; they engineered bisexual ones! Nevermind how damning it is to the fundie position that any engineering of sexual orientation is possible. As far as fundies are concerned, DNA governs everything from a vacumn, with no chance for environmental or genetic interaction (except when instincts interact to temporarily induce homosexual behavior in certain members of a species, against everything known about instinctual behavior in animals).

     You would have been better off using National Geographic's offered explanation that the animals just wanted to have fun. Not much better off, but I would have more fun here. Don't worry though. Your side has made progress in admitting that there is a genetic link to bisexuality in fruitflies.

     As for Dr. Pardo, he's a professor of bioethics. I would've preferred genetics or zoology, but he's not too bad. However, I found him in conservapedia (again, good job hiding your biases). His article was one line stating his job, followed by the quote you gave, without any context. Nevermind that his argument is circular. He states that animals cannot be homosexual . . . because animals must always be heterosexual! Thank you, Pardo! Now I know that all animals of a given species are necessarily exactly the same! Then again, in his world animals are all necessarily heterosexual in order to survive, except when random confluences of instincts cause them to become temporarily homosexual. I guess that he just agrees with National Geographic that the animals just want to have fun.

     Bruce Bagemihl is a biologist (now we're talking!). He's also gay (an aside, thank you for not mentioning the homosexual mafia in your last post). He's the author of a book called Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. He wrote it because, according to him, "the implications for humans are enormous" (http://www.nndb.com/people/033/000044898/). According to the link, his book was used by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark case Lawrence v. Texas to prove that human homosexuality is natural. Seems like Dr. Bagemihl really agrees with your position! He doesn't seem to agree though that there's a worthwhile distinction between homosexuality & homosexual behavior, though. Also, his quote doesn't really help you. He just says that what we observe with animals, on a psychological level, is an interpretation of what's happening. What he doesn't know is that everything we observe, no matter the circumstances, is an interpretation of what's happening.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     I CANNOT believe that you just admitted that! I said all along that homosexuality is genetic. It's no more genetic than left-handedness is genetic by that conclusion, but that doesn't matter. Genes are not final, absolute truths, regardless of what fundies might like to think in their quest to take us back to the stone age. Yes, there is a genetic link. A weak genetic link, but still a genetic link. No one ever said that it's final, though. Someone predisposed to be homosexual can end up heterosexual & someone predisposed to end up heterosexual can end up homosexual. It's a strong nudge in that direction, but nothing in human behavior is ever final. Learn something about genetics & come over to our side!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     Any "homosexualist" is 1,000X the scientist that any fundie evolution-hater like Ryan Sorba or Johanna Krout Tabin could ever hope to be.

[Thomas Jackson]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can you read? Did you see the cite I provided at the end of the quote? Do you think for a second that I am going to put full APA cites on a message board?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, seeing as how the particular person I was responding to is hails from san-fran-freako I don't feel like putting much effort into responding.

Cutting and pasting ensures that the response will be read. So no, I'll not paraphrase.

[Thomas Jackson]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I could turn this one around against you, since the supposed "homosexual gene" "studies" were conducted by homosexual activists and/or active homosexuals who were seeking to prove a specific agenda.

However, I won't do this, because it would be a fallacious argument, just like your question.

[Alcon]

Hillary! (which is my new name for you),

Credentials-checking is not argumentum ad hominem, especially when you're dealing with someone who copy-pastes articles instead of understanding them well enough to paraphrase. 

Oh, also, the "San-Fran-Freako" stuff...now there's an argumentum ad hominem.

By the way, "if you are too stupid" sentences are the single best way to make yourself look like a jackass on the Internet.  Since you're not discussing, apparently your only purpose for being on this message board is communicating how wrong you're sure everyone else is.  Way cool!

[Thomas Jackson]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Argumentum Ad Hominem involves attacking the messenger rather than the message.

I have news for you. If Adolf Hitler says 2+2=5, you don't discount the argument by yelling:

WE DON'T HAVE TO BELIEVE IT!!! IT CAME FROM ADOLF HITLER!!!!

Instead, you need to prove why 2+2 does not equal 5. Attacking the person rather than the argument is Ad Hominem.

Accordingly, attacking the sources of information rather than showing why the information is wrong is also Ad Hominem.

You can stomp your feet and throw a tantrum if you like, but science has not proven the existence of a "homosexual gene" nor has it established a genetic cause for homosexuality.

The media desperately wants such a link to exist, so they often spin what little research that has been done into something that it never has been.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, it's a valid observation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh Noes!!!!, because the internets are sooozz importanz!111!!!!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This board is apparently a place where far left radicals sit around and talk about how the "evil fundies" (TM) are destroying the world. It's a very common occurrence on the internets!!!!

After all, this board would have voted for Mondale over Reagan.
Talk about out of touch with reality.

[Joe Republic]

If that is all you gleamed from the quote, then you really are hopeless. Then again, you hail from san-fran-freako so I can make an educated guess as to your motivation here.

Argumentum Ad Hominem.

[Alcon]

Hillary!,

Argumentum Ad Hominem involves attacking the messenger rather than the message.

Oh, really?  Thanks.  Now that I understand what argumentum ad hominem means, is that sort of like pointing out who is homosexual and who isn't re: study conduction?  If that is for data integrity, so is credentials-questioning.  Both call into question the effect of the data presenter on the data.  Unless you can demonstrate the difference, you are being a hypocrite.

Oh Noes!!!!, because the internets are sooozz importanz!111!!!!

They are.  I can't explain to you why, because I've already decided that you are too stupid to understand the explanation.  You must have faith in my correctness!  I am your one true Internet-based Lord and Savior.  Come to me, my cyber-child.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Hahahahaha.  Homosexualist.

[Хahar 🤔]

Does anyone else think this may be the work of a (realistic) joke poster?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     If I engage in argumentum ad hominem, it's only because I can't take your position seriously when you get your articles (which are laughable by themselves) from a standard fundie attack site, & when you believe in a homosexual conspiracy to make everyone gay. Just like how heterosexuals made everyone straight by engaging in heterosexual marriage, right? While I'm at it, I'll let you know that I'm the head of a conspiracy to make everyone left-handed . . . THROUGH LEFT-HANDED MARRIAGE! My plan, by your admission, is guaranteed to work!

     The thing about an ad hominem is that you need to use them to determine what's worthwhile, since you can't give everything the time of day. I wouldn't watch a Steven Spielberg movie because they typically suck. That's an ad hominem, but a necessary one. Likewise, fundies have never gotten anything right in the past. As such, why should I expect them to get anything right now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If that is all you gleamed from the quote, then you really are hopeless. Then again, you hail from san-fran-freako so I can make an educated guess as to your motivation here.
[/quote]

     What, I was just trying to have fun Then again fundies only think in terms of dichotomies. As such, they cannot understand the relevance of a genetic link to bisexuality, or the relevance of a gene influencing a neurotransmitter that in turn influences sexual activity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why don't you read the quote again. I think you missed some very important points. [/quote]

     What? That you got it off of conservapedia without any context. Quotes don't exist in vacumns. I would need to know what context he said it in.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you are too stupid to realize the importance of what Bagemihl stated then it's not worth it for me to explain it to you.[/quote] If you're too stupid to realize that I don't care about what he's saying (his observation is patently obvious to anyone without him saying it; I don't claim to be telepathic), then it's not worth me explaining to you that Not. Everyone. Is. A. Bloody. Metaphysician. Then again, you think anyone who is not a fundie is a homosexualist, rather than just tolerant of people that are different.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I didn't. Pillard did. Since you invoked him, you are stuck with his conclusion.
[/quote] Gladly. His position is indispensible to me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really now? You didn't say: "I know. How dare Oklahoma City refuse to discriminate against people based on genetics. Next thing you know, they'll be giving ambidextrous people equal treatment too."[/quote] I did say that. I concede (& that's a lot more ground than you would ever give, even if God himself came down & said that homosexuality is alright) that "genetic" was not precisely the right word (it could be environmental in cause). However, my use of the word "genetic" perfectly conveys the idea that these children are being punished for something beyond their control, much like if you took a left-handed person & forced him to write with his right hand (which was done frequently).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really now? So how much of a role do you think that genetics does play? You say now that there is a "weak genetic link". How weak is this link? Because Your own sources insist that it is weaker than you are asserting.
[/quote]

     50% if you have the inclination & 5% if you don't. It's probably weaker actually, since identical twins would probably grow up in a similar environment. It isn't an impressively strong genetic link, but it's better than people like Michael Savage would like to admit. Then again, you probably will accuse me of not reading your little articles, since you don't see the significance of a genetic link to bisexuality. Or you don't understand that I don't care if genetics is a minority partner in determining sexual orientation, since any genetic link is utterly damning to your position. Besides, the idea that any facet of human behavior can be 100% determined in a vacumn is ridiculous.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Another Fallacy? Actually two! False Dichotomy AND Ad Hominem. AWESOME JOB DUDE!
[/quote] I wasn't trying to imply any sort of dichotomy. It's just that those are the two main lines of attack that I've heard gay-bashers use. I'm sorry if I phrased it in a way that made it seem like a dichotomy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, it's a valid observation.
[/quote]

     It's also a useless observation. Unless you think that pro-gun, pro-life, pro-law, pro-secure boarders Republicans are representative of San Francisco.

     However, I wonder. You don't respect my position because I'm a San Franciscan. I don't respect your position because you're a fundie gay-basher. I'm arguing because I find all of this to be hilarious. Why are you arguing?

Does anyone else think this may be the work of a (realistic) joke poster?

     I definitely hope it is. Just look at his map for the Democratic primaries.

[Smash255]

ghostmonkey.  Do you believe in Science??  or do you believe Science class should be replaced by far right wing religion class??

As far as the sources, actually taken sources from the Scientific community would be a start which is what the others have done, not far right wing attack sites...

BTW what would you do if your kid wound up gay?  would you disown your own child??

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, you engage in it because you can do nothing else.[/quote]

     So you waste your time watching every movie that comes out & entertaining every whackjob conspiracy theory?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You just can't help yourself can you.
[/quote]

     You know, I just tried to make a point that I thought would be extremely obvious. Apparently, homosexuality & bisexuality are completely dissimilar entities. They could not be comparable in any conceivable way, like both being sexual orientations.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really? That's what I think? But I thought you were not telepathic?[/quote]

     I was referring to his observation that we don't know what animals think. I don't know what you think either. I can hazard a guess though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then you must admit that even he says that environment is the primary cause of homosexuality.
[/quote]

     & that genetics is a secondary cause. Let's backtrack for a second. I said that children should not be discriminated against based on their genetics (which I later amended to be "a factor beyond their control"). You disagreed. Even if Pillard is right & genetics is a minority factor, the fact remains that it is "a factor beyond their control." I then compared it to a left-handed person being forced to write right-handed, which is an apt comparison.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you seriously suggesting that 50% is a weak genetic link? 50%? LOL!
[/quote]

     Compared to Mendel's experiments (& even a lot of human genes) where there was 100% correspondence, 50% is low, though not unheard of in genetics. I also said that it might be lower.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you have only heard those two choices, then you haven't researched this issue much.
[/quote]

     Please then, enlighten me as to your own outlook. Wait, let me guess. Homosexual mafia, right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am sure that you are all of those things. LOL!
[/quote]

     This is the internet. For all I know, you could be a Marxist. Besides, if I were a left-winger posing as a moderate Republican, do you think that I would say that I'm from San Francisco?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, I don't respect your position because you are wrong. I simply suspect (and I could be mistaken) that hailing from San-fran-freako influences you on this issue more than you can imagine.[/quote]

     & I don't respect your position because YOU'RE wrong! It works both ways you see. Wait, you mean living here influences me in allowing me to think that gay people are not trying to take over the world? Thank you, San Francisco! You've always worked so hard in defending me from conspiracy theorists.

     I see though that you did not answer my question from earlier. Why are you arguing? I used to buy into that fundie claptrap. Then I met a true intellectual. I was never a good fundie anyway. I always held the Bible in its rightful place, subservient to science.

[Thomas Jackson]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What an absurd question. Not worthy of a response.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Argumentum Ad Hominem.

(Not to mention a blatant falsehood).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes.

[Thomas Jackson]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, I rarely watch movies. I prefer to read.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Irrelevant to your Ad Hominem attacks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, I believe you were referring to me, and what I think.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No you started out with a Kirk and Madsen talking point, that Genetics "causes" homosexuality. You only retreated to this later. In any case, you still have to deal with the individuals who DO change their sexual orientation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Might be?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, not even close.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Conspiracy Theorists? Ever hear of the Elane Photography Case?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am actually not arguing. I am discussing. And your most recent Ad Hominem comments are noted.

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Irrelevant to your Ad Hominem attacks.
[/quote]

     Relevant to the idea that genetics plays a role in determining homosexuality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, I believe you were referring to me, and what I think.
[/quote]

     I'm glad that you think that, because you're wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No you started out with a Kirk and Madsen talking point, that Genetics "causes" homosexuality. You only retreated to this later. In any case, you still have to deal with the individuals who DO change their sexual orientation. [/quote]

     I changed my assertion in recognition of the fact that the evidence suggests that genetics is merely a contributing factor. The fact remains that sexual orientation is NOT a controllable factor for someone that young.

     For a second, I was worried that you were on to something. Then I found out that only 3% of homosexuals claim to have successfully changed orientation in a neutral study (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_changing.html).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, not even close.[/quote]

     In that case, please tell me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes.
[/quote]


     Too bad you're wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Conspiracy Theorists? Ever hear of the Elane Photography Case?[/quote]

     Ever heard of sarcasm?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. [/quote]

     Wait, WHAT! That wasn't a response to me, but I just had to bring it up. This is the straw that breaks the camel's back. You realize that you just copped to your bigotry here, right? That's the thing that I hate most about fundies. They take on the ruse of being interested in scientific ideas, as a cover for their irrational hatred. The world would be much better if they just abandoned the hatred.

     Seriously, did you lose your whole family to homosexuals? Or anything to justify hating them enough to disown your kid for being one? If they've never done anything to you & you still take that attitude, then there's no point in discussing this further, since you could never be convinced to think otherwise.

     They say fundies like the Court of Public Opinion. Laura Ingraham sure does. Everyone, what do you think of the cases that we both presented?

[Reluctant Republican]

Well PiT, I tend to agree with your case, though that might be because I am one of those dreaded homosexuals, ha ha. I don’t like to get involved in these debates, everyone has their own opinions and they lead to such heated arguments. But, if you ask me, I don’t know what the cause of homosexuality is. I tend to believe I was born this way, but I also tend to believe it’s a mental defection. That’s a terrible word to use, of course. I’m fine with being homosexual, actually, But I do believe that something more likely then not went wrong, screwing things up in my head. I believe the same things occur with transsexuals. I've heard alot of homosexuals were molested. I myself was almost molested by a classmate in 5th grade. I got away before anything happened other then inappropriate touching, but could that have "screwed me up"? Perhaps, I can only remember starting to get sexual feelings in general in like the 7th grade. Then again, I’ve heard of women who were raped who then become lesbians, so I suspect molestation is a relativity minor factor, and did not affect me. Which is why I think I was born this way.

Now, I don’t believe this makes it a sin, nor do I believe it’s a disease. It is what it is, and I don’t think I’d change it even if I could. But that’s my rather biased view on the issue, anyway. Use it as you will, my friends.

[Smash255]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What an absurd question. Not worthy of a response.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Argumentum Ad Hominem.

(Not to mention a blatant falsehood).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes.

You are one sick ass bigoted bastard.

[Хahar 🤔]

LOL.

Accept this for the hilarious joke it is, guys.

[Smash255]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why are you talking about yourself like that?

How original of you.....

[Dan the Roman]

I find it interesting that this thread has gotten as long as it has. I also find it interesting but highly reassuring that it has broken down like it has, overwelmingly on the side of genetics, more because it shows an increased consensus in favor of acceptance.

Which is actually one of my problems with it. I say this as another one of those homosexuals, but the battle over nature vs. nurture is now inseparable from the issue of gay rights generally. Opponents of gay rights insist on nurture so they can argue that no concessions can be made while supporters of gay rights and individuals in the community embrace the nature argument because it removes any degree of control. I actually think that regardless of the science this is not a great internal approach because too much focus on determinism leads to fatalism, the idea that one has no control. This is one of the things that makes public health efforts so difficult among many young people in the gay community. The entire idenitity has become entrapped in a lack of control.

That said I definitely did not make a conscious choice as far as I could tell, and my interest was sort of gradual across the end of Middle School through High School. There may well have been something of a feedback loop along the way, and I would not rule out that you could have a situation in which someone questions their sexuality, experiments, gets a positive response and continues.

My own personal view is that attraction is different from enjoyment. It is perfectly possible that a man who is not gay could enjoy same-sex experiences in addition to heterosexual ones, and depending on nurture embark on a different course, but what defines being gay at least to me is not having any real attraction to the opposite sex, which effectively negates any aspect of choice. I think part of the problem opponents of gay rights have is that they are still asuming that Gays and lesbians are bisexuals who happen to have chosen to play the wrong-side of the field. This is clearly not the case, and the fact that some people who identify as gay may be bisexuals playing a particular side of the field does not negate the fact that the overwhelming majority of gays and lesbians that field is limited to abstention or the "wrong side."

Sorry for going on this late, I thought I would put my two-cents in.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I find it interesting that this thread has gotten as long as it has. I also find it interesting but highly reassuring that it has broken down like it has, overwelmingly on the side of genetics, more because it shows an increased consensus in favor of acceptance.

Which is actually one of my problems with it. I say this as another one of those homosexuals, but the battle over nature vs. nurture is now inseparable from the issue of gay rights generally. Opponents of gay rights insist on nurture so they can argue that no concessions can be made while supporters of gay rights and individuals in the community embrace the nature argument because it removes any degree of control. I actually think that regardless of the science this is not a great internal approach because too much focus on determinism leads to fatalism, the idea that one has no control. This is one of the things that makes public health efforts so difficult among many young people in the gay community. The entire idenitity has become entrapped in a lack of control.

That said I definitely did not make a conscious choice as far as I could tell, and my interest was sort of gradual across the end of Middle School through High School. There may well have been something of a feedback loop along the way, and I would not rule out that you could have a situation in which someone questions their sexuality, experiments, gets a positive response and continues.

My own personal view is that attraction is different from enjoyment. It is perfectly possible that a man who is not gay could enjoy same-sex experiences in addition to heterosexual ones, and depending on nurture embark on a different course, but what defines being gay at least to me is not having any real attraction to the opposite sex, which effectively negates any aspect of choice. I think part of the problem opponents of gay rights have is that they are still asuming that Gays and lesbians are bisexuals who happen to have chosen to play the wrong-side of the field. This is clearly not the case, and the fact that some people who identify as gay may be bisexuals playing a particular side of the field does not negate the fact that the overwhelming majority of gays and lesbians that field is limited to abstention or the "wrong side."

Sorry for going on this late, I thought I would put my two-cents in.

     I think that the bolded part makes a very good point. In an ideal society, homosexuals would be accepted for who they are, regardless of why they are who they are. That there needs to be a debate over why homosexuality exists is proof of the extreme bigotry that underlies the issue. It's tragic that so many people don't want to afford homosexuals the rights that heterosexuals are afforded, but these sorts of bigots have existed at every step of the way to make the United States a less free society than it could be. They've just gotten craftier since they realized that "God wants things this way" is no longer a viable argument.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Which is actually one of my problems with it. I say this as another one of those homosexuals, but the battle over nature vs. nurture is now inseparable from the issue of gay rights generally. Opponents of gay rights insist on nurture so they can argue that no concessions can be made while supporters of gay rights and individuals in the community embrace the nature argument because it removes any degree of control. I actually think that regardless of the science this is not a great internal approach because too much focus on determinism leads to fatalism, the idea that one has no control. This is one of the things that makes public health efforts so difficult among many young people in the gay community. The entire idenitity has become entrapped in a lack of control.

When things are broken down to their most fundamental level, whether or not homosexuality is a choice, learned behavior, or genetically predetermined is ultimately irrelevant.  There is a basic concept of fairness and personal freedom here: Consenting adults should be able to enter into which ever type of relationship they choose.