[Vince]

Originally Posted by [url=http://www.massnews.com/2004_editions/1_january/010804_mn_dean_still_believes_gay_gene.shtml

Dean Still Believes in Gay Gene[/url]]The Boston Globe ran a large front-page story this morning that Howard Dean's Christian faith made him sign the civil union bill in Vermont in 2000.

But it indicated that Dean's thinking is colored because of his belief in a gay gene, which was totally discredited by 1999. It caused some observers to wonder if Howard still believes in the tooth fairy.

The Globe reported: "'The overwhelming evidence is that there is [sic] very significant, substantial genetic component" to homosexuality, Dean said in an interview yesterday. 'From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people.'"

The only problem is there's no evidence of a gay gene. The Globe itself repudiated the gay gene theory back on February 7, 1999, when it said, "The gene still has not been found, and interest in, and enthusiasm for, the 'gay gene' research has waned among activists and scientists alike. And there is a growing consensus that sexual orientation is much more complicated than a matter of genes."

...The man who "discovered" the gene in 1973 was a homosexual activist, Dean Hamer. It's frightening that this "misinformation" or "propaganda" is reported as truth during a Presidential campaign. But it is not surprising because Pinch Sulzberger, Chairman of the New York Times and Boston Globe has shown many times that he will lie about anything to achieve his goals, which is currently gay marriage.

...It also makes one wonder why the huge caches of money which have put Dean ahead from the first day have not been examined by the press. There was a report by one television network that the money has come from homosexual activists, but we have found nothing in print about the source of that mysterious money.

This guy's a walking intellectual disaster area. I'm tempted to help this guy out in his pseudo-religious cum anti-pharmaceutical crusade by sending him this highly competent trial which demonstrates "Using Prayer To Microevolve Latent Antibiotic Resistance In Bacteria"

Not to mention his commanding religious knowledge. As if his Book of Job blunder was as bad as it gets. I personally don't care, but if you're going to play the part atleast put in some time and do some research. Perhaps he should take a look at Leviticus 18:22 lol.

[Natoma]

Uhm, he said that there is a significant genetic component to homosexuality, which there is. Sexuality is strongly controlled by a mixture of our genes and hormonal womb environment which in turn also affect the expression of said genes to various forms including homosexuality and heterosexuality. But they are the same, expressions of different facets of an innate human sexuality. Much the same way eye color changes, but it's just a gene for eye color. There isn't a gene for blue or green or red. Just differences in how it gets expressed.

He never said that there is a "Gay Gene" that some have and others don't. Whoever wrote the article doesn't understand biology it seems since they extrapolated that meaning.

p.s.: The book of leviticus also forbids eating fish on days other than Friday and forbids women who are menstruating from leaving their homes until the bleeding stops. It also says if your kids disobey, you should stone them to death. Don't see any of those rules, or many of the other archaic rules in leviticus, being adhered to either.

[Natoma]

Here's a good article on Howard Dean.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3908334/

p.s.: Be careful when treading on others religiousity Vince. You don't know his religious committments and beliefs.

[RussSchultz]

Originally Posted by Natoma

Here's a good article on Howard Dean.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3908334/

p.s.: Be careful when treading on others religiousity Vince. You don't know his religious committments and beliefs.

I do know he wasn't committed enough to sit through the whole service when he visited the black baptist church in North Carolina (I think) where the pictures in Newsweek (I think) were taken.

Apparently once the pictures were taken, he "had to rush off". Just like Leiberman and a few others.

As unelectable as a black woman is, I think I respect Braun the most of all the democrat hopefuls.

[Vince]

Originally Posted by Natoma

Uhm, he said that there is a significant genetic component to homosexuality, which there is. Sexuality is strongly controlled by a mixture of our genes and hormonal womb environment which in turn also affect the expression of said genes to various forms including homosexuality and heterosexuality. But they are the same, expressions of different facets of an innate human sexuality. Much the same way eye color changes, but it's just a gene for eye color. There isn't a gene for blue or green or red. Just differences in how it gets expressed.

He never said that there is a "Gay Gene" that some have and others don't. Whoever wrote the article doesn't understand biology it seems since they extrapolated that meaning.

Oh, right, criticize others for their understanding of Biology when yours is on par with a freshmen in High school.

On each Chromosome, which can be considered a form of 3 dimensional compression for linear DNA, there is encoded information which is defined as a Gene that will ultimatly produce a protein or functional RNA molecule. We can further refine this to a non-tangible 'Genetic Map' that is an information carrier that is locality dependent (at a spot called a Loci), yet variant to specific changes in the information held at said location. This is what brings about the term Allele which is a particular variation of a Gene.

What you said is utter horseshit that's on a grade 8 level my friend. There are several 'genes' known at this point (two on C15, one on C19) that code for a specific eye color (eg. Blue, Brown...) vis-a-vis regulating melanin production. While not all the genes involved have been located, the mechanics behind it are well understood and it's strictly controlled by classic transmission genetics.

So, first off you're blatantly wrong with there not being a gene for specific eye color (as there are at least 3; and how would you explain Waardenburg Syndrome?!?) and the problem with the Homosexual <-> Genetic link is that, as the author stated, it just doesn't feasibly work.

Howard Dean is wrong (as are you) because by invoking genetics it means that there is a "Gay Gene(s)" where on your linear DNA there are loci which hold information that will ultimately produce a homosexual if in one configuration, and a heterosexual if in another. Now, you can add Complexity/Chaos Theory to this and talk about how these genetic links (which by definition are encoded in a gene) have a nonlinear effect on your sexuality, but fundamentally you're left with the same argument. So, where's the Gay Gene? Where are the bp's that control sexuality?

Then it opens the door for the inevitable, Where's the Beastiality Genetic link? Do Pedophiles have a genetic basis too? And the answers for these are shit no, Life is a selfish bastard - having sex with a donkey doesn't help. Beastiality & Homosexuality are clearly inferior strategies, this is beyond debate.

Originally Posted by [url=http://gaychristianlove.tripod.com/argument.htm

Full Spirit: Holistic Gay Christian Wellness & Undestanding[/url]] It is a choice[?]

Although there is little evidents that prove the genetic cause of homosexuality, but social evident has show that almost all homosexual did not choose to be gays and lesbians.

I'll save you some time, you won't find them. There is no "genetic link" and you won't find one. The research done which have found "connections" are all fallacious when examined (and unable to be reproduced by among the most eminent facilities) and nothing more than media hype and homosexual "propaganda" for lack of better words. Rather, you'll find your causes in the "hormonal womb environment" which you identified and in other "environmental" influences that, perhaps, at a young age cause imbalances from the natural progression of an individuals biochemistry and leads them down a path wrt sexuality that becomes self-reinforcing and psychological with time. Right in line with psychology and behavioral neuroscience has been saying.

FYI: The Author is ultimately correct, perhaps you should have read up first.

The book of leviticus also forbids eating fish on days other than Friday and forbids women who are menstruating from leaving their homes until the bleeding stops. It also says if your kids disobey, you should stone them to death. Don't see any of those rules, or many of the other archaic rules in leviticus, being adhered to either.

Shit dude, I don't care what that book says myself. Yet, as I said, if you're a believer and you publically position yourself as one - perhaps you should: (a) Know what is says (eg. What you claim to believe) and (b) Adhear to it.

As far as Leviticus, it's some crazy stuff. Yet, if you're inclined to believe some of it and consider yourself a follower I'd hope you wouldn't be a hypocrite and support just the things you like. But, thats HMO.

[Vince]

Hey Natoma, as an aside, I love this website. Does this look familiar?

Originally Posted by [url=http://gaychristianlove.tripod.com/argument.htm

Full Spirit: Holistic Gay Christian Wellness & Undestanding[/url]] If we follow their logic, we would have to accept other sexual deviances, like pedephiles and incest too.

The gay issue does resemble other sexual deviance logically. But other sexual problems deal with issues like maturity, age, obsession, abuse of power, and disruption of established families. The gay issue is unique. Gays are building a new, independent kind of love between free adults. Although our logical path does seem to point to the possibility of justifying other sexual problems, arriving to the conclusion of acceptance is another matter. We will draw a line somewhere by our common sense. Just like allowing swimming suit in public does not imply accepting nudity in public, gay acceptance does not imply accepting sexual perversions.

I respect them, atleast they've thought it though - admit analogues - and propose some limitations. Which I'd agree with in praxis and when not arguing you.

[zurich]

http://www.massnews.com

Interesting website you have there Vince, heh! 8)

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by Vince

Oh, right, criticize others for their understanding of Biology when yours is on par with a freshmen in High school.

Hmmm. I spent my first year at Yale as a pre-med student and Howard Dean has been practicing medicine for decades now? Yeah, I think I'll trust our interpretations much more than yours Vince, and leave it at that.

p.s.: I notice no commentary in the "Powell says no Al-Qaeda links with Iraq" thread I started yesterday. You were so sure about that one in the "it's getting drafty thread" as well vince.

0-3 now?

[Silent_One]

Hmmm. I spent my first year at Yale as a pre-med student and Howard Dean has been practicing medicine for decades now? Yeah, I think I'll trust our interpretations much more than yours Vince, and leave it at that.

I was a biology student at the University of New Haven. The first year of General Biology 1 & 2, Chemistry 1 & 2, ect... the next year had Zoology, Organic 1 & 2, Micro biology, ect. Third year had Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy (loved the Cats!), Biochemistry, Genetics, ect...Pre-Med students did not differ too much in course selection, at least in the first two years. So, since you seem to believe your more qualfied than Vince tell us what courses did you take as a first year bio student???[/quote]

[Natoma]

The normal first year courses. Biology, Chemistry, Lab for both, and Genetics. Thing that sucked about it is that all of the science labs were up on this huge hill just outside of new haven that we had to trek to. I think it was about a mile from my dorms.

That is not fun in the new haven winter.

p.s.: I also stated Dr. Howard Dean. Now it's been several years since I've done any kind of science. I am 26 going on 27 after all. But Dr. Dean has been actively practicing for decades. So as I said, I'll trust his interpretation and mine just a tad more than Vince's in this regard.

[Silent_One]

The normal first year courses. Biology, Chemistry, Lab for both, and Genetics.

Sorry. Don't believe you.
Genetic is a complex course that would have require biology and chemistry as a prerequisite.

[Natoma]

A 4 in AP Biology is all that is required. Pretty sad. I'm the former Yale student and someone is questioning me on what is offered at Yale.

[Silent_One]

A 4 in AP Biology is all that is required. Pretty sad. I'm the former Yale student and someone is questioning me on what is offered at Yale.

Sorry to question you but it seems a 5 in the AP biology test is whats needed:
http://www.yale.edu/ycpo/ycps/A-D/biolgyFM.html

Prerequisites. The basic science courses required of all Biology majors are MCDB 120a, E&EB 122b, and either MCDB 121La or E&EB 123Lb; CHEM 113, 114, or 118a taken with their appropriate laboratories as well as two terms of organic chemistry with laboratories (CHEM 125, 126L satisfies both chemistry requirements); two terms of PHYS 150a, 151b or higher; and one term of MATH 115a or b or above, but not MATH 190a or b. Note that the prerequisites fulfill most of the usual premedical science requirements. Students in Area I may, with permission of the director of undergraduate studies, substitute three course credits in geology, engineering, or quantitative sciences for organic chemistry.

Placement. Students who have scored 710 or higher on the SAT II subject test or 5 on the Advanced Placement test in biology may be exempt from taking MCDB 120a and E&EB 122b and their associated laboratories. Students with equivalent scores on one of the corresponding chemistry tests may also be exempt from taking MCDB 120a but should first discuss their preparation in biology with one of the directors of undergraduate studies.

And that only exempts you from basic biology and chem courses which you indicate you took.

[Natoma]

Hmm. Let's see. I was a freshman when? Oh that's right, 1995-1996. Prerequisites and Curriculums do change, sometimes often.

I accelerated to junior status after I took my sophomore year off. Apparently before I got there, you couldn't use AP scores to do so. They had to be hard credits taken for instance during summer school. But yep, you sure know more about the prerequisites for Yale than I do.

p.s.: I don't have a 1995-1996 Blue Book (shorthand for the curriculum handed to all incoming freshmen) offhand so I can't put your questioning heart at rest. Lord.....

[london-boy]

Originally Posted by Natoma

Hmm. Let's see. I was a freshman when? Oh that's right, 1996. Prerequisites and Curriculums do change, sometimes often.

I accelerated to junior status after I took my sophomore year off. Apparently before I got there, you couldn't use AP scores to do so. They had to be hard credits taken for instance during summer school. But yep, you sure know more about the prerequisites for Yale than I do.

p.s.: I don't have a 1996 Blue Book (shorthand for the curriculum handed to all incoming freshmen) offhand so I can't put your questioning heart at rest. Lord.....

Well, Natoma, i'm going to need your registration number, a copy of your Degree certificate and an ID or i won't believe you, you liar!!! Just kidding...

[Natoma]

Sorry no degree certificate to offer. I dropped out at the end of my 1st semester, Junior Year, i.e. December 1998.

I don't remember my registration number, but I do have my acceptance letter and some pictures of me in the Yale Alley Cats singing group. I can scan those in to show at least I went to yale!

Holy shit I just found my Yale ID! It was sitting at the back of my wallet.

[london-boy]

Originally Posted by Natoma

Sorry no degree certificate to offer. I dropped out at the end of my 1st semester, Junior Year, i.e. December 1998.

I don't remember my registration number, but I do have my acceptance letter and some pictures of me in the Yale Alley Cats singing group. I can scan those in to show at least I went to yale!

Holy shit I just found my Yale ID! It was sitting at the back of my wallet.

No certificate!? Well, i'm sorry to say Natoma, i don't believe you... U're a failure, a drop out, how can i trust you just kidding!

[Natoma]

Blast! My attempted deceptions have been uncovered!

Sigh I admit it all. I actually never made it out of the kindergarden sandbox.

[Legion]

Originally Posted by Natoma

Sorry no degree certificate to offer. I dropped out at the end of my 1st semester, Junior Year, i.e. December 1998.

I don't remember my registration number, but I do have my acceptance letter and some pictures of me in the Yale Alley Cats singing group. I can scan those in to show at least I went to yale!

Holy shit I just found my Yale ID! It was sitting at the back of my wallet.

I don't think whether or not you went to yale and graduated is in concention. I specifically remember Silent One requesting to know your background in biology when your proport to have a more exstensive background in biology then Vince without knowing his background.

[Natoma]

Hmm. And here I thought your first reply to me would be to apologize in that other thread for flat out lying about the things I was saying, and not even caring that you were doing it. Hell, even admitting it through your sarcasm. Guess I was wrong there.



p.s.: i was responding to london-boy making a joke about me not attending yale, obviously. your misrepresentations continue even here...

[Legion]

Originally Posted by Natoma

Hmm. And here I thought your first reply to me would be to apologize in that other thread for flat out lying about the things I was saying,

Oh my, are you still going on about that rant of yours? You attempt at drawing me into an argument with you failed so you must try again? I did as i said i would, i spared myself the agony of meaningless conversation with you by ignoring what you had to say later in the thread. You had nothing to add to the topic and were deliberately vague in order to attempt at making a rather irrelevant point. I do not owe you any apologizes for misunderstanding your position (if i infact did) as your were intentionally vague.

and not even caring that you were doing it Hell, even admitting it through your sarcasm. Guess I was wrong there.

Oh my, you admit it was sarcasm and take it to be an admission of something. Clearly and Fraudian esque slip, Natoma. And here i was thinking i was mocking your suggestion if i behaved to your liking you would speak to me. Since i felt you were deliberately vague and made you well aware of that fact you ought to have assumed nothing more than repulsion at your blatant egoism.

p.s.: i was responding to london-boy making a joke about me not attending yale, obviously. your misrepresentations continue even here...

Lol hardly. I feel you are trying to divert the topic away from what was intended for you to answer. You proported to know more than Vince about this topic and yet you have done nothing to prove this but provide some anonymous authority who was infact your teacher. There are more clear implication from what Silent One was asking you then you choose to admitt. His was a challenge of your arrogance.

[jvd]

Why would we have a gay gene . It doesn't make any sense at all. Gay doesn't help the species survive . Its nothing that would have made us hunt better or find food better . Actually it would destroy our race. So i've never been one to believe all this genetic crap . I don't care if you are gay its your busniess but jsut because you are does not make it right .

[Legion]

Originally Posted by jvd

Why would we have a gay gene . It doesn't make any sense at all. Gay doesn't help the species survive . Its nothing that would have made us hunt better or find food better . Actually it would destroy our race. So i've never been one to believe all this genetic crap . I don't care if you are gay its your busniess but jsut because you are does not make it right .

of course not. Infact, we might as well classify it, if it exists, as a genetic disease and pursue treatments. If the Gay Left/Right wish to classify themselves as a negative mutation thats their business.

[Natoma]

That's funny. You said that I stated the following:

1) Iraq was capable of manufacturing it's own WMD
2) I would stay on topic
3) There is no difference between the lethal nature of Tear gas and Mustard Gas
4) I made a differentiation between Nerve Gas and Chemical Weapons
5) Information regarding Iraq's WMD programs in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s, before 1984, was viable
6) Since I said "common knowledge", I meant civilians, even though I repeatedly spoke about the UN, i.e. common knowledge at the UN
7) Other countries definitively manufactured WMD for Iraq

Every single one of those assertions was false, and I asked you in every single case to show me where I made any of those assertions. You never did do that by the way.

Now what did I do after I got fed up with it all? I asked you to stop lying about what I was saying and making up your own stories and trying to insert things into my mouth. Your response?

"Oh my, i will be blessed with your presence then? What a grand incentive."

A grand incentive to do what. Stop lying about me so we can actually have a conversation? Yea.

Originally Posted by Legion

Lol hardly. I feel you are trying to divert the topic away from what was intended for you to answer. You proported to know more than Vince about this topic and yet you have done nothing to prove this but provide some anonymous authority who was infact your teacher. There are more clear implication from what Silent One was asking you then you choose to admitt. His was a challenge of your arrogance.

Uhm, first off I never said I knew more than Vince. I said that with my knowledge, and Doctor Dean's knowledge, I would take our interpretation over Vince's, especially considering Dean has been practicing for decades. He made a comment about my level of knowledge and I responded to that in particular.

Second, I responded to Silent_One when he asked me what was up. Third, what "anonymous authority" are you talking about? Where did I mention some "anonymous authority"? Is this yet another in your long line of fabrications? Jesus you can't stop even if you wanted to can you.

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by jvd

Why would we have a gay gene . It doesn't make any sense at all. Gay doesn't help the species survive . Its nothing that would have made us hunt better or find food better . Actually it would destroy our race. So i've never been one to believe all this genetic crap . I don't care if you are gay its your busniess but jsut because you are does not make it right .

No one has said there is a "gay gene." Dean didn't say it and neither did I.