NationStates Jolt Archive

NO MESSING WITH THE UNBORN!...unless you are a conservative
by Shalrirorchia

It is an intriguing debate that generally evokes an emotional response on both sides of the issue. But this is not a debate about abortion.

No, this is a debate about homosexuality (or perhaps gay rights). There have been plenty of debates about this subject on this forum prior to now, and there will doubtless be more such discussions in the future. What makes this discussion unique is the colorful testimony of a conservative that made national headlines yesterday, one Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr. of the Southern Baptist seminary.

Mohler was reacting to article in Radar which suggested that the sexual orientation of an individual could be detected even in the womb (which is to say that sexual orientation is characteristic defined by a person's genes). Mohler suggested that if this were the case, that medical treatments could be developed to "switch" the orientation of the fetus to heterosexual. "We should have no more problem with that than treating any medical problem." said Mohler.

This is a highly ironic position for a conservative to take. For years, conservatives have attacked gays with increasing ferocity (and perhaps a little desperation) over the nature of homosexuality. Conservative groups largely claimed that this behavior was a "choice" that could be overcome. Gay advocates countered by stating that they had been born this way. But the conservative position is rapidly becoming untenable as science has begun to suggest that orientation is indeed a function of genetics. Indeed, Mohler himself advised that his readers and listeners that they should prepare themselves for the possibility that science is going to prove the connection between orientation and genetics.

The irony of this becomes painfully clear when you look at the rationale used by these religious conservatives in other issues; specifically abortion. One argument that was once presented to me by a co-worker was that the sanctity of life overrides all other laws, and that liberals do not have the right to play God. Yet here we have a God-fearing conservative who is essentially suggesting that we manipulate a characteristic of babies in the womb. Is THAT not "playing God"? If not, I can think of another adjective that describes it just as well: eugenics...the selective breeding of or genetic engineering of human beings to promote certain characteristics (and by extension to discourage others).

The applause was not limited to the Baptists. A Roman Catholic Church intellectual, Rev. Joseph Fessio (of Ave Maria University in Florida), chimed in: "Same-sex activity is considered disordered, If there are ways of detecting diseases or disorders of children in the womb...it would be a wonderful advancement of science." Fessio commented.

With all due respect to the Rev. Fessio, homosexuality is not regarded as a disorder. It was struck from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), which is the manual by which health professionals diagnose mental illness. It did not appear in the latest version, DSM-IV...it has not been listed as an illness for years, now. The persistence of conservatives in describing it as such is self-serving; if homosexuality is indeed a genetic trait (and is not an illness), then that has enormous legal implication. It is illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of a genetic condition such as, say, skin color. There is legal precedent for protecting a minority under such circumstances, legally. Some conservatives are, in my opinion, panicked. Much of the platform that they've been preaching for the past couple years is melting away beneath them in light of new science, new investigation, and new understandings. Yet they still cling stubbornly to their bigotry despite a growing body of documented evidence that contradicts that which they are saying. Worse yet, they work to encourage thinking like THIS, which is clearly bereft of intellectual or spiritual legitimacy. They sustain hateful, hurtful prejudices which generate conflict in our society when they need not do so, and in so doing they seem to contradict the very God that they claim to serve.

Source Materials:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070314/ap_on_re_us/baptist_gay_babies

Seeing how much work you put into that I feel a bit mean to point out that there already is a big thread about this topic (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=520821) - but maybe you can post it there, too, or the mods could merge the threads. Or I just shut up and people post here, too. :/

Oops. Apparently not as unique as I had believed. :headbang:

Oops. Apparently not as unique as I had believed. :headbang:
NSG has a tendency to favor the swift over the thorough. Sorry man.

this topic sure has struck a chord with people.

but i think that this is a GOOD thing.

think about it. there is no test for gayness in utero. there is no treatment to change sexual orientation before birth.

but changing the religiously conservative mindset from thinking of homosexuality as a perverse lifestyle choice to an inborn trait is a great step forward.

there will be decades between the time that "gay is natural" becomes accepted into even the narrowest of minds and the time when "gay" can be identified in the womb and successfully "treated".

in that length of time it is quite likely that people will just stop caring about something that doesnt reflect a sick moral choice.

I'm a conservative and I don't support anything this religious nutter has said.
Then again, I'm not American.

there will be decades between the time that "gay is natural" becomes accepted into even the narrowest of minds and the time when "gay" can be identified in the womb and successfully "treated".
.

Yes, but if they accept that "gay is natural" then they won't try to "treat" them.

I'm a conservative and I don't support anything this religious nutter has said.
Then again, I'm not American.

I'm an American conservative, and I still don't support what that religious nutter said. Eugenics is just as dangerous when done for "religious" reasons as for "scientific" reasons. Both reasons are generally just a cover for bigotry.

Well, given that I'm all for permitting all sorts of genetic alterations in the womb, I don't see why I'd be opposed to this one either. Defining a sexuality preference (remember, conditions in the childhood could also be important to swinging said individual either way as well), either way, would not bother me in the slightest.

NO MESSING WITH THE UNBORN!...unless you are a conservative
by Shalrirorchia

It is an intriguing debate that generally evokes an emotional response on both sides of the issue. But this is not a debate about abortion.

No, this is a debate about homosexuality (or perhaps gay rights). There have been plenty of debates about this subject on this forum prior to now, and there will doubtless be more such discussions in the future. What makes this discussion unique is the colorful testimony of a conservative that made national headlines yesterday, one Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr. of the Southern Baptist seminary.

Mohler was reacting to article in Radar which suggested that the sexual orientation of an individual could be detected even in the womb (which is to say that sexual orientation is characteristic defined by a person's genes). Mohler suggested that if this were the case, that medical treatments could be developed to "switch" the orientation of the fetus to heterosexual. "We should have no more problem with that than treating any medical problem." said Mohler.

This is a highly ironic position for a conservative to take. For years, conservatives have attacked gays with increasing ferocity (and perhaps a little desperation) over the nature of homosexuality. Conservative groups largely claimed that this behavior was a "choice" that could be overcome. Gay advocates countered by stating that they had been born this way. But the conservative position is rapidly becoming untenable as science has begun to suggest that orientation is indeed a function of genetics. Indeed, Mohler himself advised that his readers and listeners that they should prepare themselves for the possibility that science is going to prove the connection between orientation and genetics.

The irony of this becomes painfully clear when you look at the rationale used by these religious conservatives in other issues; specifically abortion. One argument that was once presented to me by a co-worker was that the sanctity of life overrides all other laws, and that liberals do not have the right to play God. Yet here we have a God-fearing conservative who is essentially suggesting that we manipulate a characteristic of babies in the womb. Is THAT not "playing God"? If not, I can think of another adjective that describes it just as well: eugenics...the selective breeding of or genetic engineering of human beings to promote certain characteristics (and by extension to discourage others).

The applause was not limited to the Baptists. A Roman Catholic Church intellectual, Rev. Joseph Fessio (of Ave Maria University in Florida), chimed in: "Same-sex activity is considered disordered, If there are ways of detecting diseases or disorders of children in the womb...it would be a wonderful advancement of science." Fessio commented.

With all due respect to the Rev. Fessio, homosexuality is not regarded as a disorder. It was struck from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), which is the manual by which health professionals diagnose mental illness. It did not appear in the latest version, DSM-IV...it has not been listed as an illness for years, now. The persistence of conservatives in describing it as such is self-serving; if homosexuality is indeed a genetic trait (and is not an illness), then that has enormous legal implication. It is illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of a genetic condition such as, say, skin color. There is legal precedent for protecting a minority under such circumstances, legally. Some conservatives are, in my opinion, panicked. Much of the platform that they've been preaching for the past couple years is melting away beneath them in light of new science, new investigation, and new understandings. Yet they still cling stubbornly to their bigotry despite a growing body of documented evidence that contradicts that which they are saying. Worse yet, they work to encourage thinking like THIS, which is clearly bereft of intellectual or spiritual legitimacy. They sustain hateful, hurtful prejudices which generate conflict in our society when they need not do so, and in so doing they seem to contradict the very God that they claim to serve.

Fundies just got OWNED! (http://fundies.justgotowned.com)

Yes, but if they accept that "gay is natural" then they won't try to "treat" them.

exactly. instead of being mr. glad-he-can-imagine-ridding-the-world-of-those-nasty-gays he might be mr make-the-world-safe-for-gays by accident

it seems very likely to me that after a decade or so of accepting that homosexuality is natural people might not be all that interested in doing whatever it might take to ensure that they dont have gay children.

The persistence of conservatives in describing it as such is self-serving; if homosexuality is indeed a genetic trait (and is not an illness), then that has enormous legal implication. It is illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of a genetic condition such as, say, skin color.

It is, I fear, a bit more complicated that simply genetic/choice.

The article makes American conservatives sound like one block, presumably in order to attack them as hypocrites.

Does not the current state of the Republican party refute this?

Wouldn't it make sense to use genetic engineering in the womb to treat diseases and improve quality of life from birth rather than waste it trying to control homosexuality, something which is recognized neither as a disease nor as a mental disorder by any medical body in the US?

Wouldn't it make sense to use genetic engineering in the womb to treat diseases and improve quality of life from birth rather than waste it trying to control homosexuality, something which is recognized neither as a disease nor as a mental disorder by any medical body in the US?

yeah yeah but the economics of designer babies might spur on techniques to help the more important diseases and defects of the unborn.

figuring out how to guarantee tall, blonde, blue-eyed, attractive, straight children to the short squat dark population might well lead to more important cures

yeah yeah but the economics of designer babies might spur on techniques to help the more important diseases and defects of the unborn.

True, but that's also a possibility with a lot of other technologies. That's why it has to be carefully monitored to be sure that it's used solely for medical improvements.

Now, human enhancement in general I have no problem with (after all, if you consent to it I don't really care if you have three arms and five cybernetic eyes implanted...I'll do it when it's posible), but when it comes to genetic or physical enhancement in the womb I do have a problem because you're altering a person's genetics in order to conform to your aesthetic ideals without their consent.

figuring out how to guarantee tall, blonde, blue-eyed, attractive, straight children to the short squat dark population might well lead to more important cures

A cure to human freedom, perhaps.

The article makes American conservatives sound like one block, presumably in order to attack them as hypocrites.

Does not the current state of the Republican party refute this?

Believe me, American conservatives are not one block. This is but one man (and a nutty man at that). Don't mistake his lone opinion as the voice of American conservatives. He's radically over the top.

Now, human enhancement in general I have no problem with (after all, if you consent to it I don't really care if you have three arms and five cybernetic eyes implanted...I'll do it when it's posible), but when it comes to genetic or physical enhancement in the womb I do have a problem because you're altering a person's genetics in order to conform to your aesthetic ideals without their consent.

So, I take it you're against abortion then also? If not, that's quite an interesting position to take.

So, I take it you're against abortion then also? If not, that's quite an interesting position to take.

It is an interesting position, and a quite logical one as well. See, if a fetus/embryo is destroyed in an abortion, the mother obviously didn't want to carry it to term, and thus it would never have become a person. If you modify a fetus/embryo in the womb, then one intends to carry it to term, and it thus will become a person, and thus a person will be modified without consent.


(I personally don't take this position, but I see the logic.)

It is an interesting position, and a quite logical one as well. See, if a fetus/embryo is destroyed in an abortion, the mother obviously didn't want to carry it to term, and thus it would never have become a person. If you modify a fetus/embryo in the womb, then one intends to carry it to term, and it thus will become a person, and thus a person will be modified without consent.


(I personally don't take this position, but I see the logic.)

I dunno. Maybe I'm just stupid, but every abortion argument I've ever gotten into, the pro-choicers try to detach any notion of humanity from the fetus. They'll tell you it can't think, it's not developed, it's a parasite...the whole works. Which, hey, that's fine by me, because that's their opinion. I can live with the fact that different people have different views.

But it strikes me as blatantly hypocritical to advocate abortion but protest fetus enhancement. By demonstrating withdrawals to changing the genes of a fetus (to fit the sexual orientation of your choice), you're basically assigning the fetus human qualities, and admitting that it's a living being. "It's not right to enhance a fetus without it's consent," just doesn't match up to "It's not a living being, there for it is not murder to abort".

According to the standard pro-choice argument, a woman should have the right to do what she will with her body. Well, why not let her change the sexual orientation of the fetus inside of her body? Right?

It is an interesting position, and a quite logical one as well. See, if a fetus/embryo is destroyed in an abortion, the mother obviously didn't want to carry it to term, and thus it would never have become a person. If you modify a fetus/embryo in the womb, then one intends to carry it to term, and it thus will become a person, and thus a person will be modified without consent.


(I personally don't take this position, but I see the logic.)

its pretty much my position

just because you can terminate a pregnancy doesnt mean you are free to do whatever stupid thing enters your head to a fetus you decide to take to term.

its pretty much my position

just because you can terminate a pregnancy doesnt mean you are free to do whatever stupid thing enters your head to a fetus you decide to take to term.

See, that just slays me. It's a human if you decide to take it to term. It isn't if you abort it.

We make tools better and more convenient.

Not persons.

its pretty much my position

just because you can terminate a pregnancy doesnt mean you are free to do whatever stupid thing enters your head to a fetus you decide to take to term. Not that logical. Destroying something is about the most drastic way you can change it; if you can destroy a foetus, why can't you do much less dramatic things to it?

We make tools better and more convenient.

Not persons. The chimpanzees running around with spears kept making that excuse until the local homo sapiens started marginalising them.

The chimpanzees running around with spears kept making that excuse until the local homo sapiens started marginalising them.

I don't know; the capability to destroy those who don't want your "enhancements" is hardly a good argument in their favor.

See, that just slays me. It's a human if you decide to take it to term. It isn't if you abort it.

I think that's an oversimplification of the point, but you touch on an interesting idea.

Why does a painting have amazing value if lots of people care about it? Why does it have that value even if the painter thinks it's shit? Shouldn't it have some intrinsic value apart from human sentiment? Or do we get to assign value to things and have that value enforced as an intrinsic quality?

All good questions for another thread, since this one ain't about abortion.

See, that just slays me. It's a human if you decide to take it to term. It isn't if you abort it.

Nope.

First, it's "human" period. The question is whether it's a person.

Second, it's not a person regardless of whether or not you decide to carry it to term. The child, however, IS a person. And because what you do to the fetus has consequences for the child (assuming the child will actually exist, as it will not if it is aborted), you must consider his or her rights and interests in making these decisions.

See, that just slays me. It's a human if you decide to take it to term. It isn't if you abort it.

Nope. It's not a human being. However, if you want to keep it to term, it will be a human being, and anything you do to it now will effect the future entity. In short, an aborted fetus will never be a human being. A modified one will. That's the difference.

Not that logical. Destroying something is about the most drastic way you can change it; if you can destroy a foetus, why can't you do much less dramatic things to it?

The chimpanzees running around with spears kept making that excuse until the local homo sapiens started marginalising them.

a child isnt a possession. you cant reupholster one as if it were a sofa. the child is in your care until it is an adult. it belongs to itself and as a legal person has its own rights. the state also has a responsibility to see that its citizens are well taken care of and not changed against their will without good legal cause.

SO

the decision to have a child it up to the parents involved. if an unintended pregnancy occurs, they have the right to terminate it if they do not want to have a child. that right has limits. after a certain point, there must be medical justification for terminating what would have been a child. in most countries you are not allowed to have an 8th month abortion on whim, for example.

BUT, if you are going to have a child, you have the legal responsibilty to "do no harm". you cant do a medical procedure to it that has no medical reason. you cant decide to have in utero surgery to make your child deaf of blind. you cant graft on an extra arm and you cant give it a cocktail that would change its sexual orientation.

you CAN do those things that do have medical justification. heart defects can sometimes be repaired before birth, for example.

after all, as a society, we have no desire to have parents willingly inflict defective children on us to support medically and socially. the child itself has a right to be left alone to decide its own future treatment where ever possible.

See, that just slays me. It's a human if you decide to take it to term. It isn't if you abort it.

a fetus is human but its not a person; its alive but its not a baby.

if you abort, there is no one to have harmed. if you modify, you have violated a persons right to decide his own fate.

So, I take it you're against abortion then also? If not, that's quite an interesting position to take.

Generally, yes. More accurately, I support banning all abortion except medically necessary procedures after the first trimester. After that point, the fetus' personhood is indisputable.

Generally, yes. More accurately, I support banning all abortion except medically necessary procedures after the first trimester. After that point, the fetus' personhood is indisputable.

How is the personhood indisputable? The fetus doesn't even have a functioning brain for almost all of the second trimester.

Generally, yes. More accurately, I support banning all abortion except medically necessary procedures after the first trimester. After that point, the fetus' personhood is indisputable.

Personhood is not "indisputable" until substantially after birth.

If it were, a non-arbitrary standard would require us to extend the rights of personhood not only to fetuses and very young infants, but also to a wide variety of non-human animals.

How is the personhood indisputable? The fetus doesn't even have a functioning brain for almost all of the second trimester.

That all depends on what you mean by functioning. Portions of the central and peripheral nervous system are functional early on in the 2nd trimester - even somewhat functional in the late 1st trimester.

If you are looking for cognitive function, on the other hand, you are right. Brain activity associated with cognitive function doesn't show up until somewhere around 21-22 weeks.

Personhood is not "indisputable" until substantially after birth.

I'd say the development of the brain is a pretty good yardstick.

If it were, a non-arbitrary standard would require us to extend the rights of personhood not only to fetuses and very young infants, but also to a wide variety of non-human animals.

Well, I do support human rights and legal protections for great apes and other sapient organisms.

How is the personhood indisputable? The fetus doesn't even have a functioning brain for almost all of the second trimester.

The first structures of the brain form then. That makes them a person, since the formation of the brain is the process which allows us to develop cognition and other human faculties.

I'd say the development of the brain is a pretty good yardstick.

No, it isn't. The development of the traits of moral personhood is the only good yardstick, and while "having a brain" is a defensible standard in that regard, I doubt it's the one you prefer.

"Having a human brain", in and of itself, seems simply arbitrary. Why differentiate?

Well, I do support human rights and legal protections for great apes and other sapient organisms.

Great, so do I. (Of course, adult great apes, dolphins, and other animals are in some respects MORE cognitively developed than human infants. For instance, they pass the mirror test - unlike very young humans.)

Do you support offering them health care - even at great cost and expense to ourselves? Do you support, more generally, being as concerned for their mortality rate as we are concerned for ours?

since the formation of the brain is the process which allows us to develop cognition and other human faculties.

Much later.

Why draw the line there - instead of at where "cognition and other human faculties" actually begin?

Otherwise, you could draw the line much further back. Since the formation of the fetus is the process that allows us to develop the brain, and thus cognition and other human faculties, personhood begins at conception - right?

Why draw the line there - instead of at where "cognition and other human faculties" actually begin?

Because it would cause problems in regard to brain damage and mental handicap. If a person is handicapped, using that standard it would be possible to significantly dehumanize them. This is far broader and includes people whose cognition is impaired for whatever reason.

Otherwise, you could draw the line much further back. Since the formation of the fetus is the process that allows us to develop the brain, and thus cognition and other human faculties, personhood begins at conception - right?

Isn't that a kind of slippery slope issue?

I mean, the formation and development of the brain is one of the easiest ways to discern a difference between a collection of organs and cells and a functioning human being.

Because it would cause problems in regard to brain damage and mental handicap. If a person is handicapped, using that standard it would be possible to significantly dehumanize them. This is far broader and includes people whose cognition is impaired for whatever reason.



Isn't that a kind of slippery slope issue?

I mean, the formation and development of the brain is one of the easiest ways to discern a difference between a collection of organs and cells and a functioning human being.

Are we talking full development or partial development? What if the brain has formed but something has gone wrong in the development? When that infant is born, has it no hope of being a person, a human even?

Because it would cause problems in regard to brain damage and mental handicap. If a person is handicapped, using that standard it would be possible to significantly dehumanize them.

What's the moral difference between a human being with the cognitive capacity of a wolf (and who has always had that cognitive capacity) and an actual wolf?

If you object to "dehumanization" (really "depersonization", which should be a word if it isn't one now) in one case, how can you possibly not object to it in the other?

Isn't that a kind of slippery slope issue?

What distinction am I ignoring?

I mean, the formation and development of the brain is one of the easiest ways to discern a difference between a collection of organs and cells and a functioning human being.

No, it really isn't. Generally what we consider to be "functioning human beings" go far beyond merely having the early stages of a brain.

a fetus is human but its not a person; its alive but its not a baby.

if you abort, there is no one to have harmed. if you modify, you have violated a persons right to decide his own fate.

How are we using the term human here? My finger is a human finger, but would you say that my finger is human?

but would you say that my finger is human?

Of course you would.

But certainly it is not a human being.

How are we using the term human here? My finger is a human finger, but would you say that my finger is human?

Well, what is your finger wearing? Is your finger a fatty?

Homosexuality is not a genetic trait. Atheistic, God-hating, Bible-rejecting scientists (and their cronies in the news media) WANT to believe "gay"ness is in a person's genes, because:
1. The Bible makes it clear that it is NOT genetic; it is a personal choice of behavior, and one that God hates
2. Atheistic scientists HATE the Bible, so they make up, and concoct out of thin air, what they call "scientific proof" that "gay"ness is genetic, so they can help "gays" get accepted as "normal", while all straights are labeled "homophobic".
3. The news media, whose hatred for the Bible and the God Who wrote it equals that of atheistic scientists, do everything they can to back them up on their FABRICATED "evidence" and promote it as scientific fact, when in reality it is nothing more than a FAIRY TALE CONSTRUCTED FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF DISCREDITING THE BIBLE AND THE GOD WHO GAVE IT TO MANKIND.

Having said that, it is still true that Jesus died for THEM (gays, scientists, journalists, news reporters, etc.) as well as for me, you (i.e. anybody reading this), and anybody either of us know.

And God will save ANYBODY who comes to Him humbly, acknowledging his/her need of a Savior, and placing his/her faith EXCLUSIVELY in God's only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

The atheistc scientists, while collaborating with Satan, a long time ally of the Jews, who controlled Communism, the creation of Muslims, pleasure slaves of the mud people, known to be rampant homosexuals, are tearing our god-fearing nation apart.

The atheistc scientists, while collaborating with Satan, a long time ally of the Jews, who controlled Communism, the creation of Muslims, pleasure slaves of the mud people, known to be rampant homosexuals, are tearing our god-fearing nation apart.

Nice.

That all depends on what you mean by functioning. Portions of the central and peripheral nervous system are functional early on in the 2nd trimester - even somewhat functional in the late 1st trimester.

If you are looking for cognitive function, on the other hand, you are right. Brain activity associated with cognitive function doesn't show up until somewhere around 21-22 weeks.

I go by synchronised brain activity myself, which is at 26 weeks. Most people would probably go for continuous, though. That's 22 weeks.

This is just the beginning! Once we learn to correct gayness, we can start correcting all thouse other little genetic anomalies like skin color, racial features, free thought and other undesirable glitches. :p

How are we using the term human here? My finger is a human finger, but would you say that my finger is human?

its a human finger isnt it?

its human; its alive. its not a person but its part of a person. it cannot ever live on its own.

the difference between a fetus and your finger is that someday, if all goes well, the fetus will grow into a seperate person from its host. your finger will not. as such, the fetus has its own proto-rights. perhaps limited to society's right to have well born children; perhaps its own right to decide non-pressing, non-lethal issues when it is old enough to do so.

your finger will never be a seperate person. it has no rights of its own. you can do with it as you please limited only by your own squeamishness and/or the medical ethics of any doctor you might hire to help you out.

Homosexuality is not a genetic trait. Atheistic, God-hating, Bible-rejecting scientists (and their cronies in the news media) WANT to believe "gay"ness is in a person's genes, because:
1. The Bible makes it clear that it is NOT genetic; it is a personal choice of behavior, and one that God hates
2. Atheistic scientists HATE the Bible, so they make up, and concoct out of thin air, what they call "scientific proof" that "gay"ness is genetic, so they can help "gays" get accepted as "normal", while all straights are labeled "homophobic".
3. The news media, whose hatred for the Bible and the God Who wrote it equals that of atheistic scientists, do everything they can to back them up on their FABRICATED "evidence" and promote it as scientific fact, when in reality it is nothing more than a FAIRY TALE CONSTRUCTED FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF DISCREDITING THE BIBLE AND THE GOD WHO GAVE IT TO MANKIND.

Having said that, it is still true that Jesus died for THEM (gays, scientists, journalists, news reporters, etc.) as well as for me, you (i.e. anybody reading this), and anybody either of us know.

And God will save ANYBODY who comes to Him humbly, acknowledging his/her need of a Savior, and placing his/her faith EXCLUSIVELY in God's only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.


hey, dont get your panties in a bunch HERE. write a little note to the pastor from the OP. he is the one jumping on the genetic bandwagon in the hopes of some day stamping out homosexuality.

he's the one who is going to leave you stranded on the "gay is a lifestyle choice" island all by yourself.

Homosexuality is not a genetic trait. Atheistic, God-hating, Bible-rejecting scientists (and their cronies in the news media) WANT to believe "gay"ness is in a person's genes, because:
1. The Bible makes it clear that it is NOT genetic; it is a personal choice of behavior, and one that God hates
2. Atheistic scientists HATE the Bible, so they make up, and concoct out of thin air, what they call "scientific proof" that "gay"ness is genetic, so they can help "gays" get accepted as "normal", while all straights are labeled "homophobic".
3. The news media, whose hatred for the Bible and the God Who wrote it equals that of atheistic scientists, do everything they can to back them up on their FABRICATED "evidence" and promote it as scientific fact, when in reality it is nothing more than a FAIRY TALE CONSTRUCTED FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF DISCREDITING THE BIBLE AND THE GOD WHO GAVE IT TO MANKIND.

Having said that, it is still true that Jesus died for THEM (gays, scientists, journalists, news reporters, etc.) as well as for me, you (i.e. anybody reading this), and anybody either of us know.

And God will save ANYBODY who comes to Him humbly, acknowledging his/her need of a Savior, and placing his/her faith EXCLUSIVELY in God's only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

*blinks*

*blinks*

Yeah, I'm still not sure if that's satire or schizophrenia . . .

Yeah, I'm still not sure if that's satire or schizophrenia . . .

I would've gone with manic-depression, but it's too early in the morning for this.

1. The Bible makes it clear that it is NOT genetic; it is a personal choice of behavior, and one that God hates

Since the bible was written by mankind, it causes human errors. This is one such severe error.

2. Atheistic scientists HATE the Bible, so they make up, and concoct out of thin air, what they call "scientific proof" that "gay"ness is genetic, so they can help "gays" get accepted as "normal", while all straights are labeled "homophobic".

Unlike people who write fictional fairytales (see the Bible, for example, as it's probably full of it), scientists are able to accurately predict stuff, if they're correct. Thus, if being gay is genetic, then they should be able to predict, accurately and precisely, whether someone will be gay or not.

3. The news media, whose hatred for the Bible and the God Who wrote it equals that of atheistic scientists, do everything they can to back them up on their FABRICATED "evidence" and promote it as scientific fact, when in reality it is nothing more than a FAIRY TALE CONSTRUCTED FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF DISCREDITING THE BIBLE AND THE GOD WHO GAVE IT TO MANKIND.

Caps does not help, on the contrary. The Bible is the fairy tale here and every single time I hear someone like you, I lose a little more faith.

Scientists do not fabricate evidence - When they do (see Creationists), they usually get discredited, because they can't back it up and nor can they ever predict anything.

Having said that, it is still true that Jesus died for THEM (gays, scientists, journalists, news reporters, etc.) as well as for me, you (i.e. anybody reading this), and anybody either of us know.

And God will save ANYBODY who comes to Him humbly, acknowledging his/her need of a Savior, and placing his/her faith EXCLUSIVELY in God's only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.[/QUOTE]

This is just the beginning! Once we learn to correct gayness, we can start correcting all thouse other little genetic anomalies like skin color, racial features, free thought and other undesirable glitches. :p

Or the desire to build mud catapults :o

We all know how undesirable that trait is. :p

I'm an American conservative, and I still don't support what that religious nutter said. Eugenics is just as dangerous when done for "religious" reasons as for "scientific" reasons. Both reasons are generally just a cover for bigotry.

Are you sure you're a conservative?

Wouldn't it make sense to use genetic engineering in the womb to treat diseases and improve quality of life from birth rather than waste it trying to control homosexuality, something which is recognized neither as a disease nor as a mental disorder by any medical body in the US?

If the people running the Jesus camps have their way, well...

Are you sure you're a conservative?

Yes. I'm not going around suggesting amending the Constitution to make sure gays can't marry. That's a regressive move, not a conservative one. I figure the Constitution is fine just the way it is, and we don't need to be adding nonsense to it.

I'm not going around suggesting that we radically change the abortion laws in the US. I think a few minor changes would be sufficient. Again, I see no need to be doing anything very new in this area of policy.

I'm fiscally conservative. I figure a government, much like individuals, should not generally spend more money than they have. There may be exceptions to this, but as a general rule the budget should be balanced to within less than 1,000 USD. I allow that leeway because of the massive figures involved.

I believe in an efficient government, though not necessarily a small one like the Libertarians. If the government sees a legitimate need to take on social welfare or healthcare programs, they should be as simple and streamlined as possible. The justice system, military, and broad continental matters (rather than simply interstate or intrastate) should be the primary focus of governmental concerns.

I am a proponent of state's rights in general. I figure that, like individuals, states should be able to decide most things for themselves. That includes educational policies, drug policies, marriage policies, and so on. While I may personally advocate that education be done in a certain way, or that homosexuals should be allowed the same legal privileges as heterosexuals, not every state has to institute my views.

I am opposed to government intervention in the affairs of other nations, and am extremely reluctant to enter the nation into any alliances. Keeping friendly but not overly close relations with other nations is ideal, as far as I'm concerned. The US should have only a very limited role in the UN, to my mind. We're not the world's police dog, and the world ain't exactly wanting us to be their police dog, so I figure we are much better off focusing on domestic issues like we were doing at one time.

Within the sphere of my own state, I'd like to see a lot of anti-discrimination statutes repealed, anti-homosexual laws repealed, anti-drug laws heavily revised, gun regulation loosened, a separation of government and business, and education focused on skill-building rather than test results.

When it comes to economics, I'm a capitalist. Economic liberty and economic responsibility are two things I value highly. No socialist revolution for me, thanks. But like Adam Smith, I think corporations are dangerous for a variety of reasons and are not necessary for a functioning market.

That sound American and conservative enough for you?

Or the desire to build mud catapults :o

We all know how undesirable that trait is. :p

:eek:

:(

So basically to summarize, you're a real Conservative, and a Goldwater Republican, as opposed to a Neo-Con RINO.

Yup. That's about the size of it.

-Snip-

So basically to summarize, you're a real Conservative, and a Goldwater Republican, as opposed to a Neo-Con RINO.

Yes. I'm not going around suggesting amending the Constitution to make sure gays can't marry. That's a regressive move, not a conservative one. I figure the Constitution is fine just the way it is, and we don't need to be adding nonsense to it.

I'm not going around suggesting that we radically change the abortion laws in the US. I think a few minor changes would be sufficient. Again, I see no need to be doing anything very new in this area of policy.

I'm fiscally conservative. I figure a government, much like individuals, should not generally spend more money than they have. There may be exceptions to this, but as a general rule the budget should be balanced to within less than 1,000 USD. I allow that leeway because of the massive figures involved.

I believe in an efficient government, though not necessarily a small one like the Libertarians. If the government sees a legitimate need to take on social welfare or healthcare programs, they should be as simple and streamlined as possible. The justice system, military, and broad continental matters (rather than simply interstate or intrastate) should be the primary focus of governmental concerns.

I am a proponent of state's rights in general. I figure that, like individuals, states should be able to decide most things for themselves. That includes educational policies, drug policies, marriage policies, and so on. While I may personally advocate that education be done in a certain way, or that homosexuals should be allowed the same legal privileges as heterosexuals, not every state has to institute my views.

I am opposed to government intervention in the affairs of other nations, and am extremely reluctant to enter the nation into any alliances. Keeping friendly but not overly close relations with other nations is ideal, as far as I'm concerned. The US should have only a very limited role in the UN, to my mind. We're not the world's police dog, and the world ain't exactly wanting us to be their police dog, so I figure we are much better off focusing on domestic issues like we were doing at one time.

Within the sphere of my own state, I'd like to see a lot of anti-discrimination statutes repealed, anti-homosexual laws repealed, anti-drug laws heavily revised, gun regulation loosened, a separation of government and business, and education focused on skill-building rather than test results.

When it comes to economics, I'm a capitalist. Economic liberty and economic responsibility are two things I value highly. No socialist revolution for me, thanks. But like Adam Smith, I think corporations are dangerous for a variety of reasons and are not necessary for a functioning market.

That sound American and conservative enough for you?

It sounds pretty much like me - I do, however, believe in greater harmony with the international community - but I'm a bleeding heart liberal, straight out of the western progressive tradition.

It sounds more like a difference of emphasis and identity instead of actual policy.

It sounds pretty much like me - I do, however, believe in greater harmony with the international community - but I'm a bleeding heart liberal, straight out of the western progressive tradition.

Really? You want to repeal anti-discrimination laws?

Really? You want to repeal anti-discrimination laws?

Oops, misread that one <sheepish look on face> Well, you win some, you lose some.

I would like nothing more than the elimination of anti-discrimination laws because they were no longer necessary. Unfortunately, that world doesn't exist. I will fight all my life for a world of no labels, where everyone is dealt with as an individual, and the society, government, and business climate recognize people only as individuals. Anti-discrimination laws part of that problem, but the underlying problems of not having basic protection in housing, employment, and education would be greater than the positives of eliminating a recognition of group identity.

Some conservatives are, in my opinion, panicked. Much of the platform that they've been preaching for the past couple years is melting away beneath them in light of new science, new investigation, and new understandings. Yet they still cling stubbornly to their bigotry despite a growing body of documented evidence that contradicts that which they are saying. Worse yet, they work to encourage thinking like THIS, which is clearly bereft of intellectual or spiritual legitimacy. They sustain hateful, hurtful prejudices which generate conflict in our society when they need not do so, and in so doing they seem to contradict the very God that they claim to serve.

conservatives =/= Christians

Homosexuality is not a genetic trait. Atheistic, God-hating, Bible-rejecting scientists (and their cronies in the news media) WANT to believe "gay"ness is in a person's genes, because:
1. The Bible makes it clear that it is NOT genetic; it is a personal choice of behavior, and one that God hates
2. Atheistic scientists HATE the Bible, so they make up, and concoct out of thin air, what they call "scientific proof" that "gay"ness is genetic, so they can help "gays" get accepted as "normal", while all straights are labeled "homophobic".
3. The news media, whose hatred for the Bible and the God Who wrote it equals that of atheistic scientists, do everything they can to back them up on their FABRICATED "evidence" and promote it as scientific fact, when in reality it is nothing more than a FAIRY TALE CONSTRUCTED FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF DISCREDITING THE BIBLE AND THE GOD WHO GAVE IT TO MANKIND.

Having said that, it is still true that Jesus died for THEM (gays, scientists, journalists, news reporters, etc.) as well as for me, you (i.e. anybody reading this), and anybody either of us know.

And God will save ANYBODY who comes to Him humbly, acknowledging his/her need of a Savior, and placing his/her faith EXCLUSIVELY in God's only begotten Son, Jesus Christ.


You, sir, are a religious zealot. I do not hesitate to say such a radical, damning thing because you yourself made that quite clear in your post. I am tired of being assailed by those on the Religious Right, who bring their holier-than-thou attitude and loudly proclaim their righteousness whilst overlooking their own terrible sins.

A common behavior I see amongst many of your ilk is a tendency to portray yourselves as the ones who are oppressed. You decry the "evil" of those "attacking" you, all the while conveniently ignoring that it is YOU who are trying to legislate gay marriage in order to prevent a certain group of people from doing a certain thing. The truth is, you are the one launching the attacks.

You say that they "concoct" scientific proof, yet you offer no evidence of this claim. All you do is convince the reader that the Religious Right, as a group, is waging a war against science in this country...and the frightening thing is that you are winning the war. On issues such as stem cell research we have been more or less stymied by your powerful lobbies and numerous dollars in Washington. Because you have restrained this research, many innocent people may die for lack of research into treatments that could have saved them. Bravo.

I personally think that people like you suffer from something perilously close to a disorder. You see vast conspiracies in the scientific/media/educational complexes and seek to punish those for perceived "liberalness". Yet there is no such conspiracy. As a liberal, I almost wish we DID have such a conspiracy...perhaps if we did, we wouldn't be in such a sorry political state now. Your minds are completely, sadly closed. Many of you do not seem to think for yourselves. I think you are the greatest threat to American democracy and freedom since Hitler.