Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.tv.simpsons » Re: Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic
Re: Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic [message #232781] Mo, 13 März 2006 10:57
Dolf Boek  
A Church Service was held at Saint Andrews, Sydney on 13 March 2006 to
celebrate the British Commonwealth comprising some 72 nations. Included
within this service was an affirmation of 6 clauses that were undertaken by
representatives of various communities of faith.

I do not presently have a copy of such affirmation, but one would like to
draw attention to its obvious comparison to Article 16 proscribing an
eclessiastical oath -- Concordat Between the Holy See & the German Reich
July 20, 1933.

If one considers that according to the German Philosopher Kant, that the
notion of 'heterosexual' within the 4 Nuremberg Laws is a CATEGORICAL
IMPERATIVE {ie. The Nazi party denounced homosexuality as detrimental to
natural population growth, and harmful to the nation's strength and family
life. [Ref: © 1997, The Simon Wiesenthal Center]: "Before God and on the
Holy Gospels I swear and promise as becomes a bishop, loyalty to the German
Reich and to the State of . . . I swear and promise to honor the legally
constituted Government and to cause the clergy of my diocese to honor it. In
the performance of my spiritual office and in my solicitude for the welfare
and the interests of the German Reich, I will endeavor to avoid all
detrimental acts which might endanger it." [Article 16 proscribing an
eclessiastical oath -- Concordat Between the Holy See & the German Reich
July 20, 1933]

Following such Concordat, there was in 30 June 1934, a Party Purge as the
'Nacht der Langen Messer (Night of the Long Knives)'

THUS WE MAY SEE THAT ROMAN CATHOLIC ATTITUDES TOWARDS HOMOSEXUALITY AS
'DETRIMENTAL TO FAMILY LIFE' IS IDENTICAL TO THE CLAIM TO PIETY AS
PRESCRIBED IN THE CONCORDANT BETWEEN THE PAPACY AND THE GERMAN REICH.

} expressing an unnecessary repetition of an idea, especially in the other
words 'marry/intercourse' are included within the immediate context, which
fails to impart any additional force or clearness. In that, as a categorical
imperative, it already conveys a notion of self preservation, integrity,
civility and decency as a logical proposition, and can therefore be shown
that the conceptualisation of State or Commonwealth, already includes such a
possibility.

Adolf Hitler's 4 Nuremberg Laws were 'the first draft of the death warrant
that led to the demise of one-third of world Jewry, these laws determined
who would live and who would die.'

- ENDED THE RIGHT OF JEWS TO MARRY FREELY

(YANG/FATHER - Formula of Universal Law as Sovereignty: #1 - Nature contains
Nature {#4 - Nature amended in its Nature}) says: "Act as if the maxim of
thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature."

- ENDED THE RIGHT OF JEWS TO HAVE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE FREELY

(YIN/MOTHER - Formula of Humanity as Head of State: #2 - Nature rejoices in
its Nature {#5 - Act of Nature}) says: "Act that you use humanity, whether
in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as
an end, never merely as a means."

- ENDED THE RIGHT OF JEWS TO EMPLOY OR BE EMPLOYED FREELY

(ZHUN/SON - Formula of Autonomy as Individual: #3 - Nature surmounts Nature
{#6 - Form of Nature}) is a synthesis of the first two. It says that we
should so act that we may think of ourselves as legislating universal laws
through our maxims, in a possible Kingdom of Ends. We may think of ourselves
as such autonomous legislators only insofar as we follow our own laws.

- ENDED THE RIGHT OF JEWS TO DISPLAY/SERVE THE NATION'S FLAG FREELY

(ONE - Formula of Progression: #4 - Nature amended in its Nature {#7 -
Engendering Nature}) as a progressive adaptation within its sphere of
operation.

So you've now come to realise that the religious belief professed by "RoB
WADe" <rob_c_wade_2 [at] yahoo.com> has being axiomatic, no basis in fact, is a
lie and a delusion which shares no common ground with the Judaeo-Christian
everlasting covenant--That such individual is typically engaging in inpunity
of the autonomous, sovereign, common law and constitutional rights of
others.

It is a deceptive, fallacious, religious and political mantra: "Family
First" which is advanced as a claim to piety, in that it is an autonomous
right which is affirmed by the three propositions in Kant's practical
syllogism as an autonomous, sovereign, common law and constitutional right
and not the bestowal of piety to the act of begetting {Heb. Yalad: Yod (#10)
Lamed (#30) Daleth (#4) = #44 - Moderate Values/ Setting Up Precepts}:

"A state (civitus) is a union of a multitude of human beings under laws of
right. Insofar as these are a priori necessary as laws, that is, insofar as
they follow themselves from concepts of external right as such (are not
statutory), its form is the form of the state as such, that is, of the state
in idea, as it ought to be in accordance with pure principles of right. This
idea serves as a norm (norma) for every actual union into a commonwealth
(hence serves as a norm for its internal constitution).

Every state contains three authorities within it, that is, the general
united will consists of three persons (trias politica):

1. the sovereign authority (sovereignty) in the person of the legislator;
2. the executive authority (eg: Head of State) in the person of the ruler
(in conformity to the law); and
3. the judicial authority (to award to each what is his in accordance with
the law) in the person of the judge (potestas legislatoria, rectoria et
inudiciaria).

These are like the three propositions in a practical syllogism: the major
premise YANG/FATHER - Formula of Universal Law}, which contains the law of
that will; the minor premise {YIN/MOTHER - Formula of Humanity}, which
contains the command to behave in accordance with the law, that is, the
principle of subsumption under the law; and the conclusion {ZHUN/SON -
Formula of Autonomy}, which contains the verdict (sentence), what is laid
down as right in the case at hand." ([Copyright © 1996 Cambridge Texts in
the History of Philosophy, Kant 1724-1804, The Doctrine of Right, The
Metaphysics of Morals, para 45])

A categorical imperative such as self preservation, integrity, civility and
decency are therefore all instances of unconditional obligations; that may
also be considered the theological equivalent notion to angels or daemons.
In that it has the force of an obligation regardless of our will, desires or
whims and which is contrasted to an hypothetical imperative. Kant's
categorical imperative was formulated in three ways, which he believed to be
roughly equivalent (although many commentators do not) to the three
propositions in his practical syllogism:

a) The first formulation (YANG/FATHER - Formula of Universal Law as
Sovereignty: #1 - Nature contains Nature {#4 - Nature amended in its
Nature}) says: "Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will
a universal law of nature."

b) The second formulation (YIN/MOTHER - Formula of Humanity as Head of
State: #2 - Nature rejoices in its Nature {#5 - Act of Nature}) says: "Act
that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any
other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means."

c) The third formulation (ZHUN/SON - Formula of Autonomy as Individual:
#3 - Nature surmounts Nature {#6 - Form of Nature}) is a synthesis of the
first two. It says that we should so act that we may think of ourselves as
legislating universal laws through our maxims, in a possible Kingdom of
Ends. We may think of ourselves as such autonomous legislators only insofar
as we follow our own laws. ([Wikipedia, free encyclopedia discussion of
German philosopher Immanuel Kant (April 22, 1724 - February 12, 1804)])

This may be augmented by a fourth formulation (ONE as Formula of
Progression: #4 - Nature amended in its Nature {#7 - Engendering Nature}) as
a progressive adaptation within its sphere of operation.

A comment needs to be made, as to the purpose, function and differences
between the traditional DAOIST/TORAH (Pythagorean) A-U-M worldview of the
religious/political Mysteries associated to both the Tetragrammation of
Number (Sephirot) obtained from yarrow sticks/stones {ie. According to Yang
Hsiung's (53 BCE to 18 CE) tetragram system, each four-line glyph has 3
possibilities {ie. 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 = #81} whose component parts are read from
top to bottom, comprising either:

(3) an unbroken line correlated to YANG/FATHER {+ 0, 27, 54};
(9) a line broken once representing YIN/MOTHER {+ 0, 9, 18}; and
(27) a line broken twice symbolising ZHUN/SON {+ 0, 3, 6}
(81) as its culturing as that which organises {ie. within its sphere/ONE
within FAMILY: + 0, 81, 9(9²+1)/2 = #369} the myriad of individual phenomena
(WAN WU): + 1, 2, 3} = Tetragrammation hierarchy value.

"The Mystery gives birth to two divine images. The two divine images give
birth to the spherical [universe]. The cosmic sphere gives birth to Three
Models [of Heaven-Earth-Man]. The Three Models give birth to the Nine
Positions. The Mystery in having the model 'One' {ie. YANG/FATHER {+ 0, 27 -
Paradoxes of the Greatest Skill/ Function of Skill, 54 - Culturing
Perspectives/ Cultivation of Intuition}} attains to Heaven. Therefore, we
say of it that it 'has Heaven [in it].' The Mystery in having the model
'Two' {ie. YIN/MOTHER {+ 0, 9 - Inconstancy of Achievement/ Practising
Placidity, 18 - Origin of Ethical Concepts/ Palliation of Vulgarity}}
attains to Earth. Therefore, we say of it that it 'has Earth [in it]'. The
Mystery in having the model 'Three' {ie. ZHUN/SON {+ 0, 3 - Prescriptions
for Politics/ Keeping the People Quiet, 6 - Superiority of the Female/
Completion of Form}} attains to Man. Therefore, we say of it that it 'has
Man [in it]'.

The sage investigates changes in the moon's appearance and location, as well
as departures from its orbit {ie. The term TS'E NI means 'to lose the
regular course' where for every 19 years there must be 7 intercalary months
(Heaven's Compensation) and presumably may include irregularities such as
eclipses:

"Heaven and Earth face each other. Sun and moon are in conjunction. Mountain
and valley flow into one another. Light and heavy float on one another. Yin
and Yang succeed one another. High and low rank do not defile one another."

}. He only finds a norm in the constant sequence of sun and moon, and in the
order of male and female. He makes them the canonical model for all
eternity. Therefore, the Mystery in grand fashion comprises Heaven's
Origins, binding and securing it to what is to come.

The Mystery works with multiples of six and nine. The divining stalks use
three times six (ie. 18). The Priniciples of Heaven and Earth uses two times
nine (also = 18). The Mystery certainly does use eighteen as a base then!
The Grand Accumulation Sum begins with 18 - 'Origin of Ethical Concepts/
Palliation of Vulgarity' divining stalks and ends with 54 - 'Culturing
Perspectives/ Cultivation of Intuition'. If we add the numbers that
correspond to the beginning and end of the stalks, 18 + 54 = #72 -
'Self-Love/ Holding Oneself Dear', we halve it to make the Grand Centre {=
36 - Natural Reversals/ 'Secret' Explanation; Tallying the vertical axis
produces:

#1 - To Guide with Names/ Reason's Realisation,

Categorical Imperative: (#27 - Paradoxes of the Greatest Skill/ Function of
Skill + #9 - Inconstancy of Achievement/ Practising Placidity + #3 -
Prescriptions for Politics/ Keeping the People Quiet + #2 - Contrast of
Terms/ Self-Culture) = #41 - Playing with Reversal/ Sameness in Difference
(Septet form 9(9²+1)/2 = #369 as Centre = 13 to 17 September; with New Moon
18 September 2001 = 1 Tishri 5762 as 122J3W2D) ,

Categorical Imperative: (#54 - Culturing Perspectives/ Cultivation of
Intuition + #18 - Origin of Ethical Concepts/ Palliation of Vulgarity + #6 -
Superiority of the Female/ Completion of Form + #3 - Prescriptions for
Politics/ Keeping the People Quiet) = #81 - Making the Essence Clear/
Propounding the Essential

It is these two imperatives, which both the Torah [Deuteronomy 6:5;
Leviticus 19:18] and Jesus of Nazareth affirm are the essential substance of
the Law and the Prophets: "Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a
question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment
in the law? Jesus {He is saved; a deliverer; a saviour} said unto him, Thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and
with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second
is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two
commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

While the Pharisees {ie. within the contemporaneous Dead Sea Scrolls as
Flattery Seekers} were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What
think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David
{well beloved; dear}. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call
him Lord, saying, The LORD-YHWH said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right
hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord,
how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst
any man from that day forth ask him any more questions." [Matthew 22:35-46]
(KJV circa 1611 CE)

Therefore, the following comment by Ivars Peterson of Science News fails to
give adequate historical and theological references as to the sacred element
within Howard Garns' present day popular "Sudoku Math Puzzle" and might in
reality be understood as an attempt to provide a revisionistic view of
history and ethical accountability. He suggests, that the "sudoku grid is a
special case of a mathematical object called a Latin [or magic] square [x =
n(n²+1)/2]. A Latin square consists of n sets of numbers from 1 to n
arranged in a square pattern so that no row or column contains the same
number twice. Latin squares go back to at least medieval times. Leonhard
Euler (1707-1783 CE) a deeply religious Calvinist throughout his life, was
the first exceptional mathematician to study magic squares systematically.
He introduced a particular type of Latin square (a Graeco-Roman square) as a
new kind of 'magic square.'" [Math Trek, Science News Online, 18 June 2005]

There is an interesting anecdote about Euler concerning the court of
Catherine the Great and the visitation by the French philosopher Denis
Diderot (1713-1784 CE). Who having little to no mathematical knowledge (like
myself), was informed that someone had a mathematical proof of the existence
of God. He asked to hear it. Euler then stepped forward and stated his
popular identity formula: "Sir, e^iPI + 1 = 0, hence God exists!" [ref:
Wikipedia - where i is the imaginary unit and x a real number. Since cos PI
= -1 and sin PI = 0 hence the equation] Diderot it is reported by some
accounts, had no idea what Euler was talking about and returned to France
following realising its intent as a cutting, dismissive jibe {ie. to shift
from one side to the other when running before the wind, as a fore-and-aft
sail or its boom; to utter mocking words, scoff, jeer, to taunt, deride,
flout, a sarcastic remark}. Similarly Jesus of Nazareth tells a woman within
the temple confines, who is allegedly caught in the very act of adultery, to
'Go-poreuomai and sin-hamartano henceforth-meketi the more-epischuo'--That
is: 'by your good works, you shall not return (to sin again).''' [John
8:11]}

The 36 divining stalks of the Grand Centre are used to regulate the 729
Appraisals. Altogether [36 x 729 = 364 x 72 + 36 = ] 26,244 stalks make up
the Grand Accumulation, with 72 stalks per day for the 364 1/2 days of the
year. The Deficit Appraisal fills it out, so as to bring it into accord with
the days of the year and the pitches and calendar in their course."
([Copyright 1993 Michael Nylan Yang Hsiung's (53 BCE-18 CE) 4 BCE (T'AI
HSUAN CHING) 'Canon of Supreme Mystery on Causality -- Natural Divination'
(HSUAN KAO) 'Revelation of the Mystery', p 461, 463])

Any disparity between commentators over whether Yin(g) = female as passive
principle (EARTH) and Yang = male as active principle (HEAVEN) as conveyed
by the Book of Changes (I-Ching) of 2800 BCE or Lao Tzu's (6th century BCE)
Tao (the way) Te (of virtue) Ching (and causality), is perhaps due to the
ambiguity as to whether the elements #1 and #2 follow the Pythagorean Number
Symbolism, in that they are distinct from the meaning of number which
assigned to odd number a male attribute (eg: the monad as Zeus) and even
number a female attribute (eg: the duad as Hera) and gave them co-jointly a
spermatic quality in the emulation of nature-PHUSIS {germination or
expansion, natural reproduction}: "Men, why are you doing these things? {ie.
In that they called Barnabas (the son of a prophet) Zeus/Jupiter and Paul
(small; little) Mercury/Hermes and had sought to sacrifice to them} We also
are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn
from these vanities unto the living-ZAO God-THEOS, who made the
heaven-OURANOS {

(YANG/FATHER - Formula of Universal Law as Sovereignty: #1 - Nature contains
Nature {#4 - Nature amended in its Nature}) says: "Act as if the maxim of
thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature."

}, and the earth-GE {

(YIN/MOTHER - Formula of Humanity as Head of State: #2 - Nature rejoices in
its Nature {#5 - Act of Nature}) says: "Act that you use humanity, whether
in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as
an end, never merely as a means."

}, and the sea {

(ZHUN/SON - Formula of Autonomy as Individual: #3 - Nature surmounts Nature
{#6 - Form of Nature}) is a synthesis of the first two. It says that we
should so act that we may think of ourselves as legislating universal laws
through our maxims, in a possible Kingdom of Ends. We may think of ourselves
as such autonomous legislators only insofar as we follow our own laws.

}, [and the fountains of waters {

(ONE - Formula of Progression: #4 - Nature amended in its Nature {#7 -
Engendering Nature}) as a progressive adaptation within its sphere of
operation.

} [Revelation 14:7]] and all things that are therein: Who in times past
suffered all nations to walk in their own ways." [Acts 14:15-16]

} and the Tetragrammation formulation of the name YHWH {ie. 72J = 12 x 294 x
364 = 12 x 293 x 365.2425 = Tetragrammation on YHWH as 72} associated to the
natural cycle of the four seasons as regime of governance. And how this
relates to the alternate '#57 - Laissez Faire Politics/ Simplicity In
Habits' perspective of the 'topical year' commencing New Years
Day/Resolution 1 January as proposed by the Gregorian calendar reforms of
1582 CE and adopted throughout the British Empire in 1752 CE.

Rabbi Yaakov Feldman of Project Genesis suggests of Ramchal's (Rabbi Moshe
Chaim Luzzatto 1707-1746 CE) explanation, that it concerns a Categorical
Imperative associated to the very start of creation. His explanation of the
Kabbalistic terminology brings it all down to earth: "'All the
sephira-levels that G-d created' that is, all the non-material building
blocks that went into the creation of the world known as the sephirot
(plural of sephira), 'were (originally) arranged in order, with one under
the other'. In fact we learn that, 'everything's in place (ideally) when the
more extraneous sephira-levels are below the more exalted ones and are
subservient to them, which is how things will be in The World to Come.'

His point is that order and proper hierarchy are the ideal. It had been in
place at the beginning and will be in place again in the end. 'But
everything was damaged'-- everything suddenly changed for the worse -- 'when
the 'husk' rebelled against its Master.'

The 'husk' is another name for the yetzer harah (which on both a personal
level and a cosmic one is the resistance to G-dliness). It's referred to as
a 'husk' or 'shell' because it comes about before the 'fruit' of G-dliness
does [1 Corinthians 12:3-31], because it preserves the fruit (just as the
yetzer harah preserves society, for without it there'd be no childbirth,
civilization, etc.), and because like all husks and shells the yetzer harah
is destined to be cast aside when it no longer serves its purpose (as we'll
see).

For when the husk rebelled against G-d and thus removed itself from the
natural order of things, it separated the Jewish Nation (represented by the
last of the sephira-levels, which is nourished by the largesse of the lot of
them) from G-d by virtue of the fact that things were no longer 'in place',
as order and hierarchy are the ideal as we said, and 'the more extraneous
levels' were no longer 'below the more exalted ones and ... subservient to
them'.

Not only that but 'as soon as the husk took control of the sephira-levels
the supernal light reversed itself', which is to say that G-d's presence hid
itself, 'the sephirot were no longer joined together, the Divine Flow
diminished, and the Jewish Nation's abilities weakened and lessened.'

And in fact that spiritual chaos and malnourishment is our situation in
exile on an ethereal level." ([Copyright © 2006 Rabbi Yaakov Feldman,
Ramchal, 'The Great Redemption', 'Exile', Chapter 7, Project Genesis])

Thus in this example, the husk or the outer shell {Nature amended in its
Nature {Engendering Nature}} as the New Year's formulation adopted as part
of the Gregorian calendar reforms of 1582 CE might be considered at the
personal level, the equivalent to our New Year's Resolution custom, whereby
one might purge themselves of undesireable compulsions in much the same way
as the 'yetzer harah that is destined to be cast aside when it no longer
serves its purpose'. Or undertake some corrective and restorative action.

But there is also a cosmic kernel correspondence which proffers a resistance
to Godliness and in point of fact rebels against God as MALAKOS [Luke
7:24-28; Matthew 11:23-30; Damascus Document 8:3-12]: "While we pursue those
government ministers asleep at the wheel of the ship of state, let's also
castigate ourselves and remind ourselves that it is only a materialistic,
utilitarian people which is collectively able to work the public conscience
into such a state of submission so that the nation is able to trade
successfully with a corrupt despot while convincing itself that necessary
and justified sanctions are honoured and all is in readiness for war."
([Jesuit priest, lawyer and academic Frank Brennan, annual Manning Clark
lecture, 2 March 2006; source: The Australian 3 March 2006, Jill Rowbotham,
'Priest laments society's "moral lethargy"])

It is this knowledge duality {eg: "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem
{House of Bread} of Judaea in the days of Herod {son of a hero} the king,
behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem {VISION OF PEACE: The
Autonomous Nature as Forma Corporis is the equivalent to the demiurge as
supernatural animating agent within the universe [Exodus 23:20-24; Acts
12:20-24] as the Shekinah [#11, #2, #37, #47 * Ignorant Guides/ Viewing the
Distant, #75 - The Destructiveness of Envy/ Harmed Through Greed, #28, #32,
#81, #30]. And who was especially important as having an associated
equivalence to the Almighty [Genesis 17:1] as Shaddai {Heb. Shin (#300)
Daleth (#4) Yod (#10) = #314 % 81 = #71 as [#5, #21, #11, #71 * Know-How as
a Disease/ The Disease of Knowledge, #58 - Political Reversal/ Adaptation to
Change, #24, #65, #34, #6]} being proposed by Yang Hsiung's (53 [4] BCE - 18
CE) T'ai Hsuan Ching (Canon of Supreme Mystery on Causality -- Natural
Divination) is as follows:

a) Yang - #44 - Moderate Values/ Setting Up Precepts (May 26-31)
b) Yin - #50 - Fantasies of Avoiding Death/ Estimation of Life (Nov 28-Dec
2)
c) Zhun - #73 - Employing Deeming/ Daring to Act (Jan 16-20)
d) One - #15 - Mastering Guiding Discourse/ Revealers of Virtue (Dec 22-26)

}, saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his
star in the east, and are come to worship him. When Herod the king had heard
these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. ... [W]hen Herod
saw that he was deceived by the wise men, [being] exceedingly angry; he sent
forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in
all the districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which
he had determined from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by
Jeremiah {exaltation of the Lord} the prophet, saying, 'A voice was heard in
Ramah/Ram {elevated; sublime}, lamentation, weeping, and great mourning,
Rachel {sheep} weeping for her children, refusing to be comforted, because
they were no more.'" [Matthew 2:1-3]

} of what is both an ontological and cosmic realm which John Polkinghorne
suggests within his Terry lectures, celebrating 300 years of the Society for
Promoting Christian Knowledge, is the basis of the definition of religious
belief issued by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE, bringing into play the
full resources of Greek philosophy in an effort to articulate orthodox
understanding of the Status of Christ: "One and the same Son, our Lord Jesus
Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and
truly man, ... One and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognised
in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without
separation." ([Copyright © 1998, John Polkinghorn, 'Does God Act in the
Physical World', 'Belief in God in an Age of Science', p 67])

As suggested within my 24 June - 20 July chapter titled, 'Course-TROCHOS of
nature-GENESIS or world-KOSMOS of iniquity-ADIKIA?', the essence of orthodox
asceticism is a convoluted process of detachment from reality, involving a
paradoxical subordination of self to an inner perception or apparition of
mind; {Gk. horama}, as self-grandising hallucinatory autosuggestion and
deification in claimed unity with one's inner daemon. [#6, #69, #20, #70 *
Difficulty in Knowing How/ Difficult to Understand, #70, #3, #69, #60, #14 -
Kether (Crown)] Whereby the "heart has been purified of all thoughts; that
his nous has been liberated from fantasy, logic and the passions and has
returned to the heart and been united with it in the Holy Spirit".

Its monasticism proscribes, that the knowing of truth is attained by one
whose nous is unified in his heart. In order to bring this about, the
ascetic decides to live a reclusive and mystical life and feels a distaste
for everything which disunites his nous. [#1, #5, #61, #81 * Making the
Essence Clear/ Propounding the Essential, #5 - Natural Guidance/ The
Function of Emptiness, #16, #31, #61, #15] - Chokmah (Wisdom)]

Man's soul is thought by the ascetic, to being tripartite. In other words it
has three powers, the intelligent, the incensive and the appetitive. When
the soul is ill, its three powers are also ill. Christ began his cure of the
soul with the appetitive power. For desire unsatisfied fuels the incensive
power, and then the intelligence too is ill. Therefore the incensive power
of the soul cannot be cured before the appetitive power is cured, nor can
the intelligence be cured until the other two powers have been cured. [#15,
#7, #47, #67 * Three Treasures {kindness, frugality and no presumption that
one is first among all under Heaven}, #71 - Know-How as a Disease/ The
Disease of Knowledge, #11, #48, #51, #48 - Thrones (Saturn)] ([St. Maximos
the Confessor (580-662 CE), Vladimir's Seminary Press, On the Cosmic Mystery
of Jesus Christ, Ambiguum 7 Section I, p 53-54])

- dolf
- <http://home.iprimus.com.au/telos/rottenburg.html>
- <http://home.iprimus.com.au/telos/sally.html>
- <http://home.iprimus.com.au/telos/kant.html>

"rob wade" <rob_c_wade_01 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142020888.689161.240040 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Born or Bred?
Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic
By Robert H. Knight

Homosexual activists love to insist that

The debate over homosexual "marriage" often becomes focused on whether
homosexuality is a learned behavior or a genetic trait. Many homosexual
activists insist that "science" has shown that homosexuality is inborn,
cannot be changed, and that therefore they should have the "right to
marry" each other.

Beginning in the early 1990s, activists began arguing that scientific
research has proven that homosexuality has a genetic or hormonal cause.
A handful of studies, none of them replicated and all exposed as
methodologically unsound or misrepresented, have linked sexual
orientation to everything from differences in portions of the brain,1,2
to genes,3 finger length,4 inner ear differences,5 eye-blinking,6 and
"neuro-hormonal differentiation."7

Meanwhile, Columbia University Professor of Psychiatry Dr. Robert
Spitzer, who was instrumental in removing homosexuality in 1973 from
the American Psychiatric Association's list of mental disorders, wrote
a study published in the October 2003 Archives of Sexual Behavior. He
contended that people can change their "sexual orientation" from
homosexual to heterosexual.8 Spitzer interviewed more than 200 people,
most of whom claimed that through reparative therapy counseling, their
desires for same-sex partners either diminished significantly or they
changed over to heterosexual orientation. Although still a proponent of
homosexual activism, Spitzer has been attacked unmercifully by former
admirers for this breach of the ideology that people are "born gay and
can't change." Immutability is a central tenet of demands for "gay
rights" and "gay marriage."

Because no single study can be regarded as definitive, more research on
people who have overcome homosexuality needs to be done. But a
considerable body of previous literature about change from
homosexuality to heterosexuality has been compiled, and the sheer
number of exceptions to the "born gay" theory should be a warning to
researchers and media to proceed with caution before declaring that
science has "proved" that homosexuality is genetic.9

Other recent developments also suggest that homosexuality is not
genetically determined. The Washington Post reported that bisexuality
is fashionable among many young teen girls, who go back and forth from
being "straight" to "gay" to "bi" to "straight" again.10

Post reporter Laura Sessions Stepp writes:

Recent studies among women suggest that female homosexuality may be
grounded more in social interaction, may present itself as an emotional
attraction in addition to or in place of a physical one, and may change
over time.11

She cites one such study by Lisa M. Diamond, assistant professor of
psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah, who in 1994
began studying a group of females aged 16 to 23 who were attracted to
other females.12 Over the course of the study, "almost two-thirds have
changed labels," Stepp reports.

Against increasing evidence that homosexual behavior is neither
inevitable nor impossible to resist, a number of studies have been
widely publicized as "proof" of a genetic component. But they are
either poorly constructed or misreported as to their significance.

In 1993, Columbia University psychiatry professors Drs. William Byne
and Bruce Parsons examined the most prominent "gay gene" studies on
brain structure and on identical twins, and published the results in
the Archives of General Psychiatry. They found numerous methodological
flaws in all of the studies, and concluded that:

There is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory. ...
[T]he appeal of current biologic explanations for sexual orientation
may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of
psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of
experimental data.13

After he was roundly attacked by homosexual activists, who accused him
of providing ammunition for conservatives to challenge the gay
rights/civil rights comparison based on immutability, Byne denounced
the "false dichotomy: Biology or Choice?" and stated that he was also
skeptical of environmental theories of sexual orientation. He wrote:
"There is no compelling evidence to support any singular psychosocial
explanation," and that he would never "imply that one consciously
decides one's sexual orientation."14 But the fact remains that Dr. Byne
has poked gaping holes in the most influential studies purporting to
prove that homosexuality is inborn.

In May 2000, the American Psychiatric Association issued a Fact Sheet,
"Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues," which includes this statement:

"Currently, there is a renewed interest in searching for biological
etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated
scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for
homosexuality."

Beyond the false comfort that homosexuals need not seek to alter their
behavior in any way, there may be another motive behind the release and
enthusiastic reporting of these studies: political advantage. As
Natalie Angier wrote in The New York Times on September 1, 1991:

[P]roof of an inborn difference between gay and heterosexual men could
provide further ammunition in the battle against discrimination. If
homosexuality were viewed legally as a biological phenomenon, rather
than a fuzzier matter of "choice" or "preference," then gay people
could no more rightfully be kept out of the military, a housing complex
or a teaching job than could, say blacks.15

Simon LeVay, whose brain study in 1991 "jumped from the pages of the
periodical Science to The New York Times and Time, then to CNN and
Nightline, and from there to the dinner tables and offices of the
country," according to writer Chandler Burr, was quite open in his
assessment of the possible impact of his work. "[P]eople who think gays
and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay
rights."16

In his book Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Dr. Jeffrey
Satinover writes:

We will see later the falsity of activists' repeated assertions that
homosexuality is immutable. They seek to create the impression that
science has settled these questions, but it most certainly has not.
Instead, the changes that have occurred in both public and professional
opinion have resulted from politics, pressure, and public relations.17





Despite critical examination, as well as comments by the studies' own
authors that the "gay" research has been distorted or exaggerated, some
of the studies are often cited as "proof" that "gays are born that
way." A few other studies have arisen in more recent years with as many
flaws or have been misreported in similar fashion. Here is a brief
overview of some of the studies:




UCLA's Study on Genes and Mice Brains




In October 2003, the journal Molecular Brain Research published a study
by UCLA researchers indicating that sexual identity is genetic.18
Reuters reported it this way: "Sexual identity is wired into the genes,
which discounts the concept that homosexuality and transgender
sexuality are a choice, California researchers reported."19 A number of
other media outlets picked up on this theme, creating the impression
that this study was yet one more piece of evidence for a genetic theory
of homosexuality.




The trouble is, the study doesn't say anything about homosexuality. All
it does is support a widely accepted theory about hormones and gender.
Here is Princeton Professor Dr. Jeffrey Satinover's assessment:




The research is a decent piece of basic science and confirms what
geneticists have long known must be the case: That the hormonal milieu
that causes sexual differentiation between males and females is itself
determined by genes, in mice as in men. This comes as no surprise.





But this research says absolutely nothing about homosexuality or
transsexualism and any who claim it does are either ill-informed about
genetics, or if not, are deliberately abusing their scientific
knowledge and or credentials in the service of politics - in precisely
the same way that Soviet-era geneticists such as Lysenko did - either
in the naïve hope that distortion of the truth can produce a better
society or out of fear for their career prospects. In either case they
should be roundly rebuked for doing so.20






The Hypothalamus




The first widely publicized claim for a "gay gene" came in 1991 when
Salk Institute researcher Dr. Simon LeVay published a study in the
journal Science noting a difference in a brain structure called the
hypothalamus when evaluating 35 men - 19 homosexuals and 16
heterosexuals.21 LeVay found that the hypothalamus was generally larger
in heterosexual men than in homosexual men. He concluded that the
findings "suggest that sexual orientation has a biologic substrate."22




The media splashed the study on front pages and TV and radio broadcasts
from coast to coast, despite the fact that LeVay himself cautioned:




"It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that
homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I
didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake
people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in
the brain. ...Since I looked at adult brains, we don't know if the
differences I found were there at birth, or if they appeared later."23




The study also had major problems, which LeVay himself readily admits.
First, all 19 of his homosexual subjects died of complications
associated with AIDS. The difference in the hypothalamus might have
been caused by chemical changes in the brain as a response to AIDS.




Dr. Byne argued in Scientific American that "[LeVay's] inclusion of a
few brains from heterosexual men with AIDS did not adequately address
the fact that at the time of death virtually all men with AIDS have
decreased testosterone levels as the result of the disease itself or
the side effects of particular treatments. Thus it is possible that the
effects on the size of the INAH3 [hypothalamus] that he attributed to
sexual orientation were actually caused by the hormonal abnormalities
associated with AIDS."24




In addition, six of the "heterosexual" men died of AIDS. LeVay admitted
later that he didn't actually know whether the subjects in his
heterosexual sample were, indeed, heterosexual; all of these subjects
were simply "presumed heterosexual." Given that very few straight men
in San Francisco were contracting AIDS at the time (and still aren't),
this was a wildly unscientific assumption.




Another weakness of LeVay's study is that his sample included major
"exceptions." Three of the homosexuals had larger clusters of neurons
than the mean size for the heterosexuals, and three of the
heterosexuals had clusters smaller than the mean size for the
homosexuals. LeVay acknowleged that these exceptions "hint at the
possibility that sexual orientation, although an important variable,
may not be the sole determinant of INAH3 [hypothalamus] size."25




LeVay is an open homosexual, and some comments he made to Newsweek
suggest he had an agenda from the outset of the research. He said he
believes that America must be convinced that homosexuality is
biologically determined. "It's important to educate society," he said.
"I think this issue does affect religious and legal attitudes."26




Since LeVay released his study, other researchers have found that life
experiences can alter brain structures, so it is premature to assume
inborn origins for behavioral differences. In 1997, for example,
University of California at Berkeley psychologist Marc Breedlove
released a study that showed that sexual activities of rats actually
changed structural aspects of the brain at the base of the spinal
chord. Breedlove said:





These findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the
case-that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just
as genes can alter it. You can't assume that because you find a
structural difference in the brain, that it was caused by genes. You
don't know how it got there.27





Breedlove is not an activist out to prove homosexuality is not
biological. In fact, he said he believes that a genetic component
exists somewhere and is doing his own research in this area.




The X Chromosome




In 1993, a group of medical researchers at the National Cancer
Institute (NCI) led by Dr. Dean H. Hamer released a study of 40 pairs
of brothers that linked homosexuality to the X chromosome. The
research, published in Science, reported that 33 of the pairs of
brothers had DNA markers in the chromosome region known as Xq28.




The study won an enormous amount of media attention, and Hamer's own
activities as a homosexual activist within NCI were ignored when Hamer
offered interviews only when reporters agreed not to identify him as a
homosexual.




But even Hamer tempered his enthusiasm about the research results.




We knew that the genes were only part of the answer," he said in a
speech given in Salt Lake City. "We assumed the environment also played
a role in sexual orientation, as it does in most, if not all
behaviors.28





In a later interview, Hamer said, "Homosexuality is not purely genetic.
.... [E]nvironmental factors play a role. There is not a single master
gene that makes people gay. ...I don't think we will ever be able to
predict who will be gay."29




Hamer's results are often misunderstood. Many believe that the study
found an identical sequence (Xq28) on the X chromosome of all
homosexual brothers in the study. In reality, what it found was
matching sequences in each set of brothers who were both homosexual.
Dr. Byne argues that in order to prove anything by this study, Hamer
would have had to examine the Xq28 sequence of homosexual men's
heterosexual brothers. Hamer insisted that such an inclusion would have
confounded his study. Byne responds: "In other words, inclusion of
heterosexual brothers might have revealed that something other than
genes is responsible for sexual orientation."30




In the same edition of Science that carried the Hamer study, Elliot
Gershon, chief of the clinical neurogenetics branch of the National
Institute of Mental Health, said, "There's almost no finding that would
be convincing by itself in this field. We really have to see an
independent replication."31




The National Cancer Institute sponsored the "gay gene" research. This
study alone cost $419,000 of the institute's taxpayer-backed funds,
according to The Washington Times.32




The National Institutes of Health's Office of Research Integrity
investigated Hamer over allegations by a colleague that he ignored
evidence that conflicted with his hypothesis. NIH never released the
results of the inquiry, but Hamer was shortly thereafter transferred to
another section. He had done the "gay gene" research under a grant to
work on Kaposi's Sarcoma, a skin cancer that inordinately afflicts
homosexual men.




One of Hamer's researchers told the Times that homosexuality is "not
the only thing we study," but it is "a primary focus of study." Hamer
reportedly stated he has pushed for an Office of Gay and Lesbian Health
inside the National Institutes of Health, and he testified in
opposition to Colorado's Amendment 2, which sought to keep homosexual
activists from winning minority class status. Then-Sen. Robert C. Smith
(R-New Hampshire) accused the doctor of "actively pursu[ing] a gay
agenda."33




Another fact that casts doubt on Hamer's conclusions is that other
researchers tried to replicate his study but failed. In 1999, Drs.
George Rice, Neil Risch and George Ebers published their findings in
Science after attempting to replicate Hamer's Xq28 study. Their
conclusion: "We were not able to confirm evidence for an Xq28-linked
locus underlying male homosexuality." Moreover, they added that when
another group of researchers (Sanders, et al.) tried to replicate
Hamer's study, they too failed to find a genetic connection to
homosexuality.34




The Twins Study




In 1991, J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard published a study
that examined identical and fraternal twin brothers and adopted
brothers in an effort to establish a genetic link to homosexuality.
Fifty-two percent of the identical twins were reportedly homosexual,
while only 22 percent of fraternal twins fell into the same category.
But since identical twins have identical genetic material, the fact
that nearly half of the identical twins were heterosexual effectively
refutes the idea that homosexuality has a genetic basis.35




"This finding alone argues for the enormous importance of nongenetic
factors influencing homosexuality," writes Dr. Jeffrey Satinover,
"because ... in order for something to be genetically determined, as
opposed to merely influenced, the genetic heritability would need to
approach 100 percent." Satinover, a psychiatrist, notes that "identical
twins reared together share more significant environmental influences
than nonidentical twins reared together," and that narcissism, a key
component of homosexuality, is more likely among identical twins who
"grow up with mirror images of themselves."37 (Italics in original.)




In his analysis of the medical evidence purportedly supporting a
biological cause of homosexuality, Dr. Byne noted other twin studies:




Without knowing what developmental experiences contribute to sexual
orientation the effects of common genes and common environments are
difficult to disentangle. Resolving this issue requires studies of
twins raised apart.38





Other physicians have also criticized the study for overvaluing the
genetic influence.39




Dr. Byne's arguments might lead some activists to label him a
"homophobe." He is, in reality, quite the contrary. Byne readily
advocates societal acceptance of homosexuality and "gay rights," but
nevertheless concludes, "Most of the links in the chain of reasoning
from biology to social policy [regarding homosexuality], do not hold up
under scrutiny."40




Bailey conducted another study in 1999, published in the March 2000
issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, which
actually showed less possible genetic influence on homosexuality than
the first twins study. He sent a questionnaire to the entire Australian
Twin Registry. Only three pairs of identical male twins were both
homosexual out of a total of 27 in which at least one was homosexual.
Of the 16 fraternal male twins, none of the pairs was both homosexual.
Bailey found similar results for lesbians.41




Hormones




In 1998, Dennis McFadden and Edward G. Pasanen published a study that
evaluated auditory systems. Specifically, the study considered
differences in echo-like waveforms emitted from an inner ear structure
of people with normal hearing. These waves are higher in women than in
men, a factor often attributed to the level of a person's exposure to
androgen (a male hormone) in his or her early development as a fetus.42





In self-acknowledged lesbians, the waveforms ranged between those of
men and those of heterosexual women. The researchers concluded that
this suggests that female homosexuality could result from larger
exposure to the male hormone androgen in the womb (homosexual men did
not show the same variation).43




The media eagerly jumped on this bandwagon. But even the researchers
themselves did not draw definitive conclusions. In the published study,
they pointed out that exposure to "intense sounds, certain drugs, and
other manipulations" can lower the level of these auditory waveforms.
"Thus, it may be that something in the lifestyles of homosexual and
bisexual females leads them to be exposed to one or more agents that
have reduced the [waveforms], either temporarily or permanently."44




Moreover, even if the hearing differences were caused by an increased
exposure to androgen in the womb, scientists would still be far from
proving that this exposure is a cause of homosexuality-especially since
the difference was not apparent in the male homosexual sample.




Finger Length




In March 2000, the media publicized a finger length study that
indicated that lesbians had longer fingers than other women, perhaps
because of greater exposure in the womb to androgen.




Typically, both sexes' index finger is slightly shorter than the ring
finger-a difference that is seen more clearly on the right hand. In
females, the ring finger and index finger are almost the same size, but
in men the index finger is more noticeably shorter.




In this study, Berkeley's Dr. Breedlove, who had in 1997 shown how
sexual activity can change brain structure, found that homosexual
women's finger length had a tendency to follow the male pattern. But
Breedlove cautioned about reading too much into the finding:




"There is no gene that forces a person to be straight or gay," he told
CNN. "... I believe there are many social and psychological, as well as
biological, factors that make up sexual preference."45




Dr. Jeffrey Satinover commented as follows on the study:





A girl who develops before and into puberty with a "masculinized
habitus" (the result of excess maternal intrauterine androgen
stimulated by a genetic condition in the fetus)-a stocky physique,
facial hair, powerful muscles, a square jaw and long fingers-may suffer
so much teasing and rejection by family and peers that she comes to
think of herself as "not feminine" and so will seek solace in the arms
of women. Indeed, this an all-too-common pattern in the lives of "
lesbians" and illustrates exactly how a strong genetic " association"'
can imply literally zero genetic causation whatsoever. It's rather
remarkable that the authors failed to remark on the support their study
provided not for any genetic association with lesbianism, but rather
for the genetic association to secondary sexual expression in homo
sapiens that Vilain et al were only able to demonstrate in mus
musculus. The attention paid to homosexuality in both cases, while
ignoring straighforward sex, reflects the distinctly Orwellian effect
that political correctness has on science: We now treat the differences
between male and female as socially constructed and those between
heterosexuality and homosexuality as innate and genetic.46




Eye Blinking




In October 2003, a team of English researchers announced that they had
found "powerful new evidence that sexual orientation is 'hard-wired' in
the human brain before birth."47




Dr. Qazi Rahman of the University of East London and Dr. Veena Kumari
and Dr. Glenn Wilson of the Institute of Psychiatry said they found sex
differences in the startle response - the eye blink in response to loud
noises.48




The authors found that women had a lesser "prepulse inhibition of the
human startle response (PPI),"49 that is, they blinked more readily
than men, and that lesbians blinked less readily than other women. They
used small samples, and, more significantly, found no difference
between homosexual men and heterosexual men. Yet they gave the
impression that their findings indicated that homosexuality is a
pre-born condition.




"Because the startle response is known to be involuntary rather than
learned, this strongly indicates that sexual orientation is largely
determined before birth," said a press release from the University of
East London.50




Dr. Rahman said in the release, "These findings may well affect the way
we as a society deal with sexuality and the issues surrounding sexual
orientation."




But the researchers themselves introduce some cautionary notes in the
study:





Although prenatal factors may be possible precursors to the
neurobehavioral profiles observed in lesbians and gay men, whether
neural differences underlie sexual orientation per se, or are a
consequence of homosexual or heterosexual behavior, is yet to be
determined.51





They also write: "Neuroanatomical and neurophysiological variations
between heterosexuals and homosexuals may be due either to biological
factors or to the influence of learning."52




The team concluded that: "Our results show, for the first time, that
PPI relates to sexual orientation and that homosexual women show a
robust cross-sex shift. Homosexual women showed a masculinized PPI that
was no different from that of heterosexual men. ... Homosexual men did
not differ from heterosexual men."53




Dr. Halstead Harrison, an associate professor emeritus in the
Atmospheric Science Department of the University of Washington,
reviewed the study, noted the small sizes of the test groups (14
lesbians and 15 heterosexual women, and 15 each of homosexual and
heterosexual men) and the statistical methods, and concluded: "Data
presented by Rahman et al. do not confidently support their finding
that homosexual women exhibit a male-type startled-blink reflex."54




Harrison further stated that "no significant differences were
detected."




As far as the blink reflex being utterly innate or somewhat trainable,
he responded to an interviewer, "Now, that's an open question."55 Dr.
Harrison also said he would have liked to have seen the complete data
on the series of tests to see whether the subjects' responses would
change with repetition. This would indicate whether the PPI is entirely
innate.




In his conclusion, he said: "This Comment should not be construed as
falsifying the hypothesis that homosexual and heterosexual women
display different prepulse startle-inhibition reflexes. That conjecture
may turn out to be so, but the present data do not confidently support
it."




Neuroendocrine Hypotheses




In 1999, Dr. Qazi Rahman compiled a brief review of several studies
purporting to show a link between neuroanatomy and sexual
orientation.56




He wrote: "The emerging neuroanatomical account suggests that, in some
key neural substrates, homosexual men show a trend toward
female-typical neuroanatomy as compared to heterosexual men."57




Rahman also said, "Lesbians excel at some tasks which favor
heterosexual males."




As in the eye-blinking study, Rahman struck a cautionary note: "But is
neuroendocrine differentiation a cause or a consequence of behavior?
.... In addition, the differential development posited may not be causal
but correlational."




Rahman noted that, "Differential reinforcements from inputs in the
psychosocial milieu to these sex-atypical behaviors makes the
'pre-homosexual child' view the same sex as 'exotic' (i.e., different
from one's self), which later in puberty becomes the object of
eroticization."58




As some developmental psychologists have observed, some children may be
less inclined to exhibit classic gender role differences, and this may
set them up for the type of reactions from peers (or even parents),
such as rejection or teasing, that make them vulnerable to developing
same-sex attraction.59




One glaring problem with Rahman's article is that he uncritically cites
many of the studies that were thoroughly debunked by researchers such
as Columbia's Byne and Parsons. These include studies by LeVay, Hamer,
Allen, Gorski, Bailey and others.




Rahman wraps up his piece this way:





To conclude, it is important to illustrate that neurobiological
differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals are by no means
decisive. Nonetheless, the several independent findings of
neuroanatomical differences in sex-atypical directions are not easily
refutable. [Editor's note: Yes, they are. Byne and Parsons, among
others, saw to that.] Unfortunately, evidence currently available is
limited and largely correlational in nature. Owing to this, it is not
possible for alternative developmental processes associated with sexual
orientation to be excluded.60





Conclusion




Determining whether something has a biological cause is difficult, and
locating a specifically genetic link is even more so. The handful of
studies that purportedly add up to incontestable "proof" that
homosexuals are "born that way" are inconclusive at best and, as Dr.
Rahman notes, "largely correlational in nature." In some cases, such as
the twins studies, the evidence strongly indicates that early
environment is more likely the dominant factor to have produced
homosexual desires.




As Dr. Satinover emphasizes, correlation does not mean something is
causative. Basketball players are tall, so height correlates with
playing basketball, he notes. But there is no "basketball-playing
gene." Efforts to turn some interesting correlations into causal
factors have not been successful and yet have been misused to advance a
political agenda.




Perhaps the best way to describe the situation is this, as paraphrased
from Dr. Satinover: Some people may be predisposed because of genetic,
prenatal hormonal influences or other physical or brain differences to
have personalities that make them vulnerable to the environmental
factors that can elicit homosexual desires. So is homosexuality
biological? Not in the way that popular media and homosexual activists
have presented it.




Extremely shy and artistic young boys, for instance, who are not
affirmed in their masculinity by a caring father, might be at risk for
homosexuality. It's not because of a homosexual "gene," but because of
an interrupted process of achieving secure gender identity. This can
make some boys who crave male affirmation an easy mark for seduction
into homosexuality. A similar pattern can be seen in girls who don't
fit classic gender profiles, need feminine affirmation, and are
targeted by lesbians who play upon the girls' emotional needs.




Such children's vulnerability is all the more reason to protect them
from early exposure to homosexual influences. The Boy Scouts of
America, for instance, is right to screen out as troop leaders those
men who desire other males sexually. The Scouts do so not out of
bigotry, or a belief that all homosexual men molest boys. They do so
out of genuine concern for the health and well-being of the boys in
their charge, including those who might be sexually vulnerable.




Americans for too long have been pummeled with the idea that people are
"born gay." The people who most need to hear the truth are those who
mistakenly believe they have no chance themselves for change. It is
both more compassionate and truthful to give them hope than to serve
them up politically motivated, unproven creations like the "gay gene."




Robert Knight is director of the Culture & Family Institute, an
affiliate of Concerned Women for America. This paper is a revised and
updated version of "Born & Bred: The Debate Over the Cause of
Homosexuality"(last updated in June 2000) by former Concerned Women for
America staff writer Trudy Chun.




March 31, 2004






------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
End Notes




D.F. Swaab and M.A. Hofman, Brain Res. 537 (1990): 141-48, as cited in
Dennis McFadden and E.G. Pasanen, "Comparisons of the auditory systems
of heterosexuals and homosexuals: Click-evoked otoacoustic emissions,"
Proceedings of the National. Academy of Science USA 95 (March 1998):
2709-13.

Simon LeVay, "A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between
Heterosexual and Homosexual Men," Science Vol. 253 (1991): 1034-37.

D.H. Hamer, S. Hu, V.L. Magnuson, N. Hu and A.M.L. Pattatucci, Science
261(1993): 321-27, as cited in McFadden.

B.J. Sigesmund, "Let Your Fingers Do the Talking," Newsweek "Web
Exclusive," 31 March 2000.

McFadden and Pasanen.

"Sexual orientation 'hard-wired' before birth - startling new evidence
revealed in the blink of an eye," press release, University of East
London (UEL), England, October 2, 2003, reporting on findings by the
UEL's Dr. Qazi Rahman, along with the Institute of Psychiatry's Dr.
Veena Kumari and Dr. Glenn Wilson. In terms of eye-blink reactions to
sudden loud noises, "The team discovered significant differences in the
response between male and female, and heterosexual and homosexual
subjects." Rahman: "The startle response is pre-conscious and cannot be
learned."

Qazi Rahman, "Comments on the Neuroanatomy of Human Sexual Orientation
and Proposed Neuroendocrine Hypotheses," Contemporary Neurology (1999):
Number 2A: http://mitpress.mit.edu/jrnls-catalog/cont-neuro.html.

Robert L. Spitzer, "Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual
Orientation?", Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 5, October
2003: 403-417.

See, for instance, Charles Socarides, A Freedom Too Far: A
Psychoanalyst Answers 1,000 Questions About Causes and Cure and the
Impact of the Gay Rights Movement on American Society (Phoenix,
Arizona: Adam Margrave Books, 1996), pp. 115-155, particularly pp.
151-152.

Laura Sessions Stepp, "Partway Gay? For Some Teen Girls, Sexual
Preference Is a Shifting Concept," The Washington Post, January 4,
2004, p. D-1.

Ibid.

Lisa M. Diamond, "Was it a phase? Young women's relinquishment of
lesbian/bisexual identities over a 5-year period," Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology (in press as of 2004).

William Byne and Bruce Parsons, "Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic
Theories Reappraised," Archives of General Psychiatry, Vol. 50, March
1993: 228-239.

Letter from William Byne to Dean Hamer, 2 July 1993, as quoted in
Chandler Burr, A Separate Creation: The Search for the Biological
Origins of Sexual Orientation (New York, New York: Hyperion, 1996), p.
81.

Natalie Angier, quoted in Charles W. Socarides, "A Freedom Too Far,"
(Phoenix, Arizona: Adam Margrave Books, 1995), p. 94.

Simon LeVay, quoted in A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., Shirley E. Cox, Ph.D., and
Jeffrey W. Robinson, Ph.D., "The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No
Basis in Science," 2002, the National Association for the Research and
Therapy of Homosexuality, http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html.

Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Hamewith Books, Baker Books, 1996), p. 38.

Phoebe Dewing, Tao Shi, Steve Horvath and Eric Vilain, "Sexually
dimorphic gene expression in mouse brain precedes gonadal
differentiation," Molecular Brain Research, Vol. 118, Issues 1-2, 21
October 2003: 82-90.

Reuters, "Study says sexual identity is genetic," 20 October 2003.

E-mail correspondence, 21 October 2003.

LeVay, op cit.

Ibid.

Quoted in David Nimmons, "Sex and the Brain," Discover, Vol. 5, No. 3
(March 1994): 64-71 and cited in A. Dean
Byrd, Ph.D., Shirley E. Cox, Ph.D., and Jeffrey W. Robinson, Ph.D.,
"The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science," National
Association of Research and Therapy for Homosexuality Web site,

http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html, downloaded 12 January 2004.


E. Byne, "The Biological Evidence Challenged," Scientific American (May
1994): 50-5.

LeVay.

D. Gelman, D. Foote, T. Barrett, M. Talbot, "Born or Bred," Newsweek,
24 February 1992, 46-53.

Pat McBroom, "Sexual Experience May Affect Brain Structure," Berkeleyan
campus newspaper (University of California at Berkeley), 19 November
1997 ( http://www.urel.berkeley.edu/berkeleyan/1997/1119/sexexp.htm l).

Dean Hamer, The Science of Desire (New York, New York: Simon &
Schuster, 1994), p. 82.

>From speech in Salt Lake City in Lili Wright, "Science of Desire Is
Topic for 'Gay Gene' Finder," Salt Lake Tribune, 28 April 1995.

Byne.

"Evidence for Homosexuality Gene," Science, Vol. 261, 16 July 1993:
291.

Joyce Price, "Federal Cancer Lab Hunts for Gay Gene," The Washington
Times, 3 April 1994.

Ibid.

Dean H. Hamer, George Rice, Neil Risch, and George Ebers,et al.
"Genetics and Male Sexual Orientation" (Technical Comment), Science 285
(6 August 1999: 803a.

J. Michael Bailey, Richard C. Pillard, "A Genetic Study of Male Sexual
Orientation," Archives of General Psychiatry 48 (1991): 1089-96.

Satinover, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, p. 85.

Ibid.

Byne.

T. Lidz, "A Reply to 'A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation'"
[letter], Archives of General Psychiatry 50 (1993): 240.

Ibid.

Stanton L. Jones, "The Incredibly Shrinking Gay Gene," Christianity
Today, 4 October 1999, p. 53.

McFadden.

Ibid, 2709.

Ibid, 2712.

"Male hormone levels in womb may affect sexual orientation, study
says," CNN.com, health, 29 March 2000,
(http://www.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/29/gay.fingers/index.html).

Private communication with the author.

"Sexual Orientation 'hard-wired' before birth - startling new evidence
revealed in the blink of an eye," press release, University of East
London, England, 2 October 2003.

Qazi Rahman, Veena Kumari, and Glenn D. Wilson, "Sexual
Orientation-Related Differences in Prepulse Inhibition of the Human
Startle Response," Behavioral Neuroscience, Vol. 117 (5): 1096-1102.

Ibid, p. 1096.

Press release, "Sexual orientation 'hard-wired' before birth."

Ibid., p. 1097.

Ibid,, p. 1099.

Ibid,, p. 1098.

Halstead Harrison, "A Technical Comment on the paper, 'Sexual
Orientation-Related Differences in Prepulse Inhibition of the Human
Startle Response,'" University of Washington Web site, 15 December
2003, http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~harrison/reports/rahman.pdf .

Telephone interview with Patrick Henry College senior and Culture &
Family Institute intern Jeremy Sewall, 8 March 2004.

Qazi Rahman, "Comments on the Neuroanatomy of Human Sexual Orientation
and Proposed Neuroendocrine Hypotheses," Journal of Contemporary
Neurology, The MIT Press, Vol. 1999, No. 2A.

Ibid,, p. 2.

Ibid, p. 3.

Numerous references to this phenomenon are reported throughout Joseph
Nicolosi, Ph.D., Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale,
New Jersey: Jason Aronson, Inc., 1991).

Rahman, op. cit., p. 3.
Vorheriges Thema:Old guy with pipe who challenges Burns & Texas guy in 3/12 episode
Nächstes Thema:Notes for HABF06 (The Seemingly Never-Ending Story)
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 15:13:44 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,05149 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered