Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fwd: Section 28

Expand Messages
  • GLANCEBAK@aol.com
    Hi, I think it would not be unreasonable to say that Homophobia is ALMOST an invention of homosexuals to give them an opportunity to be militant activists.
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 1 7:57 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi,

      I think it would not be unreasonable to say that Homophobia is ALMOST an
      invention of homosexuals to give them an opportunity to be militant
      activists. Homosexuallity is the preferrence of a tiny, tiny minority who due
      to the clap-trap of Political Correctness portray themselves as a norm.

      It becomes increasingly obvious that certain jobs attract a disproportionate
      percentage of deviants, unfortunately Politics and Meeeja seem to attract a
      disproportionate percentage of homosexuals and because of this they grant
      themselves a voice which has NO relationship with reality.

      It is and will probably remain for some time uncertain whether homosexuality
      is a matter of nature or nurture, however does it matter? If one elects to
      have ones leg cut off or one is born with a leg missing or lose it in an
      accident or are induced to have a leg cut off the result is the same - you
      join the ranks of those who do not fit the 'norm' and are disabled.

      The one certainty that has come from EVERY communication I have received on
      this subject is that parents do NOT want their children propagandised at
      school nor do they want them lied to and be told that homosexuality is NORMAL.

      I reitterate there is not one example of photographic evidence of penetrative
      homosexuality in all of nature save a miniscule percentage of the human race.

      Do read some of the facts and opinion I have received which is pasted below.

      Regards,
      Greg
      << Hi Greg,

      Other studies have also shown sodomite Dr. Hamer's revelations of it is
      nature not choice to be false. Certainly, his lying for fellow sodomites has
      brought him great adulation among his ilk and has advanced the acceptance of
      sodomy. As long as we entertain his lie, none scientifically substantiated
      lies, then the disability and it's a fate of nature and all the ensuing
      benefits to sodomites continues. Read the articles below.

      Mike

      DISCLAIMER: [NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
      material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
      expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
      research andeducational purposes only. This material may not be copied or
      quoted, placed on any web site or other open forum without the express
      consent of the copyright owner.]

      >From the Washington Times, April 23, 1999

      New study challenges theory of 'gay gene' in homosexuals
      >From combined dispatches

      HIGHLIGHTED: The study concluded that "data do not support the presence of
      a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation."
      Homosexuality is not hereditary, according to a new study that casts doubt
      on the work of a National Cancer Institute researcher who claimed to have
      discovered a "gay gene. "
      "These results do not support an X-linked gene underlying male
      homosexuality," lead author Dr. George Rice, a neurologist at the University
      of Western Ontario, said of the study published today in the journal
      Science.
      The study concluded that "data do not support the presence of a gene of
      large effect influencing sexual orientation."
      Scientists at the University of Western Ontario and Stanford Medical School
      conducted the study.
      National Cancer Institute geneticist Dean Hamer made headlines in 1993 when
      he reported a study of homosexual brothers that he said showed that genes
      transmitted by the mother and situated in the Xq28 chromosome strongly
      influences homosexual orientation.
      Mr. Hamer claimed that 33 of the 40 pairs of homosexual brothers he studied
      shared certain genetic "markers" that heterosexual brothers didn't.
      But Dr. Rice, who studied homosexual brothers from 48 families in an attempt
      to replicate Mr. Hamer's research, said the men were no more likely to share
      X-linked genetic patterns than would be determined by chance.
      While Dr. Rice said the "search for genetic factors in homosexuality should
      continue," he added that, taken together, the results of different studies "
      would suggest that is there is a [genetic] linkage, it's so weak that it's
      not important."
      Mr. Hamers's "gay gene' study, which took two years and $419,000 in federal
      funds, prompted an investigation by the Department of Health and Human
      Services after other researchers raised questions about the study's
      methodology.
      Mr. Hamer is openly homosexual and in 1992 campaigned for homosexual rights
      on Colorado, saying, "Since people don't choose their genes, they can't
      possibly choose their sexual orientation."
      The new study was welcomed by conservative activists who have claimed for
      years that Mr. Hamer's research was biased and politically motivated.
      "Scientists are finally telling us what we've always known � there is
      absolutely no scientific proof of a 'gay gene,'" said Yvette Cantu, a policy
      analyst for the Family Research Council.
      "This new study reveals that Hamer's activism got in the way of his ability
      to remain unbiased about his research," Miss Cantu said in a prepared
      statement yesterday.
      Yesterday, Mr. Hamer vehemently defended his research, saying Dr. Rice's
      study "doesn't disprove" a genetic factor in sexual orientation.
      Dr. Rice's report "certainly does decrease the likelihood" of an X-linked
      gene, but isn't proof, said J. Michael Bailey of Northwestern University,
      whose 1992 research on homosexual twins suggested a genetic link.
      "I would bet a million dollars that there are going to be biological factors
      involved in sexual orientation," Mr. Bailey said, suggesting that the factor
      may be hormonal rather than genetic.
      Miss Cantu said the new study may weaken efforts by activists to gain
      protected civil rights status for homosexuality.
      "'Gay activists have used Hamer's research to promote everything from 'gay'
      marriage to 'hate crimes' legislation," Miss Cantu stated. "However, [the
      journal] Science's study further undermines any attempt to change public
      policy in his name."
      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      -----------------------------------------------------

      My Genes Made Me Do It!
      A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation

      by Neil and Briar Whitehead
      Huntington House - ISBN 1-56384-165-7
      Book review below name with held by me.
      Neil Whitehead is a research scientist with a Ph.D. in biochemistry. Briar
      is a writer. Between the two of them, they have produced a very readable
      and informative book on the relation between homosexuality, genetics, and
      biology.
      They introduce the theme of the book in (of all places) the introduction:

      "Here is a very basic truth. There is nothing fixed or final about the
      homosexual orientation and its natural expression, homosexual behavior. No
      one has to stay homosexual or lesbian, in orientation or behavior, if he or
      she doesn't want to and informed support is available.... Homosexuality is
      not inborn, not genetically dictated, not immutable. Nor, for that matter,
      is heterosexuality or any other human behavior. In fact, our genes do not
      make us do anything. Whether it's homosexuality, a foul temper, bedwetting,
      or addiction to chocolate, our genes have very little to do with it."
      They put the issue very pointedly: "If I really wanted to get to know you,
      would it help if you offered me an analysis of your DNA?"
      Genes tells us over and again that genes are too complex for one gene to
      cause one's behavior. Genes are very interdependent, no gene acting as an
      island unto itself. When animals are bred to produce a behavior, there are
      probably hundreds of genes involved over the years of selective breeding.
      There is no one gene that makes a dog a hunter or a sheep dog.
      And obviously, unless there are sheep in the environment, no amount of genes
      can make a dog a sheep dog.
      In short, a gene cannot produce a behavior. It might help equip one for a
      behavior, but cannot produce the behavior.
      Genetic mutations almost always produce deformities. There are genetic
      mutations which are known to cause disabilities, such as phenylketonuria,
      which causes mental retardation. But, "environmental intervention can get
      around the problem entirely. ...the affected person simply avoids
      phenylalanine in his diet. This environmental intervention is 100 percent
      effective."
      "We are saying that one of the most closely genetically-linked human
      behaviors known to science is certainly not determined."
      "We are saying that even if behaviors are linked (not dictated by, but
      linked) to genes, environmental interventions can greatly modify or even
      eliminate the behavior."
      Homosexuality, they explain, could hardly be caused by mutation because such
      a process would involve the sudden switching on or off of many genes in
      concert, a likelihood no geneticist takes seriously.
      Anything as complex as human behavior, with all of its social, spiritual,
      technological, political (on and on it goes) aspects simply cannot be
      explained in terms of gene theory. And that includes sexual behavior. In
      short, little, if any, of our behavior is predictable from a reading of our
      genes.
      Chapter Three raises the interesting question: Are Heterosexuals Born That
      Way? To which the answer is "no", they are not. Heterosexual behavior is a
      very complex thing which is learned from role models, not genetically
      determined. If heterosexual behavior is learned, the case for homosexual
      behavior being determined can hardly get off the ground. We are born with
      heterosexual genitalia, but masculine and feminine behavior is learned.
      Children before 5 or 6 have a notion of gender differences, i.e. that boys
      and girls act differently, but they do not typically have a clear notion of
      genital differences until 5 or 6 and later. The emotional and social roles
      of boys and girls are far more important than genital differences. At
      puberty, "the hormonal surge only eroticizes the psychological orientation
      that already exists."
      This is just a sampling of the very clear and readable response which the
      Whiteheads make to the massive disinformation being funneled into the
      western mind by a media and education system, and sadly, a religious
      community, which have little left but tattered shreds of moral and
      intellectual integrity.
      The findings of the Whiteheads, then, are consistent with what most
      ex-homosexual ministries teach-that if a child's social and emotional
      orientation has been healthy, if there have been adequate models of
      masculinity and femininity, fathering and mothering, if the child has been
      able to bond with mother and father appropriately, then the eroticizing will
      be heterosexual, with also the strong possibility of being morally and
      spiritually healthy as well. But if the child has had problems bonding with
      the same-sex parent, then the eroticizing may turn in a homosexual, or an
      unhealthy heterosexual, direction.
      In any event, the evidence presented in Genes tells us that even the obvious
      biological genitalia are not determinative of the child's attitude toward
      gender roles. The genitalia are incorporated into the already formed and
      forming sense the social and spiritual facts of manhood and womanhood. The
      boy does not discover that he is a man because he discovers his genitals.
      Rather, his understanding of his manhood will, for good or ill, tell him
      what to do with his genitals. Our already formed understanding of gender
      roles tells us what to do with the powerful experience of puberty and
      eroticizing.
      If my life is "sexualized" at puberty, or earlier by sexual abuse, then I
      will learn one lesson about my genitals. But if my life at puberty is
      undergirded by a healthy experience with manhood and womanhood, then I will
      be able to discipline my erotic drive just as any other drive and interest I
      might have. I will become a whole, integrated person.
      If that is so, then the moral and spiritual training toward becoming Godly
      men and women is far more important to our sexual orientation than our
      genes. Our genes give us the potential to be men and women of God, or-to be
      many other things. Our environment supplies the training, good or bad,
      toward some image of man- and womanhood. And our own choices make the best,
      or the worst, of what God has given us in our genes and in our parenting.
      By the grace and mercy of God, He Himself is the final Parent, who can
      retrain and reparent us to become His children, wonderful men and women of
      the Kingdom.
      My Genes Made Me Do It will arm parents and pastors, educators and
      politicians, with clear and usable responses to the subterfuge of truth, of
      righteousness, and, yes, of love, which is being perpetrated on the human
      race in the name of sexual freedom. The homosexual/pansexual battle is one
      of the most winnable battles which the Church has ever had to fight. The
      evidence is ALL on the Biblical side. Resources such as Genes makes the
      victory all the more imaginable.


      -----Original Message-----
      From: GLANCEBAK@... [mailto:GLANCEBAK@...]
      Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2000 8:03 AM
      To: dullea@...
      Subject: Re: Section 28

      In a message dated 31/01/2000 21:15:18 GMT Standard Time, dullea@...
      writes:

      << Isn't homosexuality a choice not a disability. Loosing one's legs in a
      car
      accident is a disability. >>
      Hi,

      I think the jury is still out on this one [that is probably why Jack Straw
      wants trial by jury scrapped!!!] but if you chop of your leg by choice or
      are
      born without it either way it is a disability.

      Regards,
      Gr >>



      [This message contained attachments]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.