Indiana...Religious Freedom eh? *sigh*

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!

Palum

what Suineg set it to
27,504
43,773
On the real, what basic tenet of Christianity states you can't bake a cake for fags? Operating your business does not equal practicing your religion. UNLESS YOU'RE A JEW THERE I SAID IT SHIT NEEDED TO BE SAID. WWJD bro, WWJD indeed.
Actually if you read the scriptures, a good Christian should take pity upon those without eternal salvation, not turn them away.

EX Matthew 9:10-12

10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?"

12 On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'[a] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
James 5:19-20

19 My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring that person back, 20 remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins.
1 Peter 4:8-11

8 Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. 9 Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling. 10 Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God's grace in its various forms. 11 If anyone speaks, they should do so as one who speaks the very words of God. If anyone serves, they should do so with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ.
etc, etc

So yea, WWJD. I know, act like an asshole. Because you know, Jesus' ENTIRE legacy isn't based upon turning sinners and heathens to salvation, amirite? lololol
 

AladainAF

Best Rabbit
<Gold Donor>
12,941
31,084
Could you name some? Because I don't know of any.
Sure, let's start withsuit and tie restaurants, or hellany restaurant whatsoeverthat requires a specific dress code. No Shirt/No Shoes I understand - there is insurance liability in those cases, but suit and tie requirement? No White T-Shirts? What aboutwomen only gyms? What aboutwomen only taxi services? We already knowschools are more segregated nowthan in the 60s, and of coursewe've all seen these city maps of segregation. Male only clubs. Female only clubs. Of course there are plenty of gay people too who say "You're welcome here, I won't discriminate,but you shouldn't come here" to gay-centric placessuch as gay barswhich is basically the same thing as discriminating - reminds me of the "I'm not racist, but...".

Lots more examples all over the place, and a lot of things that are much more on the radar (specifically around the segregation of thesexesandracesin schools) than some bible thumper one-in-a-thousand bakery.

Drtyrm_sl said:
Does a mechanic changing the oil on a gay man's car support his gay lifestyle? Rofl.
No, but that's not what this is about. This is irrelevant to the law and not in the scope of what's being discussed.

The Jim Crow laws started in similar fashion to these laws: You had the civil war, and the emancipation proclamation. A bunch of southerners were pissed that they'd lost the war, and didn't want to have to share their rural communities with the negros, and so the states started passing laws that allowed discriminatory business practices, and the pressure on the Federal Government and State governments to allow this was great, and no one wanted to risk going back to a civil war over the issue, so they capitulated. Which resulted in 100 years of discriminatory state and federal laws and practices, as well as discriminatory business practices.
Right, and as a society, we've far advanced past the point that any segregation of a Jim Crow level would ever exist against someones will (Obviously, as noted by my countless examples above, there is a lot of willing segregation going on).

Now you have the cultural war over gay marriage, which the southern white bible thumpers have resoundingly lost, much like they lost the Civil War, and as a result they desire to create little miniature kingdoms where they get to discriminate in business practices, and they want to have the legal authority to do so.
I like how you like to always throw the word "southern white" in there. There are many more religious blacks than whites, andblacks are much more opposed to gay marriage than any other race.

The Federal and State governments have an implicit and explicit interest in promoting social unity, and preventing Balkanizing practices that divide this nation into separate little segregated communites. As was pointed out by Sebudai on the last page, and others, Separate but Equal was tried, and it failed.
Except that's exactly what's been happening. We're much more segregated today than we've ever been since previous to the 60s. Why is that?

Frankly, allowing any religious belief to affect any policy for a public establishment (aside from churches themselves) is a direct contradiction of separation of church and state. The government should stop banding over to please religious interests.
I agree completely - but I also believe that a company should have a right to run their business as they see fit. Now, this is very unpopular I know, but I think if a gay bar wants to serve gay only people, they should be able to. If a muslim company wants to serve muslim only, go for it. Let the market decide in the end. We live in a world today that a "white only" business would never be successful just due to the common man's backlash against it. Government doesn't need to be involved - the boycot and backlash will happen naturally.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,378
Dude trying to compare high scale restaurants restricting based on dress codes to discriminating based on people's sexuality or race is such a stretch. I know you're playing a bit of devil's advocate here but that's just a stretch way too far to even think its a cogent point to be made.

School segregation issues based on white flight and the ghettozation of inner cities is a legit issue though, I agree with you on that.

But the problem is that the argument you're making here is a two wrongs fallacy on a fundamental level, and two wrongs never make a right.

I don't go to bars, like ever. I haven't been in a bar since I was younger than 21, if I was being completely honest, but gay bars from my understanding have never restricted or even tried to restrict straights from entering. In fact, when I was younger it was probably the most lucrative place for some of my buddies who dealt drugs heavily to go deal at. They never had any serious problems in terms of not being welcome. However, if they were, which I'm not saying a couple articles in retarded online magazines like slate even justifies the claim that gay bars are trying to restrict access to straights, but let's take the statement at face value, even if they were, that wouldn't justify other forms of discrimination.

Because two wrongs never makes a right.

And blacks are opposed to gay marriage at high levels. That's true. That's a result of blacks being subjugated and forced to worship Massa's ridiculous sky deity, though.

Some black Jehovah's Witnesses hit my house on Easter and I almost...almost....asked them why they worshiped the god of the people that enslaved them, but didn't.

We're much more segregated today than we've ever been since previous to the 60s. Why is that?
And that's not a good trend. Pointing to a bad trend and saying "Eh, its that way so why bother opposing it?" isn't a cogent point on this issue either.

And the reason it is is because our society is losing its fucking mind.

We've been round and round about let the free market fix it. The free market rarely fixes shit.

And we don't live in a free market economy now, and haven't ever, and never will. Its that simple.

The last time a totally free market existed was when we had bones through our noses and were trading rocks with one another.

Government has an implicit and explicit role in promoting a cohesive society that doesn't tear itself apart at the seams. Its that simple. That's why government exists in the first place. It is the way that we, as a society, come together to build up the institutions and cultural and societal structures that allow us to exist peacefully with one another. The government is an imperfect instrument, but the reason it exists is because life without it was tried, and was found wanting, particularly as populations exceeded the calorie production capacity that land is able to produce naturally without irrigation and agricultural practices, etc.

I really think you should ruminate more on exactly how and why society and governments came to exist in the first place. Its a huge error to think that the government is just some excess appendage that serves no functional purpose. To put it bluntly, government works. It is a positively selected for social adaptation that has utterly annihilated all its competition. Hunter gatherer and tribal societies have been outcompeted by the positive selection bias for social characteristics that promote functioning in organized structural systems.

Its a simple fact of our reality. We aren't going to evolve out of government. We have evolved into its use for a reason, that reason is that it has drastically increased the survivability of our species as a whole since its invention as a means of helping to organize and orchestrate mass agricultural and other projects.
 

Selix

Lord Nagafen Raider
2,149
4
Dude trying to compare high scale restaurants restricting based on dress codes to discriminating based on people's sexuality or race is such a stretch. I know you're playing a bit of devil's advocate here but that's just a stretch way too far to even think its a cogent point to be made.

School segregation issues based on white flight and the ghettozation of inner cities is a legit issue though, I agree with you on that.

But the problem is that the argument you're making here is a two wrongs fallacy on a fundamental level, and two wrongs never make a right.

I don't go to bars, like ever. I haven't been in a bar since I was younger than 21, if I was being completely honest, but gay bars from my understanding have never restricted or even tried to restrict straights from entering. In fact, when I was younger it was probably the most lucrative place for some of my buddies who dealt drugs heavily to go deal at. They never had any serious problems in terms of not being welcome. However, if they were, which I'm not saying a couple articles in retarded online magazines like slate even justifies the claim that gay bars are trying to restrict access to straights, but let's take the statement at face value, even if they were, that wouldn't justify other forms of discrimination.

Because two wrongs never makes a right.

And blacks are opposed to gay marriage at high levels. That's true. That's a result of blacks being subjugated and forced to worship Massa's ridiculous sky deity, though.

Some black Jehovah's Witnesses hit my house on Easter and I almost...almost....asked them why they worshiped the god of the people that enslaved them, but didn't.



And that's not a good trend. Pointing to a bad trend and saying "Eh, its that way so why bother opposing it?" isn't a cogent point on this issue either.

And the reason it is is because our society is losing its fucking mind.

We've been round and round about let the free market fix it. The free market rarely fixes shit.

And we don't live in a free market economy now, and haven't ever, and never will. Its that simple.

The last time a totally free market existed was when we had bones through our noses and were trading rocks with one another.

Government has an implicit and explicit role in promoting a cohesive society that doesn't tear itself apart at the seams. Its that simple. That's why government exists in the first place. It is the way that we, as a society, come together to build up the institutions and cultural and societal structures that allow us to exist peacefully with one another. The government is an imperfect instrument, but the reason it exists is because life without it was tried, and was found wanting, particularly as populations exceeded the calorie production capacity that land is able to produce naturally without irrigation and agricultural practices, etc.

I really think you should ruminate more on exactly how and why society and governments came to exist in the first place. Its a huge error to think that the government is just some excess appendage that serves no functional purpose. To put it bluntly, government works. It is a positively selected for social adaptation that has utterly annihilated all its competition. Hunter gatherer and tribal societies have been outcompeted by the positive selection bias for social characteristics that promote functioning in organized structural systems.

Its a simple fact of our reality. We aren't going to evolve out of government. We have evolved into its use for a reason, that reason is that it has drastically increased the survivability of our species as a whole since its invention as a means of helping to organize and orchestrate mass agricultural and other projects.
Now repeat all of that in a Morgan Freeman voice.
 

Phazael

Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard
<Aristocrat╭ರ_•́>
14,803
32,024
Yeah, going to have to go with Ace Rimmer on this. I am a fat ugly straight white guy with gay friends and I have never felt even remotely unwelcome when I have on occasion set foot in a gay bar. Uncomfortable at times? Sure, but I am sure a black guy who goes to a Nascar event feels about the same way or worse. It doesn't mean he is barred from going.
 

The Ancient_sl

shitlord
7,386
16
I feel like you're confusing "catering" to outright segregation. Gay bars cater to gay people, but accept everyone.
It's a poor analogy even still. All the places aladain listed are attempting to cater to a certain group, trying to provide a specific experience. Baking cakes for All Straight People does not pass that test.

If the gay couple came in and demanded a different type of cake, the baker could make a case that it's outside what they offer, but there is no way that baking a normal cake for two homos is placing an undue burden on their business.
 

Heylel

Trakanon Raider
3,602
430
I feel like you're confusing "catering" to outright segregation. Gay bars cater to gay people, but accept everyone.
For whatever reason, gay bars in Atlanta also seem to have the best brunch in town.

And I love brunch, so they're alright with me.
 

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
22,457
29,612
If you are not predisposed to homosexual attractions,you cannot just become gay because of "life experiences" or "personal choices".
I finally had the time to research your paper, but I did not have the time to properly ground my understanding, so you still have the benefit of the doubt.

I stated that I agree that people may have a genetic predisposition to homosexuality before you ever posted your article. I have no problem with that claim, and your article agrees with that claim to the point that it may be true. In their own words, their results fell below their own genetic standard of standard of significance. I don't know what the standards are for their test, but for now I'll assume they know that they're doing. They also further limited their results by saying that they may not even apply outside of their selection criteria. Now I may not be an award winning big shot PHD in genetic studies like you, but I've read enough papers to know that you can't make a claim outside if "Gaynessmayhave a genetic predisposition" after reading that, a claim I have no problem with.

Now lets come to the second part of your claim, the one that people can't develop the gays without their genetic deficiency. That is a claim I object to, a claim you have been given multiple chances to refute or deny and have refused to do so, instead continuing to support it. You cite this paper as proof that you are right repeatedly. Now this is where technical jargon really interferes. They don't release their raw data at all, and only something they refer to as mlod scores. I don't know the mathematical formulate behind what is an mlod score, and haven't had the time to research it, but almost inevitably these things are either averages or significance averages. Under both of those, your second assertion would be completely wrong, but I can't be ENTIRELY sure that you are wrong WITHIN this group until I ask them. That said, they limit the scope of their findings themselves. What justification do you have to apply these findings for all of humanity when they themselves aren't sure that should happen. What justification do you have to make final statements that imply you can't be wrong, when the researchers themselves say they have not done that.

I'm just a fat guy living in a trailer, so please help me out here with your ham-fisted 'I'm a mod so i'll ban you for disagreeing with me' way of debate. Also, I'm still too busy to really engage for a couple days. But don't worry- I'm still around *until he bans me for not agreeing.
 

Hoss

Make America's Team Great Again
<Gold Donor>
27,626
16,065
So, honestly Hoss, with all sincerity. Where do you draw the line between this and a religion that commands people to drink poison? I know I am talking in extremes, but that's how I try to understand things.

If it is two ends of a spectrum: 1. Dick-butt sex 'eeewww-yness' and 2. "God commanded me to force feed you cyanide!"; then where do we draw the line exactly? How much religious freedom is enough? And, what do you use as your determining source?

(I know we're not actually ever going to allow the cyanide extreme in this country. Don't think that's what I meant. I am not afraid that we will. But I just use it as an example because it is so obvious.)
As long as the cyanide drinkers are only killing themselves, I would have trouble drawing a line at all. I forgot who it was that said "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose", but I think that applies here. In the case of the cyanide drinkers, they are not hurting anyone but themselves. The line would definitely be drawn before muslims were allowed to kill someone for being gay.


This sort of Orwellian interpretation of that passage is typical of you religious idiots. Its the same up is down interpretation the jeebus freaks use to claim this is actually a christian nation. You all also very carefully and conveniently ignore the mountains of quotes by the founding fathers stating quite clearly their intent on that front. Do we really need to cite all the examples of them or do you just want to admit this is bullshit?
Yeah, I guess we're going to need to cite those.

On the real, what basic tenet of Christianity states you can't bake a cake for fags? Operating your business does not equal practicing your religion. UNLESS YOU'RE A JEW THERE I SAID IT SHIT NEEDED TO BE SAID. WWJD bro, WWJD indeed.
There is none. That's why I said in the post right before that one that it would be glorious to watch someone try to prove in court that christianity forbids them from doing business with gays. Palum nailed half of my point, the other half is that if it did, it would also require them to not do business with any sinner, and we know that all have sinned. There's no special damnation for gays in the bible, they are just regular run of the mill sinners.

Dude trying to compare high scale restaurants restricting based on dress codes to discriminating based on people's sexuality or race is such a stretch.
You don't have to go to high end places to see dress codes. If you've ever seen stupid sounding dress codes like "no ball caps" in a bar, I guarantee it's because they are trying make certain types feel unwelcome, and those types are generally blacks and sometimes gays.
 

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
22,457
29,612
I feel like you're confusing "catering" to outright segregation. Gay bars cater to gay people, but accept everyone.
for the most part, gays are really accepting. There are some that are extremely anti-female though. I never understood why, but think of literal psycho levels of weird female hate.
 

Hoss

Make America's Team Great Again
<Gold Donor>
27,626
16,065
Not sure you answered my question. Here it is again for reference.

You were talking about genetic markers they found that make a person pre-disposed to homosexuality. Do we have numbers for that? What percentage of people have those markers, what percentage of the population is gay, what percentage of people who have those actually are gay, and what percentage of gays have those markers? I didn't see the full study, the only thing I saw said 'correlation' which, to me, means it's not 100%. So I'm just curious how exact that is.
Everyone with an X chromosome and a chromosome 8 (which is everyone, or you wouldn't be alive, the absence of an X chromosome or any other chromosome is a fatal condition that means the gametes will either not fertilize, or will abort very shortly after fertilization, it is a lethal condition to lack a chromosome of any type, in other words) have these allele clusters. The exact copies of alleles within those clusters vary in the population. And again, these clusters are correlated in the largest, most complete whole genome sequencing analysis project regarding human sexuality to date to pass peer review, with male sexuality across the board.
Are you saying that every living person has the genetic marker pre-disposing them towards being gay? Cause if this is a response to my question, that's sure what it sounds like.

That's because you aren't a scientist, have no background in biology or genetics past, at best, the high school level, and are looking for problems with the research while having, at best, about a tenth of the information you'd need to really grasp what the study says. We don't do 100% anything in science. Ever. That's not how science works. This study backs up previous findings from other studies using smaller data sets. It confirms their correlation of these gene cluster locations to human sexual variation in males. The sample size was nearly 1000 individuals, from over 400 sets of brothers. Which is huge. The largest of its kind to date. The linkage analysis scores were within the proper parameters to exclude confounding factors and the null hypothesis that these gene clusters are not correlated with human sexuality. In other words, this is as close to 100% as you can get in science. The results are already confirming other studies with similar results. Multiple lines of evidence are converging on a similar result and conclusion, which increases the reliability and accuracy of the result.

That's how we confirm things in science. We always leave open the possibility for other evidence to cause us to re evaluate. There is epigenetic considerations, for instance. Issues like how methylated regions of a genome may cause alterations in gene expression and so forth in interactions with the environment, but that will not change the fact that the pericentromeric region of Chromosome 8 and the Xq28 region of the X chromosome have been linked heavily, through multiple large, rigorous studies, with male sexuality. Its as conclusive a find as you're likely to get anytime soon for something as complex as human behavioral patterns in relation to gene expression.

This study uses homosexual brothers in whole genome sequencing studies because they can then do comparative analysis and find regions that are similar in both, that differ from heterosexual males, to determine whether or not these variations in regions of the genome lead to differential outcomes. And that's what the study demonstrates, that these two allele clusters in particular are correlated, at a higher rate than any others, with male sexual variation in human beings.
This is a long winded way of saying "You are right hoss, it's not 100%" Which leads me back to my original questions. Do you have numbers? What % of people with the markers are actually gay?

I hope that helps you to gain a better grasp of the subject.
For some reason I'm way behind the times and just learned what mansplaining is. Is that your schtick?
 

Hoss

Make America's Team Great Again
<Gold Donor>
27,626
16,065
for the most part, gays are really accepting. There are some that are extremely anti-female though. I never understood why, but think of literal psycho levels of weird female hate.
Frankly, gays might just seem that way because they don't have to pull BS like using dress codes to keep out homophobes. Once the homophobes know a place is a gay bar, they will stay away on their own. Let a group from a megachurch decide to take over the most popular gay bar in town for their wednesday meetings, and I bet you'll get get rules like "No bibles allowed" in short order.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,378
You ever read a post and see so much wrong with it you realize it would take you longer to bother rebutting it than you even care to engage in? I know I'm looking at one right now.

You don't even know what an LOD score is, dude. Get the fuck out of here.

An LOD score is the most frequent means of demonstrating linkage between two gene locations, meaning that they are passed on together through reproduction. A score higher than 3.0 indicates that two genes are 1000 times more likely to be linked than unlinked.

What we have here from Furry is the intellectual equivalent of the flailing that Creationists do when confronted with science they don't understand. They seek to find things that don't make senseto them, because they are ignorant and don't know what they are talking about, and then point to it and goSEE? HERES AN INCONSISTENCY.

No.

I don't have the time, nor the inclination to give you several years worth of undergrad biology education. You can go take some classes at the local university and educate yourself on the subject if its that interesting to you. In the future my suggestion is to not sit around blathering about things you clearly don't even comprehend the most basic fundamental pieces of. There is no "technical" jargon in that paper beyond what a first or second year undergrad student would know.

I mean when they are pointing to regions with LOD scores bordering on 3.0 and you're claiming that this doesn't meet their "own genetic standard of standard of significance", clearly you need to just stop posting at that point.

Scientists do not write papers like this:

We have proven without a shadow of a doubt that X is true
That doesn't happen. When they point out issues like "these results may not apply outside our selection criteria" what they are doing is playing a form of devil's advocate, offering up potential routes for future research, and couching their conclusions in language that does not assert absolute knowledge claims. Because that's how science works. This isn't theism, where we make absolute knowledge claims and pretend to know things we don't know. The correlation between these locations and homosexual behavior is very significant.

Please.

Here. Go educate yourself on LOD scores, at least.

Jesus fucking Christ.

http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~mcclean/...e/linkage6.htm

but I've read enough papers to know that you can't make a claim outside if "Gayness may have a genetic predisposition" after reading that
Yeah, we can, actually. Homosexual behavior is clearly demonstrated to have a correlation with genetic predisposition. There are also epigenetic concerns, that may be where the real action is happening in terms of defining who is homosexual and who is not, and to what extent they are homosexual in terms of the Kinsey scale. That's still being worked on, but the clear correlation between homosexual proclivity and genetic underpinnings is confirmed by this study.

All this was covered in this article, one of the first I posted

Being Gay Not a Choice: Science Contradicts Ben Carson

Biological origins

Humans aren't the only species that has same-sex pairings. For instance, female Japanese macaques may sometimes participate in energetic sexual stimulation. Lions, chimpanzees, bison and dolphins have also been spotted in same-sex pairings. And nearly 130 bird species have been observed engaging in sexual activities with same-sex partners.

While the evolutionary purpose of this behavior is not clear, the fact that animals routinely exhibit same-sex behavior belies the notion that gay sex is a modern human innovation.

No studies have found specific "gay genes" that reliably make someone gay. But some genes may make being gay likelier. For instance, a 2014 study in the journal Psychological Medicine showed that a gene on the X chromosome (one of the sex chromosomes) called Xq28 and a gene on chromosome 8 seem to be found in higher prevalence in men who are gay. That study, involving more than 400 pairs of gay brothers, followed the 1993 report by geneticist Dean Hamer suggesting the existence of a "gay gene." Other research has found that being gay or lesbian tends to run in families. It's also more likely for two identical twins, who share all of their genes, to both be gay than it is for two fraternal twins, who share just half of their genes, to both be homosexual. Those studies also suggest that genes seemed to have a greater influence on the sexual orientation of male versus female identical twins.

A 2012 study proposed that epigenetic changes, or alterations in marks on DNA that turn certain genes on and off, may play a role in homosexuality. This type of gene regulation isn't as stable as DNA, and can be switched on and off by environmental factors or conditions in the womb during prenatal development. But this so-called epigenome can also be passed on from generation to generation, which would explain why being gay seems to run in families, even when a single gene can't be pinpointed.

How such gay genes get passed down from generation to generation has puzzled scientists, given that gay couples cannot reproduce. One study found that gay men are biologically predisposed to help care for their nieces and nephews. Essentially, these gay uncles are helping their relatives to reproduce. "Kin therefore pass on more of the genes which they would share with their homosexual relatives," said evolutionary psychologist Paul Vasey of the University of Lethbridge in Canada, in a past Live Science article.

Orientation change

If being gay is truly a choice, then people who attempt to change their orientation should be able to do so. But most people who are gay describe it as a deeply ingrained attraction that can't simply be shut off or redirected.

On that, studies are clear. Gay conversion therapy is ineffective, several studies have found, and the American Psychological Association now says such treatment is harmful and can worsen feelings of self-hatred.

For men, studies suggest that orientation is fixed by the time the individual reaches puberty. Women show greater levels of "erotic plasticity," meaning their levels of attraction are more significantly shaped by culture, experience and love than is the case for men. However, even women who switch from gay to straight lifestyles don't stop being attracted to women, according to a 2012 study in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.

Those results suggest that while people can change their behavior, they aren't really changing their basic sexual attraction.
I'm going to be pretty busy from 1:30 till I go to bed tonight, and again tomorrow as well, so I'm not going to have time to go round and round with you about this shit. But you really need to stop for a minute, consider that you think referencing LOD scores is "highly technical jargon" might just be evidence that you're attempting to debate a topic that's 2deep4u and out of your league. Because it is. I've read this entire paper and there is nothing "highly technical" about the way it is written. Its that simple. A first year biology undergrad could read this paper and understand the vast majority of it.

And just to prove it, I'll cite the entire paper here for everyone to read

Abstract This is the first report of a full genome scan of sexual orientation in men. A
sample of 456 individuals from 146 families with two or more gay brothers was
genotyped with 403 microsatellite markers at 10-cM intervals. Given that previously
reported evidence of maternal loading of transmission of sexual orientation could indicate
epigenetic factors acting on autosomal genes, maximum likelihood estimations (mlod)
scores were calculated separated for maternal, paternal, and combined transmission. The
highest mlod score was 3.45 at a position near D7S798 in 7q36 with approximately
equivalent maternal and paternal contributions. The second highest mlod score of 1.96
was located near D8S505 in 8p12, again with equal maternal and paternal contributions.
A maternal origin effect was found near marker D10S217 in 10q26, with a mlod score of
1.81 for maternal meioses and no paternal contribution. We did not find linkage to Xq28
in the full sample, but given the previously reported evidence of linkage in this region,
we conducted supplemental analyses to clarify these findings. First, we re-analyzed our
previously reported data and found a mlod of 6.47. We then re-analyzed our current data,
after limiting the sample to those families previously reported, and found a mlod of 1.99.
These Xq28 findings are discussed in detail. The results of this first genome screen for
normal variation in the behavioral trait of sexual orientation in males should encourage
efforts to replicate these findings in new samples with denser linkage maps in the
suggested regions.

Brian S. Mustanski and Michael G. DuPree contributed equally to this work.

Introduction
Although most males report primarily heterosexual attractions, a significant minority
(approximately 2%-6%) of males report predominantly homosexual attractions
(Diamond 1993; Laumann et al. 1994; Wellings et al. 1994). Multiple lines of evidence
suggest that biological factors play a role in explaining individual differences in male
sexual orientation (MIM 306995). For example, the third interstitial nuclei of the human
anterior hypothalamus (INAH3), which is significantly smaller in females, is also
reported to be smaller in homosexual males (LeVay 1991). Byne and colleagues (2001)
followed up on this finding by reporting a trend for INAH3 to occupy a smaller volume
in homosexual men than in heterosexual men, with no significant difference in the
number of neurons within the nucleus. Neuropsychological studies have reported
differences in performance with respect to tasks that show sex differences, such as spatial
processing (e.g., Rahman and Wilson 2003), which may indicate differences in relevant
neural correlates (e.g., parietal cortex). The strong link between adult sexual orientation
and childhood gender-related traits expressed at an early age (Bailey and Zucker 1995)
suggests that such biological influences act early in development, possibly prenatally.
Similarly, the correlation between sexual orientation and a variety of prenatally canalized
anthropometric traits suggests that sexual orientation differentiation probably occurs
before birth (for a review, see Mustanski et al. 2002). Despite this evidence, specific
neurodevelopmental pathways have yet to be elucidated.

Family and twin studies have provided evidence for a genetic component to male sexual
orientation. Family studies, using a variety of ascertainment strategies, document an
elevation in the rate of homosexuality among relatives of homosexual probands (for a
review, see Bailey and Pillard 1995). Several family studies report evidence of increased
maternal transmission of male homosexuality (Hamer et al. 1993; Rice et al. 1999a),
whereas others find no increase relative to paternal transmission (Bailey et al. 1999;
McKnight and Malcolm 2000). Twin studies consistently show that male sexual
orientation is moderately heritable (for a review, see Mustanski et al. 2002). For example,
two recent twin studies in population-based samples both report moderate heritability
estimates, with the remaining variance being explained by nonshared environmental
influences (Kendler et al. 2000; Kirk et al. 2000). The results from family and twin
studies demonstrate that sexual orientation is a complex (i.e., does not show simple
Medelian inheritance) and multifactorial phenotype.
A more limited number of studies have attempted to map specific genes contributing to
variation in sexual orientation. Given the evidence for increased maternal transmission,
initial efforts focused on the X chromosome. One study produced evidence of significant
linkage, based on Lander and Kruglyak (1995) criteria, to markers on Xq28 (Hamer et al.
1993). Another study, from the same laboratory but with a new sample, reported a
significant replication of these findings (Hu et al. 1995). An independent group produced
inconclusive results regarding linkage to Xq28 (discussed in Sanders and Dawood 2003)
but did not publish the findings in a peer-reviewed journal. All three of these studies
excluded families showing evidence for non-maternal transmission. A fourth study from
another independent group found no support for linkage, even when excluding cases with
suggestive father-to-son transmission (Rice et al. 1999b). An analysis of the results across
all four studies produced a statistically suggestive multiple scan probability (MSP) value
of 0.00003 (Sanders and Dawood 2003). Two candidate gene studies have been
conducted, both producing null results: one for the androgen receptor (AR; Macke et al.
1993) and another for aromatase (CYP19A1; Dupree et al. 2004), on Xq12 and 15q21.2,
respectively.

Given the complexity of sexual orientation, numerous genes are likely to be involved,
many of which are expected to be autosomal rather than sex-linked. Indeed, the modest
levels of linkage that have been reported for the X chromosome can account for, at most,
only a fraction of the overall heritability of male sexual orientation as deduced from twin
studies. Therefore, we have undertaken a genomewide linkage scan to aid in the
identification of genes contributing to variation in sexual orientation. As in previous
studies, we diminished the probability of false positives (i.e., gay men who identify as
heterosexual) by only studying self-identified gay men. Unlike previous studies that have
focused solely on the X-chromosome and thus excluded families showing evidence of
non-maternal transmission, this study did not use transmission pattern as an exclusion
criteria. To consider the possibility that previously reported evidence of maternal loading
of transmission of sexual orientation was attributable to epigenetic factors acting on
autosomal genes, we calculated maximum likelihood estimations (mlod) scores separated
by maternal or paternal transmission and the combined statistic. Based on Lander and
Kruglyak s (1995) criteria, we found one region of near significance and two regions
close to the criteria for suggestive linkage.

Materials and methods
Family ascertainment and assessment
The sample consisted of a total of 456 individuals from 146 unrelated families, of which
137 families had two gay brothers and 9 families had three gay brothers. Thirty of the
families included one parent, and 30 of the families included both parents. Additionally,
46 of the families included at least one heterosexual male or female full sibling (up to 6
additional siblings per family). The sample included 40 families previously reported by
Hamer et al. (1993), 33 families previously reported by Hu et al. (1995), and 73
previously unreported families. The 73 previously described families were selected for
the presence of two gay brothers with no indication of non-maternal transmission by the
criteria described previously (Hamer et al. 1993; Hu et al. 1995). For the 73 new families,
the sole inclusion criterion was the presence of at least two self-acknowledged gay male
siblings.

Subjects were recruited through advertisements in local and national homophile
publications as described elsewhere (Hamer et al. 1993; Hu et al. 1995). The participants
were predominantly white (94.5%), college educated (87.4%), and of middle to upper
socioeconomic status. The mean (SD) age for the gay siblings was 36.98 (8.64). The
protocol was approved by the NCI Institutional Review Board, and each participant
signed an informed consent form prior to interview, questionnaire completion, and the
donation of blood for DNA extraction.

Sexual orientation was assessed through a structured interview or a questionnaire that
included a sexual history and the Kinsey scales of sexual attraction, fantasy, behavior,
and self-identification (Kinsey et al. 1948). Each scale ranges from 0 (exclusively
heterosexual) to 6 (exclusively homosexual). The mean (SD) of these four scales for the
gay males in this study was 5.65 (0.46)

Genotyping
DNA was extracted from peripheral blood by a commercial service (Genetic Design,
Greensboro, N.C., USA). A multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was conducted as
described (Dupree et al. 2004), with 403 microsatellite markers from the ABI PRISM
Linkage Mapping Set Version 2.5 with an average resolution of 10 cM. Following the
manufacturer s guidelines, products were analyzed on an ABI Prism 310 or 3100 and
sized with the GeneScan version 3.1.2 program (PE Biosystems, Foster City, Calif.,
USA), and genotypes were assigned with the Genotyper version 3.6 program (PE
Biosystems). A PCR product from a DNA reference sample (CEPH 1347-02) was used to
monitor sizing conformity (PE Biosystems). Across the 403 markers, genotypes were
ascertained on average for 95% of the 456 individuals. Mendelian incompatibilities
(<0.05% of genotypes) were removed from the data prior to analyses by using the
sib_clean routine from ASPEX version 2.4 (Hinds and Risch 1996). The computer
program CERVUS 2.0 (Marshall et al. 1998) was employed to test for deviation from the
Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HW) and to calculate polymorphism information contents
(PICs) at all loci. We found that the markers had a mean (SD) PIC of 0.76 (0.08), and
1.31% of the markers deviated significantly from HW.

Statistical analyses
Nonparametric exclusion mapping of affected sib-pair data (ASP) was performed by
using ASPEX version 2.4 (Hinds and Risch 1996). ASPEX calculates the percentage of
identical by descent (%IBD) sharing and reports the proportion of shared alleles of
paternal, maternal, and combined origin. The results for alleles of combined origin also
include alleles where the parental origin is unknown. We calculated mlod with a linear
model and assuming a multiplicative model. The ASPEX SIB_PHASE algorithm was
applied; this uses allele frequency information to reconstruct and to phase missing
parental information. Sex-specific recombination maps were used for the calculation of
multipoint mlod scores. Marker order and map positions were determined by using an
integrated map (Nievergelt et al. 2004) based on the deCODE genetic map and updated
physical map information.

Results
Results from the multipoint analyses on chromosomes 1 through 22 are shown in Fig. 1
for paternal, maternal, and combined meioses. Our complete genome scan for male
sexual orientation yielded three interesting peaks with mlod scores greater than 1.8,
located on chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. Table 1 contains additional information concerning
these peaks, including the nearest marker, the location, MLOD, and allele sharing.
Additionally, Table 1 contains the approximate boundary of the linkage peak, by
reporting the approximate cM position at which the mlod score declines below 1.0. For
chromosomes 7 and 8, the peak is a result of approximately equal contributions from
maternal and paternal transmission, whereas a maternal-origin effect was found for the
peak on chromosome 10.

Discussion
This study reports results from the first full genome scan for male sexual orientation.
Using 73 previously reported families and 73 new families with two or more gay male
siblings, we found three new regions of genetic interest. Our strongest finding was on
7q36 with a combined mlod score of 3.45 and equal contribution from maternal and
paternal allele transmission. This score falls just short of Lander and Kruglyak s (1995)
criteria for genomewide significance. Several interesting candidate genes map to this
region of chromosome 7. Vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) receptor type 2 (VIPR2;
MIM 601970) is a G protein-coupled receptor that activates adenylate cyclase in response
to VIP (Metwali et al. 1996), which functions as a neurotransmitter and as a
neuroendocrine hormone. VIPR2 is essential for the development of the hypothalamic
suprachiasmatic nucleus in mice (Harmar et al. 2002), which makes it an interesting
candidate gene for sexual orientation in view of earlier reports of an enlarged
suprachiasmatic nucleus in homosexual men (Swaab and Hofman 1990). Sonic hedgehog
(SHH; MIM 600725) plays an essential role in patterning the early embryo, including
hemisphere separation (Roessler et al. 1996) and left to right asymmetry (Tsukui et al.
1999). Homosexual men and women show a significant increase in non-righthandedness,
which is related to brain asymmetry (Lalumiere et al. 2000).
Two additional regions approached the criteria for suggestive linkage. The region near
8p12 contains several interesting candidate genes, given the hypothesized relationship
between prenatal hormones and sexual orientation (Mustanski et al. 2002). Gonadotropinreleasing
hormone 1 (GNRH1; MIM 152760) stimulates both the synthesis and release of
luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone, which are important regulators of
steroidogenesis in the gonads, and inhibits the release of prolactin (Adelman et al. 1986).
GnRH is synthesized in the arcuate nucleus and other nuclei of the hypothalamus
(Kawakami et al. 1975). Steroidogenic acute regulatory protein (STAR; MIM 600617)
mediates pregnenolone synthesis and is involved in the hypothalamic-pituitary regulation
of adrenal steroid production (Sugawara et al. 1995), which in turn plays an important
role in sexual development. Neuregulin1 (NRG1; MIM 142445) produces a variety of
isoforms that regulate the growth and differentiation of neuronal and glial cells through
interaction with ERBB receptors (Burden and Yarden 1997; Wen et al. 1994).

The 10q26 region is of special interest because it results from excess sharing of maternal
but not paternal alleles. Previous studies have suggested that there is an excess of
homosexual family members related to the proband through the mother, and we have
proposed previously that this might result in part from genomic imprinting (Bocklandt
and Hamer 2003). In support of a connection between 10q26 and imprinting, a germline
differentially methylated region has been identified at this location by Strichman-
Almashanu et al. (2002) who performed a genomewide screen for normally methylated
CpG islands and found 12 regions to be differentially methylated in uniparental tissues of
germline origin, i.e., hydatidiform moles (paternal origin) and complete ovarian
teratomas (maternal origin). Such CpG islands can regulate the expression of imprinted
genes over distances of several hundred kilobases. The region around the 10q26 CpG
islands includes the brain-expressed gene Shadow of Prion Protein (SPRN), several
transcription regulators (ZNF511, VENTX2; MIM 607158), neurotransmitter interacting
proteins (DRD1IP; MIM 604647), and cell signaling pathway proteins (INPP5A; MIM
600106, GPR123).
Four previous linkage studies have been conducted on the X chromosome and together
produce a statistically suggestive MSP in the Xq28 region (Sanders and Dawood 2003).
Because the focus of this study was a full genome scan with the ABI linkage mapping set
on a partially new set of families, we began by reporting results for these markers on the
full sample. This analysis did not produce evidence of linkage in the Xq28 region;
therefore, we conducted supplemental analyses to clarify this result given previous
findings. Our first supplemental analysis combined results from the two previous reports
from our group (Hamer et al. 1993; Hu et al. 1995) in order to determine the magnitude
of the linkage signal in the 73 previously reported families that currently comprised half
of the current sample. This produced a mlod of 6.47. To determine whether the lack of
linkage evidence in the full sample was attributable to the new markers or the additional
families (who were not selected based on family transmission patterns), we then
conducted analyses on the previously reported families by using the markers from the
ABI linkage mapping set. This produced an mlod score of 1.99. Table 2, which provides
a summary of the single point and multipoint results for this comparison, suggests that
that the difference in mlod score between the restricted sample with the old and new
markers is attributable to the non-optimal position and density of the new markers. The
difference in mlod scores between the full sample and the sample restricted to families
without evidence of paternal transmission (with the goal of enriching the sample for
families showing maternal transmission) denotes the possibility of etiologic heterogeneity
for the proposed Xq28 locus.
Several limitations of the current study should be noted. First, we were unable to
calculate empirically derived significance levels for this project because none of the
simulation programs that currently exist allow for the use of sex-specific maps with ASP
data. Future development of simulation programs that allow for the incorporation of this
important information will prevent this limitation in the future. Second, our marker set
had an average resolution of 10 cM, which may have led to underestimated mlod scores.
We discuss in detail above the likely negative effects that this had on our X chromosome
results. Optimally, genome scans are followed up with dense markers placed in promising
regions, but because of financial limitations, we were unable to do this. Future studies
will undoubtedly employ more sophisticated and dense marker sets. Third, we analyzed
only 146 independent families, which is a small sample for a complex trait such as sexual
orientation. Approximately half of these families have previously been included in
reports on the X chromosome (Hamer et al. 1993; Hu et al. 1995). Future research should
be conducted on a new and larger sample of participants. Our linkage results should be
interpreted with consideration of the fact that we only included families with two selfidentified
gay brothers. Our results may not extrapolate to individuals who do not meet
our exclusion criteria, such as individuals who engage in same-sex behavior but do not
identify as gay or individuals who identify as bisexual. The definition of homosexuality is
complicated, and future genetic research would benefit from additional phenotype
development or the identification of endophenotypes for sexual orientation (Mustanski et
al. 2002). The identification of basic processes that underlie sexual orientation could
increase the power of future genetic studies. A related limitation is that we did not
include females in our study because it is not yet clear if female sexual orientation is
determined by the same factors as male sexual orientation (for a discussion, see
Mustanski et al. 2002). Future research with mix-sexed samples should help to answer
this question. Finally, we did not collect data on the number of older brothers, which
shows a robust association with male sexual orientation (Blanchard 2004). Future studies
should collect this data to allow for explorations of gene by environment interactions; this
could increase the ability to identify genetic loci and also help to elucidate the process
linking number of older brothers to sexual orientation.
In summary, we report the first genome scan for loci involved in the complex phenotype
of male sexual orientation. We have also identified several chromosomal regions and
candidate genes for future exploration. The molecular analysis of genes involved in
sexual orientation could greatly advance our understanding of human variation,
evolution, and brain development. In the absence of obvious animal models, genetic
linkage and association studies provide the best opportunity for discovering these loci.
Acknowledgements We thank all the individuals who participated in the project for
their time and openness and Lynn Goldin and Danielle Dick for comments on the
manuscript. B.S.M. was supported by a NSF Graduate Research Fellowship and an NIH
Summer Research Fellowship. N.J.S. and C.M.N. were supported in part by the NHLBI
Family Blood Pressure Program (FBPP; HL64777-01).

Literally the only parts not cited are the graphs and discussion of the graphs. You can find this paper in a google search in about 3 seconds by simply searching its title. Its available entirely for free download as a pdf.
 

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,968
Yeah but Furry lives in a trailer and is fat. Thats proof that you are wrong dude.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,378
Not sure you answered my question.
I did. Tough titties if you didn't understand it.

Are you saying that every living person has the genetic marker pre-disposing them towards being gay?
No, I also answered this very clearly. Again, tough titties if it was 2deep4u. Everyone has these regions on their chromosome X and chromosome 8. The allele variation within those regions is linked with male sexual expression. The ways those alleles vary, and how they interact with the environment in an epigenetic fashion (how they are methylated to turn on and off certain genes, essentially) is linked with male sexual expression. Scientists aren't clear if the primary cause of male homosexuality is a direct 1 to 1 function of the genes being expressed in these regions, or a result of how these genes interact with the environment, but that isn't necessary to understand and recognize that homosexual tendencies has a strong underlying genetic basis.

This is a long winded way of saying "You are right hoss, it's not 100%"
No, this is just a strawman founded in your complete lack of reading comprehension.

What % of people with the markers are actually gay?
Again. 100% of people have the pericentromeric region of chromosome 8 and the Xq28 region of the X chromosome.

This is why talking about this with you is pointless. You lack even a basic enough understanding to formulate this question correctly. What you want to ask is something along the lines of

Which alleles and in what frequencies within these genetic clusters are correlated with homosexuality versus heterosexuality?
To which the answer is: We don't know yet, but that doesn't negate the fact that these regions are correlated at an extremely high frequency with male homosexual behavior, and the correlation with twin studies and past studies on the subject indicates multiple lines of evidence all converging on this same conclusion, which means we don't need to be able to point to the exact codons within these regions that are causing the behavior, or the exact mechanism, be it 1 to 1 correlated with gene function, or a result of epigenetic "Triggering" of these regions via DNA methylation to conclude that these regions are, in fact, underpinning male sexual behavior.

We also don't know, for instance, exactly what parts of the region of the CFTR gene cause exactly which phenotypic effects in Cystic Fibrosis patients, although we're honing in much closer on answers to those types of questions, but that doesn't negate the fact that we know, for a fact, due to similar genome wide linkage analysis studies, that the CFTR gene region on chromosome 7iswithout a doubt the causal factor in whether someone is affected with Cystic Fibrosis or not. The region in question is some 200k base pairs long, and its only been a bit over a decade since the Human Genome was fully sequenced, and answers to complex questions don't just appear over night.

CFTR - cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (ATP-binding cassette sub-family C, member 7) - Genetics Home Reference

And you better believe I'm mansplaining to you right now.

added:

It very well may be that almost all males have a potentiality to be homosexual, and it is the ways in which these regions are methylated to turn on and off certain sections that results in male homosexuality. It may also be feasible that only certain combinations of alleles within these regions result in a propensity for male homosexual behavior, and that epigenetic DNA methylation dictates to what degree a person ends up identifying as a homosexual or has strong homosexual fixations/urges/behavioral patterns, whatever. We don't know yet.

But what we do know, as certain as we understand that cystic fibrosis is a result of anomalous mutations in the CFTR region of human chromosome 7, is that these regions are, in fact, underlying male sexual behavioral patterns in some form or fashion.

It isn't as simple as there is a single "gay gene", but its not some "conscious choice" people are engaging in making, either. There is a strong genetic underpinning to all human sexuality, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, and the fact that we've identified the regions which are most probable to be involved in this process in males is strong evidence for the claim that homosexuality is not a "choice", but rather the result of complex interactions between gene expression and environment.

As with pretty muchall complex human social behaviors
 

Phazael

Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard
<Aristocrat╭ರ_•́>
14,803
32,024
Hoss_sl said:
Yeah, I guess we're going to need to cite those.
Here is the most concise article on it, including citations. Feel free to ignore it in your normal retarded way.

"The Christian right is trying to rewrite the history of the United States as part of its campaign to force its religion on others. They try to depict the founding fathers as pious Christians who wanted the United States to be a Christian nation, with laws that favored Christians and Christianity.

This is patently untrue. The early presidents and patriots were generally Deists or Unitarians, believing in some form of impersonal Providence but rejecting the divinity of Jesus and the absurdities of the Old and New testaments.

Thomas Paine was a pamphleteer whose manifestos encouraged the faltering spirits of the country and aided materially in winning the war of Independence:
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."
From:
The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, pp. 8,9 (Republished 1984, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY)



George Washington, the first president of the United States, never declared himself a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence. Washington Championed the cause of freedom from religious intolerance and compulsion. When John Murray (a universalist who denied the existence of hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the other chaplains petitioned Washington for his dismissal. Instead, Washington gave him the appointment. On his deathbed, Washinton uttered no words of a religious nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance.
From:
George Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller Jr., pp. 16, 87, 88, 108, 113, 121, 127 (1963, Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, TX)

John Adams, the country's second president, was drawn to the study of law but faced pressure from his father to become a clergyman. He wrote that he found among the lawyers 'noble and gallant achievments" but among the clergy, the "pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces". Late in life he wrote: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"

It was during Adam's administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."
From:
The Character of John Adams by Peter Shaw, pp. 17 (1976, North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC) Quoting a letter by JA to Charles Cushing Oct 19, 1756, and John Adams, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by James Peabody, p. 403 (1973, Newsweek, New York NY) Quoting letter by JA to Jefferson April 19, 1817, and in reference to the treaty, Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 311 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, June, 1814.

Thomas Jefferson, third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, said:"I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian." He referred to the Revelation of St. John as "the ravings of a maniac" and wrote:
The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained."
From:
Thomas Jefferson, an Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie, p. 453 (1974, W.W) Norton and Co. Inc. New York, NY) Quoting a letter by TJ to Alexander Smyth Jan 17, 1825, and Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim by Alf Mapp Jr., pp. 246 (1991, Madison Books, Lanham, MD) quoting letter by TJ to John Adams, July 5, 1814.

James Madison, fourth president and father of the Constitution, was not religious in any conventional sense. "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
From:
The Madisons by Virginia Moore, P. 43 (1979, McGraw-Hill Co. New York, NY) quoting a letter by JM to William Bradford April 1, 1774, and James Madison, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Joseph Gardner, p. 93, (1974, Newsweek, New York, NY) Quoting Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments by JM, June 1785.

Ethan Allen, whose capture of Fort Ticonderoga while commanding the Green Mountain Boys helped inspire Congress and the country to pursue the War of Independence, said, "That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words." In the same book, Allen noted that he was generally "denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian." When Allen married Fanny Buchanan, he stopped his own wedding ceremony when the judge asked him if he promised "to live with Fanny Buchanan agreeable to the laws of God." Allen refused to answer until the judge agreed that the God referred to was the God of Nature, and the laws those "written in the great book of nature."
From:
Religion of the American Enlightenment by G. Adolph Koch, p. 40 (1968, Thomas Crowell Co., New York, NY.) quoting preface and p. 352 of Reason, the Only Oracle of Man and A Sense of History compiled by American Heritage Press Inc., p. 103 (1985, American Heritage Press, Inc., New York, NY.)



Benjamin Franklin, delegate to the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, said:
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble." He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great Americans of his time, to be a Deist, not a Christian.
From:
Benjamin Franklin, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Thomas Fleming, p. 404, (1972, Newsweek, New York, NY) quoting letter by BF to Exra Stiles March 9, 1970.



The words "In God We Trust" were not consistently on all U.S. currency until 1956, during the McCarthy Hysteria.

The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." The treaty was written during the Washington administration, and sent to the Senate during the Adams administration. It was read aloud to the Senate, and each Senator received a printed copy. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate, but only the third time a vote was unanimous (the next time was to honor George Washington). There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty. It was reprinted in full in three newspapers - two in Philadelphia, one in New York City. There is no record of public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.
 

Hoss

Make America's Team Great Again
<Gold Donor>
27,626
16,065
added:

It very well may be that almost all males have a potentiality to be homosexual, and it is the ways in which these regions are methylated to turn on and off certain sections that results in male homosexuality. It may also be feasible that only certain combinations of alleles within these regions result in a propensity for male homosexual behavior, and that epigenetic DNA methylation dictates to what degree a person ends up identifying as a homosexual or has strong homosexual fixations/urges/behavioral patterns, whatever. We don't know yet.
Thanks