Fwd: Section 28
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.
<< 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.
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, 1999New study challenges theory of 'gay gene' in homosexuals
>From combined dispatchesHIGHLIGHTED: 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
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
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
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
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
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
"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
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
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
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
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.
From: GLANCEBAK@... [mailto:GLANCEBAK@...]
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2000 8:03 AM
Subject: Re: Section 28
In a message dated 31/01/2000 21:15:18 GMT Standard Time, dullea@...
<< Isn't homosexuality a choice not a disability. Loosing one's legs in a
accident is a disability. >>
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
born without it either way it is a disability.
[This message contained attachments]