Homosexuality Is A Birth Defect

[sbrettt]

Indeed, at this point the next logical step is for those disagreeing with the scientific presentation that homosexuality is a birth defect to post current science links in refutation, something no one has even attempted, though not surprisingly.

And, now it's time to wait for the new birth defect reality of homosexuality discovery to be supported by more scientists, and to post those links in this thread.

That ideologues are still whining about the obvious birth defect reality of homosexuality is indeed sad .. and one would think they'd have let that compulsive knee-jerk reaction go some time ago.

I haven't seen you post anything scientific so I don't know what you're going on about.

 

[CLAX1911]

its funny that the OP is the only one that thinks he posts facts. Watching every poster here come in and point out that he didnt and that his assumption is wrong is hilarious.

This has to be one of the largest beat-downs a false and delusional post has ever taken. Its epic watching it get destroyed more and more everyday LOL

He seems to be a Brian Fischer fan. More power to him, but his point isn't valid based on that one link, Brian Fischer isn't anything but a talk show host. He is Murry pulvitch, sans the degrees.

 

[CLAX1911]

I haven't seen you post anything scientific so I don't know what you're going on about.

This is all he has
Bryan Fischer: Homosexuality May Be A 'Birth Defect' That Could Lead Parents To Abort Children
That even says MAY be, that isn't a fact, its just a hunch.

Ontology had been claiming his sources prove his case and they clearly don't. He is beaten he just doesn't know how to say, "okay you are right"

 

[sbrettt]

This is all he has
Bryan Fischer: Homosexuality May Be A 'Birth Defect' That Could Lead Parents To Abort Children
That even says MAY be, that isn't a fact, its just a hunch.

Ontology had been claiming his sources prove his case and they clearly don't. He is beaten he just doesn't know how to say, "okay you are right"

And that's about the most lacking of credibility source you could site on this topic.

 

[winston53660]

Backing me against what?

Your claim that homosexuality is a birth defect.

Meaningless ideologue whining?

No, we are not talking about your posts. We are talking about your claims and their validity.

Replace all the whining with solid scientific links that currently refute the birth defect reality of homosexuality .. if you can.

First you would have to post a scientific link claiming being gay is a birth defect.

 

[CLAX1911]

And that's about the most lacking of credibility source you could site on this topic.

Indeed, what does that tell you about ontologuy?

Her only really referenced that source and he said it was fact, the source gives ambiguity to the statement that ontologuy stated.

 

[sbrettt]

Indeed, what does that tell you about ontologuy?

Her only really referenced that source and he said it was fact, the source gives ambiguity to the statement that ontologuy stated.

He's presenting speculation as absolute fact.

 

[Quag]

He's presenting speculation as absolute fact.

Actually I think he's just hoping that if he repeats the lie often enough people will believe him. Someone should tell him that only works when there isn't 10X the number of people pointing out the lie

 

[CLAX1911]

He's presenting speculation as absolute fact.

Exactly, other words, he is a charlatan.

 

[Verthaine]

Exactly, other words, he is a charlatan.

Worse.
Charlatans are at least entertaining.

I believe what he's doing is refered to as "bullcrap".
That would make him a "bullcrap artist".

 

[Ontologuy]

The immediately preceding 18 posts in this thread illustrate just how difficult it is for people to accept new realities that challenge their previous ideological worldview.

This is understandable, just as it is understandable that the church was challenged 500 years ago when obviously solid scientific presentation revealed that Earth revolved aound Sun, not the other way around, challenging the prevailing ideological doctrine of the time.

I'm perfectly willing to accept the personal criticism flung my way by those of the two strange-bedfellow political-wing prevailing ideological mindsets on this issue, within forum guidelines of course, as the scientific revelation presented in the OP is less than just six months old, and until more scientists weigh in in support of this scientific revelation, employing the obviously accurate term "birth defect", it is completely understandable that those vested in their worldview and agenda will rage against both the scientific revelation and those who present it, the scientific revelation that shatters their worldview making them feel understandably painfully insecure about their personal and political agendas.

The right thing to do now as time passes is to keep an eye out on the internet for scientists also employing the scientific method of discernment and link to their comments on the matter for discussion.

That's similar to how the matter of which heavenly body revolves around which was finally put to rest way back then, and it will again be the method by which this issue will be concluded as well.

The church initially didn't like how the matter was obviously resolved then, in favor of the initial science that posited the accurate conclusion.

But, the church adjusted .. eventually accepting reality .. and found that there were great benefits to accepting that reality.

Likely that will be the case here as well.

 

[Zyphlin]

The immediately preceding 18 posts in this thread illustrate just how difficult it is for people to accept new realities that challenge their previous ideological worldview.

Only when the things they're being "challenged" with are idiotic rantings, assumptions presented as if they're fact, bunk science, and things that have largely been refuted expertly by individuals such a Captain Courtesy all thread long while you've failed, repeated, to actually provide legitimate worth while sicence.

Yeah, it's really dififcult for people to accept those types of things because they actually have a rational thinking brain that' doesn't latch onto whatever ridiculous bunk science fits their desire to castigate an entire group of people that they've shown a historic pattern of attempting to deman, belittle, and degrade.

 

[joko104]

I figured you out. You like the attention. Why else would someone be as intentionally gauche as you are being? You deliberately chose to interpret the evidence by calling it a "defect" despite having no evidence of the harm allegedly inherent in being gay. You wanted to bait people and to hide behind a facade of caring about the truth. But the truth is you have an agenda that makes you far from objective. You believe you can get people to treat gay people better by declaring there is something wrong with them and people should feel sorry for them. But that is likely just another ruse you are using to justify your attempts to denigrate and belittle gay people.

:thumbs: I think you are 100% exactly correct.

 

[Ontologuy]

Only when the things they're being "challenged" with are idiotic rantings, assumptions presented as if they're fact, bunk science, and things that have largely been refuted expertly by individuals such a Captain Courtesy all thread long while you've failed, repeated, to actually provide legitimate worth while sicence. Yeah, it's really dififcult for people to accept those types of things because they actually have a rational thinking brain that' doesn't latch onto whatever ridiculous bunk science fits their desire to castigate an entire group of people that they've shown a historic pattern of attempting to deman, belittle, and degrade.

If the OP links to Rice and his scientific team that present the epigenetic abnormality, that occurs during gestation that creates the cross-purposes defect in the relationship between one's physical sex and one's neuropsychological attracted-to gender, is "bunk" science, as you say, you should be able to easily link to obviously scientific presentations that refute these scientists and their scientific revelation.

So .. where are your scientific refutation links?

You do have them, right?

Don't you?

I mean, if the OP is truly "bunk" science and not a major epigenetic breakthrough in the etiology of homosexuality and transsexuality, you should easily be able to find scientific refutation links about it, right, with little effort at all, right?

And, until you do trot out those truly scientific refuation links, it is truly fair to say that you're really just illustrating by example the reaction typical of ideologues as I posted immediately previous in post 461 above.

 

[CLAX1911]

If the OP links to Rice and his scientific team that present the epigenetic abnormality, that occurs during gestation that creates the cross-purposes defect in the relationship between one's physical sex and one's neuropsychological attracted-to gender, is "bunk" science, as you say, you should be able to easily link to obviously scientific presentations that refute these scientists and their scientific revelation.

So .. where are your scientific refutation links?

You do have them, right?

Don't you?

I mean, if the OP is truly "bunk" science and not a major epigenetic breakthrough in the etiology of homosexuality and transsexuality, you should easily be able to find scientific refutation links about it, right, with little effort at all, right?

And, until you do trot out those truly scientific refuation links, it is truly fair to say that you're really just illustrating by example the reaction typical of ideologues as I posted immediately previous in post 461 above.

You never presented any science that supports your statement. There is nothing to refute. Brian Fischer's assumptions are nonsense.

 

[Ontologuy]

You never presented any science that supports your statement. There is nothing to refute. Brian Fischer's assumptions are nonsense.

That's what's kind of amusing about you reality denialists ..

.. That you act as if you either didn't grasp or completely ignored the first seven links in the OP that were nothing but topically relevant scientific presentations ..

.. Then you state in association with that lack of grasp or puposefully ignoring that "there's no science in the OP to attempt to refute" when that's clearly and obviously not true ..

.. And then you focus only on the eighth link of the OP where I presented what I myself called a "strange exception" to typical ideologue behavior on the right wing in Brian Fischer's take on the scientific implications, whereby you excuse your lack of grasp or purposeful ignoring of the obviously solid scientific presentations of the first seven links in the OP so that you can then state "it's all bogus -- there is no science there".

Do you see where there are errors and incongruencies in your presentation here?

Do you really expect to be successful in misleading the public as you're attempting?

Do you not expect people, casual readers passing this way from a Google search, who read the OP and all its links not to realize you're just blowing smoke here?

It really does behoove those making obviously erroneous comments about the OP and its content to realize that the average person passing this way is simply not as gullible as ideologues, left and right, would like to imagine him or her to be.

Most of them, they see right throuh the ideological smokescreen that all the ideologues are attempting to throw up.

 

[Quag]

That's what's kind of amusing about you reality denialists ..

.. That you act as if you either didn't grasp or completely ignored the first seven links in the OP that were nothing but topically relevant scientific presentations ..

.. Then you state in association with that lack of grasp or puposefully ignoring that "there's no science in the OP to attempt to refute" when that's clearly and obviously not true ..

.. And then you focus only on the eighth link of the OP where I presented what I myself called a "strange exception" to typical ideologue behavior on the right wing in Brian Fischer's take on the scientific implications, whereby you excuse your lack of grasp or purposeful ignoring of the obviously solid scientific presentations of the first seven links in the OP so that you can then state "it's all bogus -- there is no science there".

Do you see where there are errors and incongruencies in your presentation here?

Do you really expect to be successful in misleading the public as you're attempting?

Do you not expect people, casual readers passing this way from a Google search, who read the OP and all its links not to realize you're just blowing smoke here?

It really does behoove those making obviously erroneous comments about the OP and its content to realize that the average person passing this way is simply not as gullible as ideologues, left and right, would like to imagine him or her to be.

Most of them, they see right throuh the ideological smokescreen that all the ideologues are attempting to throw up.

Bolded part had nothing to do with your claims therefore your have presented no scientific proof of your claims. It is the same if I post links to scientific papers on micro climate changes on the common dove, then claim they show that turtles are shown to be less predisposed to homosexuality when their microclimate changes. Yes they are scientific papers but they have nothing to do with turtles!

 

[CLAX1911]

That's what's kind of amusing about you reality denialists ..

.. That you act as if you either didn't grasp or completely ignored the first seven links in the OP that were nothing but topically relevant scientific presentations ..

.. Then you state in association with that lack of grasp or puposefully ignoring that "there's no science in the OP to attempt to refute" when that's clearly and obviously not true ..

.. And then you focus only on the eighth link of the OP where I presented what I myself called a "strange exception" to typical ideologue behavior on the right wing in Brian Fischer's take on the scientific implications, whereby you excuse your lack of grasp or purposeful ignoring of the obviously solid scientific presentations of the first seven links in the OP so that you can then state "it's all bogus -- there is no science there".

Do you see where there are errors and incongruencies in your presentation here?

Do you really expect to be successful in misleading the public as you're attempting?

Do you not expect people, casual readers passing this way from a Google search, who read the OP and all its links not to realize you're just blowing smoke here?

It really does behoove those making obviously erroneous comments about the OP and its content to realize that the average person passing this way is simply not as gullible as ideologues, left and right, would like to imagine him or her to be.

Most of them, they see right throuh the ideological smokescreen that all the ideologues are attempting to throw up.

The eight link was the only one that called it a birth defect. You can call me all the buzz word names you want, it doesn't make your post any more valid. You claimed homosexuality was a birth defect, you did not support that with facts. You just assumed.

 

[Strucker]

If the OP links to Rice and his scientific team that present the epigenetic abnormality, that occurs during gestation that creates the cross-purposes defect in the relationship between one's physical sex and one's neuropsychological attracted-to gender, is "bunk" science, as you say, you should be able to easily link to obviously scientific presentations that refute these scientists and their scientific revelation.

So .. where are your scientific refutation links?

You do have them, right?

Don't you?

I mean, if the OP is truly "bunk" science and not a major epigenetic breakthrough in the etiology of homosexuality and transsexuality, you should easily be able to find scientific refutation links about it, right, with little effort at all, right?

And, until you do trot out those truly scientific refuation links, it is truly fair to say that you're really just illustrating by example the reaction typical of ideologues as I posted immediately previous in post 461 above.

!. Nowhere in the paper does it explicitly claim "birth defect"...that's your analysis of the findings.

2. A single scientific paper is not a "breakthrough" until it has been vetted, discussed, debated by other scientists.

 

[Ontologuy]

Bolded part had nothing to do with your claims therefore your have presented no scientific proof of your claims. It is the same if I post links to scientific papers on micro climate changes on the common dove, then claim they show that turtles are shown to be less predisposed to homosexuality when their microclimate changes. Yes they are scientific papers but they have nothing to do with turtles!

The eight link was the only one that called it a birth defect. You can call me all the buzz word names you want, it doesn't make your post any more valid. You claimed homosexuality was a birth defect, you did not support that with facts. You just assumed.

!. Nowhere in the paper does it explicitly claim "birth defect"...that's your analysis of the findings. 2. A single scientific paper is not a "breakthrough" until it has been vetted, discussed, debated by other scientists.

I can understand where you all aren't likely to trust me. After all, I'm the one who presented in the OP the current scientific thinking on the etiology of homosexuality, and I know you find the current scientific thinking unsettling.

But, it is the current scientific thinking, based on a very solid epigenetic model about which there is presently no rational scientific conjecture, lacking only further validation by additional scientific teams to be universally embraced and a proposed prevention a la that which, as the OP presented, drastically reduced the incidence of spina bifida, to begin having the same effect on drastically reducing the incidence of homosexuality.

As to the applicability of the term "birth defect" to this epigenetic model's etiology of homosexuality, there are basically some questions that have to be asked and answered, and, if most or all of these questions are answered in the affimative, there's simply no reasonable doubt that this etiology describes a birth defect.

Presented as applicable statements, these questions are as follows:

As the OP's accurate science links presented:

1. Homosexuality is not a conscious choice and not a genetic trait, but is epigentically inculcated.

2. The epigenetic mechanism that causes homosexuality is abnormal.

3. Epigenetic malfunction abnormalities occur during gestation, causing birth defects.

4. The abnormal epigenetic mechanism that causes homosexuality occurs during gestation and is present at birth.

5. The condition of homosexuality is having a physiological sex that is at abnormal and defective cross-purposes with one's neuropsychological attracted-to gender, reflected in physiological brain abnormalities, and creating an intrinsic misery.

Because all five questions are, without any rational conjecture, accurately answered in the affirmative, from the perspective of this current epigenetic scientific thinking on the etiology of homosexuality, homosexuality can clearly, without any rational conjecture whatsoever, be accurately categorized as a birth defect.

It can't possibly be a "variant", as the term "variant" in this situation would be applicable to genetics, and this scientific model reflecting current thinking is epigenetically based, not genetically based.

Really, there's simply no question that, if this epigenetic model continues to lack scientific refutation and continues to receive scientific validation, it will not only be the breakthrough it appears to be in finally pinpointing the etiology of homosexuality, homosexuality will, without question, then be accurately categorized as a birth defect.

Then, when the proposed preventions of this epigenetic malfunction are created, such as giving the pregnant woman specific vitamins/supplements/etc., and implementing these preventions begins to drastically reduce the incidence of homosexuality, that won't rationally be a "eugenics" controversy, and it won't be because simply preventing a birth defect does not a eugenics issue make.

 

[Bonzai]

I can understand where you all aren't likely to trust me. After all, I'm the one who presented in the OP the current scientific thinking on the etiology of homosexuality, and I know you find the current scientific thinking unsettling.

But, it is the current scientific thinking, based on a very solid epigenetic model about which there is presently no rational scientific conjecture, lacking only further validation by additional scientific teams to be universally embraced and a proposed prevention a la that which, as the OP presented, drastically reduced the incidence of spina bifida, to begin having the same effect on drastically reducing the incidence of homosexuality.

As to the applicability of the term "birth defect" to this epigenetic model's etiology of homosexuality, there are basically some questions that have to be asked and answered, and, if most or all of these questions are answered in the affimative, there's simply no reasonable doubt that this etiology describes a birth defect.

Presented as applicable statements, these questions are as follows:

As the OP's accurate science links presented:

1. Homosexuality is not a conscious choice and not a genetic trait, but is epigentically inculcated.

2. The epigenetic mechanism that causes homosexuality is abnormal.

3. Epigenetic malfunction abnormalities occur during gestation, causing birth defects.

4. The abnormal epigenetic mechanism that causes homosexuality occurs during gestation and is present at birth.

5. The condition of homosexuality is having a physiological sex that is at abnormal and defective cross-purposes with one's neuropsychological attracted-to gender, reflected in physiological brain abnormalities, and creating an intrinsic misery.

Because all five questions are, without any rational conjecture, accurately answered in the affirmative, from the perspective of this current epigenetic scientific thinking on the etiology of homosexuality, homosexuality can clearly, without any rational conjecture whatsoever, be accurately categorized as a birth defect.

It can't possibly be a "variant", as the term "variant" in this situation would be applicable to genetics, and this scientific model reflecting current thinking is epigenetically based, not genetically based.

Really, there's simply no question that, if this epigenetic model continues to lack scientific refutation and continues to receive scientific validation, it will not only be the breakthrough it appears to be in finally pinpointing the etiology of homosexuality, homosexuality will, without question, then be accurately categorized as a birth defect.

Then, when the proposed preventions of this epigenetic malfunction are created, such as giving the pregnant woman specific vitamins/supplements/etc., and implementing these preventions begins to drastically reduce the incidence of homosexuality, that won't rationally be a "eugenics" controversy, and it won't be because simply preventing a birth defect does not a eugenics issue make.

"Creating an intrinsic misery"..................Epic fail.................It's worth it.........................

 

[winston53660]

1. Homosexuality is not a conscious choice and not a genetic trait, but is epigentically inculcated.

.

Scientists may have finally solved the puzzle of what makes a person gay, and how it is passed from parents to their children.


A group of scientists suggested Tuesday that homosexuals get that trait from their opposite-sex parents: A lesbian will almost always get the trait from her father, while a gay man will get the trait from his mother.

Scientists May Have Finally Unlocked Puzzle of Why People Are Gay - US News and World Report

your lilnk

 

[CLAX1911]

I can understand where you all aren't likely to trust me. After all, I'm the one who presented in the OP the current scientific thinking on the etiology of homosexuality, and I know you find the current scientific thinking unsettling.

But, it is the current scientific thinking, based on a very solid epigenetic model about which there is presently no rational scientific conjecture, lacking only further validation by additional scientific teams to be universally embraced and a proposed prevention a la that which, as the OP presented, drastically reduced the incidence of spina bifida, to begin having the same effect on drastically reducing the incidence of homosexuality.

As to the applicability of the term "birth defect" to this epigenetic model's etiology of homosexuality, there are basically some questions that have to be asked and answered, and, if most or all of these questions are answered in the affimative, there's simply no reasonable doubt that this etiology describes a birth defect.

Presented as applicable statements, these questions are as follows:

As the OP's accurate science links presented:

1. Homosexuality is not a conscious choice and not a genetic trait, but is epigentically inculcated.

2. The epigenetic mechanism that causes homosexuality is abnormal.

3. Epigenetic malfunction abnormalities occur during gestation, causing birth defects.

4. The abnormal epigenetic mechanism that causes homosexuality occurs during gestation and is present at birth.

5. The condition of homosexuality is having a physiological sex that is at abnormal and defective cross-purposes with one's neuropsychological attracted-to gender, reflected in physiological brain abnormalities, and creating an intrinsic misery.

Because all five questions are, without any rational conjecture, accurately answered in the affirmative, from the perspective of this current epigenetic scientific thinking on the etiology of homosexuality, homosexuality can clearly, without any rational conjecture whatsoever, be accurately categorized as a birth defect.

It can't possibly be a "variant", as the term "variant" in this situation would be applicable to genetics, and this scientific model reflecting current thinking is epigenetically based, not genetically based.

Really, there's simply no question that, if this epigenetic model continues to lack scientific refutation and continues to receive scientific validation, it will not only be the breakthrough it appears to be in finally pinpointing the etiology of homosexuality, homosexuality will, without question, then be accurately categorized as a birth defect.

Then, when the proposed preventions of this epigenetic malfunction are created, such as giving the pregnant woman specific vitamins/supplements/etc., and implementing these preventions begins to drastically reduce the incidence of homosexuality, that won't rationally be a "eugenics" controversy, and it won't be because simply preventing a birth defect does not a eugenics issue make.

There is nothing defective about being gay. It can't be a a defect if you can't explain what makes it defective.

This debate hasn't been about epigenetics or science or any of that, out has to do with you're evaluation of homosexuality. That isn't scientifically proven because something can't be a defect if it isn't defective.

Stop your dodging and distraction with your science that doesn't support your claim and prove homosexuality is*defective.

 

[Bonzai]

I can understand where you all aren't likely to trust me. After all, I'm the one who presented in the OP the current scientific thinking on the etiology of homosexuality, and I know you find the current scientific thinking unsettling.

But, it is the current scientific thinking, based on a very solid epigenetic model about which there is presently no rational scientific conjecture, lacking only further validation by additional scientific teams to be universally embraced and a proposed prevention a la that which, as the OP presented, drastically reduced the incidence of spina bifida, to begin having the same effect on drastically reducing the incidence of homosexuality.

As to the applicability of the term "birth defect" to this epigenetic model's etiology of homosexuality, there are basically some questions that have to be asked and answered, and, if most or all of these questions are answered in the affimative, there's simply no reasonable doubt that this etiology describes a birth defect.

Presented as applicable statements, these questions are as follows:

As the OP's accurate science links presented:

1. Homosexuality is not a conscious choice and not a genetic trait, but is epigentically inculcated.

2. The epigenetic mechanism that causes homosexuality is abnormal.

3. Epigenetic malfunction abnormalities occur during gestation, causing birth defects.

4. The abnormal epigenetic mechanism that causes homosexuality occurs during gestation and is present at birth.

5. The condition of homosexuality is having a physiological sex that is at abnormal and defective cross-purposes with one's neuropsychological attracted-to gender, reflected in physiological brain abnormalities, and creating an intrinsic misery.

Because all five questions are, without any rational conjecture, accurately answered in the affirmative, from the perspective of this current epigenetic scientific thinking on the etiology of homosexuality, homosexuality can clearly, without any rational conjecture whatsoever, be accurately categorized as a birth defect.

It can't possibly be a "variant", as the term "variant" in this situation would be applicable to genetics, and this scientific model reflecting current thinking is epigenetically based, not genetically based.

Really, there's simply no question that, if this epigenetic model continues to lack scientific refutation and continues to receive scientific validation, it will not only be the breakthrough it appears to be in finally pinpointing the etiology of homosexuality, homosexuality will, without question, then be accurately categorized as a birth defect.

Then, when the proposed preventions of this epigenetic malfunction are created, such as giving the pregnant woman specific vitamins/supplements/etc., and implementing these preventions begins to drastically reduce the incidence of homosexuality, that won't rationally be a "eugenics" controversy, and it won't be because simply preventing a birth defect does not a eugenics issue make.

Homosexuals survived millenia of the collective madness known as monotheism. Eugenics ? Bring it on..........................

 

[winston53660]

In 1992, the American Psychiatric Association, recognizing the power of the stigma against homosexuality, issued the following statement, reaffirmed by the Board of Trustees, July 2011: "Whereas homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) calls on all international health organizations, psychiatric organizations, and individual psychiatrists in other countries to urge the repeal in their own countries of legislation that penalizes homosexual acts by consenting adults in private. Further, APA calls on these organizations and individuals to do all that is possible to decrease the stigma related to homosexuality wherever and whenever it may occur."[22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia