Home > News > God & Country > Can a Culture War Manifesto Reach a New Generation of Evangelicals and Catholics?

Can a Culture War Manifesto Reach a New Generation of Evangelicals and Catholics?

Reader Comments
Back to blog

While I suspect that ANY source that does not fit your limited views of the universe and life, here is a link to a livescience.com article on heredity and homosexuality.
http://www.livescience.com/health/080617-hereditary-homosexuality.html

Ioan L. of AZ 1:03AM December 08, 2009

Although genetics may influence behavior and desires, they are not decisive. Humans still have the ability to control those desires and impulses not giving way to certain antisocial impulses and desires. In a civilized society, mature, healthy humans limit and control all sorts of desires and impulses, so as to maintain law and order. My genes made me do it, is not an acceptable defense to justify and rationalize dangerous and reckless behaviors. A person has no control over the color of their eyes, but the limited influences of genetics on behavior; all human beings do. Society must determine which behaviors are acceptable, healthy and worthy of engaging in. If a society accepts dangerous, reckless and unhealthy behaviors as having merit and worth pursuing, that society will break down into
all sorts of lawlessness and depravity. Which will result in untold pain and suffering for all it's citizens. Crime logs indicate giving way to some desires and impulses is counter-productive. No society has plunged into despair and undeserved suffering for obeying true Biblical laws and ethics.

Rev. Bruce of NY 4:53PM December 01, 2009

Recently, no new news has been published about the “gay gene” that caused such a hubbub in 1992 and 1993. Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. provides an excellent website discussing the problems of hasty publishing and over-simplification in connection with the gay gene. Also, the Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) has a nice summary of the research on the gay gene. Other than this, the discussion of a gay gene, especially occuring in chromosome region Xq28, has ceased. This by no means implies that the discussion will not resume at some point in the near future, but no progress has been made recently. Unfortunately, even though the homosexual gene research was hyped by the media, the region of the X chromosome yields no functional proteins that relate to this study.
Conclusion:
Obviously, the genetics of homosexuality isn’t as simple as some in the media and elsewhere thought it would be. To be sure, little progress has been made after the initial findings provided such optimism. An interesting point can be made about the relationship between science and the media due to this study. The media, it seems, showered its skepticism on the interpretation of the scientific results while science, even with questionable practices among some of its own, corrected itself by placing the skepticism on the results themselves. Because the scientific process is necessarily reproducible, unsubstantiated claims fall by the wayside while those that can be corroborated stand the test of time.

Rev. Bruce of NY 3:45PM December 01, 2009

The year 1995 marked beginning of the end of optimism for chromosome Xq28 as an indicator of male homosexuality. In this year Scientific American printed an article that mentioned the doubts in the scientific community over the genetics of homosexuality. LeVay’s findings, the article reports, “have yet to be fully replicated by another researcher” (Horgan, 1995). Also, one study contradicted Hamer’s results and Scientific American reported that he had “been charged with research improprieties and is now under investigation by the Federal Office of Research Integrity,” which was basically a result of his excluding “pairs of brothers whose genetic makeup contradicted his finding” (Horgan, 1995). This news report came in the November edition of the magazine, which was essentially presenting a retraction for the article the two scientists coauthored in 1994. Unfortunately for these two researchers, more bad news was to follow.
Science also reported that the study by Hamer was being questioned. A study by George Ebers and George Rice in 1995 indicated that “there is no reason to focus linkage studies on the X chromosome” and that there is “no evidence that gayness is passed from mother to son” (Marshall, 1995). Although these researchers agreed with the possibility that homosexuality is inherited, they found no clear evidence to justify Hamer’s claims.
Finally, in 1999, George Rice and George Ebers published their data. In the April edition of Science, the scientists show that their results, “do not support an X-linked gene underlying male homosexuality” (Rice et al., 1999 and Wickelgren, 1999). They found that the gay brothers looked at by the Hamer group were no more likely to share the Xq28 markers than would be expected by chance. This officially sounded the death-knell for the optimism held by Hamer et al. and others looking in this region for the gene leading to homosexuality.
When the 1993 Science article was written, a precursory “Research News” article was written by Robert Pool in the same magazine to report the findings of the Hamer group. In this article, Pool writes, “The field of behavioral genetics is littered with apparent discoveries that were later called into question or retracted” (Pool, 1993). A statement could not be more prophetic.
more...

Rev. Bruce of NY 3:43PM December 01, 2009

The year 1995 marked beginning of the end of optimism for chromosome Xq28 as an indicator of male homosexuality. In this year Scientific American printed an article that mentioned the doubts in the scientific community over the genetics of homosexuality. LeVay’s findings, the article reports, “have yet to be fully replicated by another researcher” (Horgan, 1995). Also, one study contradicted Hamer’s results and Scientific American reported that he had “been charged with research improprieties and is now under investigation by the Federal Office of Research Integrity,” which was basically a result of his excluding “pairs of brothers whose genetic makeup contradicted his finding” (Horgan, 1995). This news report came in the November edition of the magazine, which was essentially presenting a retraction for the article the two scientists coauthored in 1994. Unfortunately for these two researchers, more bad news was to follow.
Science also reported that the study by Hamer was being questioned. A study by George Ebers and George Rice in 1995 indicated that “there is no reason to focus linkage studies on the X chromosome” and that there is “no evidence that gayness is passed from mother to son” (Marshall, 1995). Although these researchers agreed with the possibility that homosexuality is inherited, they found no clear evidence to justify Hamer’s claims.
Finally, in 1999, George Rice and George Ebers published their data. In the April edition of Science, the scientists show that their results, “do not support an X-linked gene underlying male homosexuality” (Rice et al., 1999 and Wickelgren, 1999). They found that the gay brothers looked at by the Hamer group were no more likely to share the Xq28 markers than would be expected by chance. This officially sounded the death-knell for the optimism held by Hamer et al. and others looking in this region for the gene leading to homosexuality.
When the 1993 Science article was written, a precursory “Research News” article was written by Robert Pool in the same magazine to report the findings of the Hamer group. In this article, Pool writes, “The field of behavioral genetics is littered with apparent discoveries that were later called into question or retracted” (Pool, 1993). A statement could not be more prophetic.

Rev. Bruce of NY 3:38PM December 01, 2009

The year 1995 marked beginning of the end of optimism for chromosome Xq28 as an indicator of male homosexuality. In this year Scientific American printed an article that mentioned the doubts in the scientific community over the genetics of homosexuality. LeVay’s findings, the article reports, “have yet to be fully replicated by another researcher” (Horgan, 1995). Also, one study contradicted Hamer’s results and Scientific American reported that he had “been charged with research improprieties and is now under investigation by the Federal Office of Research Integrity,” which was basically a result of his excluding “pairs of brothers whose genetic makeup contradicted his finding” (Horgan, 1995). This news report came in the November edition of the magazine, which was essentially presenting a retraction for the article the two scientists coauthored in 1994. Unfortunately for these two researchers, more bad news was to follow.
Science also reported that the study by Hamer was being questioned. A study by George Ebers and George Rice in 1995 indicated that “there is no reason to focus linkage studies on the X chromosome” and that there is “no evidence that gayness is passed from mother to son” (Marshall, 1995). Although these researchers agreed with the possibility that homosexuality is inherited, they found no clear evidence to justify Hamer’s claims.
Finally, in 1999, George Rice and George Ebers published their data. In the April edition of Science, the scientists show that their results, “do not support an X-linked gene underlying male homosexuality” (Rice et al., 1999 and Wickelgren, 1999). They found that the gay brothers looked at by the Hamer group were no more likely to share the Xq28 markers than would be expected by chance. This officially sounded the death-knell for the optimism held by Hamer et al. and others looking in this region for the gene leading to homosexuality.
When the 1993 Science article was written, a precursory “Research News” article was written by Robert Pool in the same magazine to report the findings of the Hamer group. In this article, Pool writes, “The field of behavioral genetics is littered with apparent discoveries that were later called into question or retracted” (Pool, 1993). A statement could not be more prophetic.

Rev. Bruce of NY 3:36PM December 01, 2009

Ioan my Dear friend,
I'm not necessarily too concerned about you and yours salvation. And it's impossible for me to convert you. It's not within my ability to infuse you with the Holy Spirit. Remember, you were already a devout "Christian." Well, you may have professed to be a Christian but you really were not. What do I mean? You were a head Christian or a counterfeit Chritian or as I mentioned before you were a hypocrite; you were pretending to be a Christian. It's impossible to have once been a Christian and then not be. If you really were a Christian, you would have been given the gift of the Holy Spirit. Once God gives you the Holy Spirit he will not take it back. The fact is, millions of people who claim to be Christians really are not. They are walking around with a false sense of security, like you once were. I'm simply reminding you of your predicament and correcting all your untruths, half truths, misinformation, junk science, disinformation, misdirection, flawed reasoning, confused thinking, sophomoric anti-Christ prattle, straw men etc. with my posts. I know I can't change your heart away from Satan, but I have a duty to set the record straight if in the event someone else is reading our posts. The homosexual offenders or as you put it, the GBLT community no doubt has/have a pathological need to convert people to their worldview. And the Devil has been very successful, your kind have succeeded beyond your wildest dreams in storing up more wrath for yourselves on the day of judgment by indoctrinating and attempting to normalize and validate your peverted sexual behaviors. Be my guest if you want to continue to store up more wrath for yourselves. By the way, I think it's rather selfish of you "diversity" Nazi's to not fight for the "rights" of other sinners. What about special "rights" for murderers, liars, adulterers, fornicators, thieves, child molesters, etc.? Ioan, go on believing and living your sociopathic homosexual, "GBLT" lies, but your destruction will be at your own hands, not ours. We will continue without ceasing to fight the good fight, we will fight against all Satan's lies, we will fight to humanize the world with Christian ethics and teaching, we have won! Human history is unfolding before our eyes, your master Satan is a defeated foe, you are on the losing team, period! We know you will continue to fight the evil fight without ceasing also, we know you will continue to dehumanize the world with Satanic ethics and teaching, you must know you have ultimately lost! All your efforts to champion evil and hate good are in vain. You and yours have lost, you have only won wrath, oh foolish wicked man/woman, unless you repent. So my last words to you and yours are this; may the true God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob through Jesus the Christ by his mercy and grace (unmerited favor) save you from his eternal wrath. Amen
P.S. My time is limited, my students need me, I will no longer make time to read or respond to your posts

Dr. Ahmed Abdi of MN 1:38PM December 01, 2009

Ioan my Dear friend,
I find you amusing as you continue to weave and twist your lies.
You never did answer any of my questions. I'm sure it gives you some comfort to deny true science about homosexual behavior. The link I provided whether you want to accept it's contents as true or not, doesn't need your approval. Truth stands on it's own and doesn't need for you to believe in it, in order for it to be true. I suppose you are angry because it doesn't fit into your preconceived notion about homosexual and other perverted sexual behavior. You mention only a few scientists don't accept junk science about homosexual behavior. Does might make right?
Is the majority always right? Furthermore, psychiatry is not an exact science, and even if all psychiatrist's caved into violent, homosexual pressure and propaganda, it still doesn't prove your case. You and your Devilish cohorts go on with your murder and lies etc. you will only gain more of God's wrath. Once again, where is the empirical evidence, where is the primary source document to support your suppositions, who conducted and funded the research, how many subjects were tested; when and where, how many independent studies were conducted, are any of the so-called "scientists" homosexual offenders or homosexual apologists? No Ioan, I didn't check out your link, I'm already familiar with the Christaphobic trash you are peddling. You can't be trusted because you apparently are a reprobate. Do you really think I'm foolish enough to go to a link you suggested? Answer my questions and I will conduct my own research using my own avenues. Think about it, it's your kind that called for the crucification of Jesus the Christ, it's your kind that brutally tortured and murdered millions of Christian in the first four centuries, it's your kind of counterfeit, hypocrite Christians who took part in the Spanish inquisitions, it's your kind that worked with Stalin to murder millions of Christians and others, it's your kind that helped Hitler murder millions of Jews, Christians and other so-called undesirables, it's your kind that helped Pol Pot murder millions of so-called dissidents, it's your kind that helped Mao starve and murder millions of his own citizens, it's your kind that helped Saddam Hussein murder millions, it's your kind through the religion of "peace" Islam, that murders thousands of Christians every year in the Middle East through brutal torture and unspeakable acts of demonic violence e.g. hacking off arms, beheading, cutting out tongues, gouging out eyes with red hot pokers etc., it's your kind that has murdered 55 million plus of the most innocent and helpless among us in America, through the brutal, barbaric act of abortion/ infanticide etc. Now, with that kind of a resume from you and your master Satan, why would I subject my computer to any link you suggested?

Dr. Ahmed Abdi of MN 12:38PM December 01, 2009

I might have figured you would not check out the links that I have provided. Just because science does not support the lies and misinformation spewed by fundamentalists, it does not follow that it is junk science. I did you the courtesy of checking out your link and as I thought, it was quasi-NARTHIAN nonsense.
As I have pointed out before, just because you believe something that does not make it true. No serious scientist believes that there is anything wrong with a GLBT orientation. The few "scientists" who do are those like Paul Cameron who have been discredited over the years. You might want to recriminalise GLBT orientation and use it as grounds for involuntary commitment, but we will do everything in our power to make sure that that does not happen.
If a man wants to wear women's clothing, what is it to you? Oh yes, Paul and all his sexual stereotyping. He also said that women were not supposed to cut their hair or to speak in Church. I see plenty of fundie women with short hair and who are very vocal in church. Paul had problems with women AND GLBT people.
What you and others like you want to do is to make Christian law the law of this land no matter how many of us do not hold those same beliefs. Oh, that's right, if someone is not Christian he doesn't have rights and what he may or may not want doesn't count. When are you going to realise that this is not a Christian country no matter how much you might wish it was? It is a multicultural society and those who do not share your views have rights? Oh, I forgot, non-Christians have no rights in your view.
Trust me, you are not my friend and never will be. I have no truck with those who seek to limit the rights of GLBT people. I looked at that site and it is all the usual anti-GLBT distortions and outright lies. The APA took homosexuality off the list of mental illnesses. The GLBTs must have forced them into it because no serious scientist would ever change his or her mind on the subject. As for all these GLBTQ people living as couples, I know many who do not have partners outside of their relationship. I am married and have been for two years and neither my spouse nor myself have partners on the side--nor are we going to. We take our married vows seriously. But, married or not, faithful or not, monogamous or not, you and the person who put up that "information" on that site are bound and determined to tar us all with the same brush.
I have an idea! Why don't you quit worrying about my soul and work on your own and why you have such a pathological need to try to convert us, even if we don't want to be. Work on YOUR OWN salvation "with fear and trembling". We can take care of our souls just fine.

Ioan L. of AZ 8:25PM November 30, 2009

tp://www.scribd.com/doc/17084302/Redefining-Homosexuality-in-Americalehrman
Ioan my Dear friend,
The truth will set you free, for some sound evidence and truth about homosexuality, check out the web page above. It will clear up your thinking and that of your cohorts. I know there is a desire by those engaged in the homosexual lifestyle or as you put it, in the GBLT community; to normalize, validate, and seek reassurance/approval for their behavior. I know there is a desire to justify and rationalize not just homosexuality but all sin. But doing so won't remove accountability on judgment day. I know if we can fabricate a gene for every sin, we can ease our guilty conscience, but it's an exercise in futility and self delusion. Lie to me all you want, but please, don't keep lying to yourself. But for the sake of argument, let's say there is a "gay" gene. Now what? What other sins will send you to hell if homosexuality is a physical characteristic like eye and skin color? Do you also want to justify murder, rape, stealing, child molesting, violent acts, lying etc. by saying there is gene for those sins too? Then you can claim, "hey God, you made me this way" right? Now your off the hook for your transgressions, right? Alright, be my guest, see if that defense will work. If it works on God, more power to you. We warned you though; you will only have yourself to thank for your own destruction. However, we won't let you corrupt and shove your anti-Christ fundamentalism down our throats or that of our children, anymore then you want others to share the truth of Christ with you and your children. Do you realize as you propagate your lies, you will also be held responsible for others you confuse and make stumble. Think about your previous posts, if they are not true, God will hold you accountable. Do you really want to heap more coals of wrath upon your head?
You boast I can't make you put the brakes on you storing up God's wrath for yourself on the day of judgment. Think about that. You are running to the edge of the cliff and there is a thousand foot drop. I tell you to slow it down and you say, "to hell with you" I'm going to run twice as hard now. Alright, be my guest, but when you run off the cliff and fall to your eternal death, don't say we didn't warn you. Don't let my style stop you from harming yourself. Don't cut off your head to spite your finger nail. You can't save yourself, but at least keep your sin to a minimum. It's been said, those in hell will do everything in their power to convince God they have one less sin then they do. Think about that for a second. Oooohhwee scare tactics, you say, maybe it's true. Maybe there is different degrees of God's wrath in hell depending on the seriousness of the sin and the amount of sins. Do you want to roll the dice? What if the gun you carelessly and arrogantly play with is loaded? Do you feel lucky? I wanted to write; do you feel lucky "punk," but I resisted the temptation. Thank me again.

Dr. Ahmed Abdi of MN 7:21PM November 30, 2009