Gay Marriage Study Faked!

Not everyone agrees with Gay Marriage!

Not everyone agrees with Gay Marriage!

We’ve heard it over and over again in the main stream media – a majority of Americans now support “same-sex” marriage.  It is the rationale those pushing for this radical change to U.S. culture are using to press ahead with their agenda.

But, a new report just out shoots down this assumption being hammered home by the left.  The Daily Caller reports:

A study purporting to show that people’s views on gay marriage could change simply by meeting gay people has been retracted following revelations that its data was fabricated.

The study was published last December in Science, and prior to publication drew a great deal of attention from the American media. Vox, for instance, described the findings in the study as “kind of miraculous.” As it turns out, that’s exactly what they were, because they were apparently made up.According to the study, people from communities hostile to gay marriage could have their opinions shift dramatically after spending just a few minutes speaking with a gay person who canvassed their neighborhood promoting gay marriage. Not only that, but this could have a spillover effect, making not just the people themselves more pro-gay but also other people who lived in the same household.

The study, among other things, lent support to the notion that those opposed to gay marriage simply don’t know or interact with open homosexuals. More broadly, it was seen as an important development in the science of how people can be convinced to change their minds on ideologically-charged issues.

I don’t know why this should surprise us.  The left always plays “fast and loose ” with the facts to spew their propaganda.  Perception is reality as far as they are concerned.

The Daily Caller provides more details:

The study began to fall apart when students at the University of California at Berkeley sought to conduct additional research building off of it, only to find major irregularities in how its research was apparently conducted. For example, thermometers used to measure participants’ attitudes produced consistent, reliable information, even though they are known for producing relatively unreliable numbers.

Also, the data recovered had an exceptionally consistent distribution, with not a single one of the 12,000 supposed participants providing anomalous or unusual results. In other words, the study’s data was too perfect to be believable.

Donald Green, a professor at Columbia University and a co-author of the paper, made the decision to retract it after having a confrontation with co-author Michael LaCour, a graduate student at UCLA. While LaCour maintained that he hadn’t fabricated the data, he was also unable to produce the original source files supposedly used to produce it. When he failed to write-up a retraction, Green took the initiative and did so himself.

“I am deeply embarrassed by this turn of events and apologize to the editors, reviewers, and readers of Science,” Green told Retraction Watch, a science watchdog website.

How much damage this “fake” study has already inflicted on America is not known, but don’t look to anyone in the main stream media to correct the record.  They are completely sold on the idea of “same-sex” marriage and all of the “transgender fluidity” nonsense now being pushed by the same people who pushed for acceptance of homosexual behavior as normative.

It may take the American people some time to see through this most recent fraud, but truth has a funny way of coming out; especially when all of the lies start to fall like a house of cards.

 

Source:  thefederalistpapers.org

Bullied into Gay Marriage

Not everyone agrees with Gay Marriage!

Not everyone agrees with Gay Marriage!

Being bullied into any belief is a crime!  The majority of people don’t actually support Same Sex Marriage.  So why the big push to have this in our society?  The big push comes from one of the lowest tactic’s that are available to man-kind, being “Bullied”.

 

Article:  dailytelegraph.com.au

“IT seems to have boiled down to this. If you don’t support the rush towards gay marriage, you are either out of touch or just a bigot. Or worse still, you’re a mean-spirited and gay-hating denier, standing in the way of love … and you ought to be ashamed.

These are familiar arguments to any politician or public commentator who has taken a stance against the ­fashionable and fast-moving tide to redefine what marriage is about.

In parliament, those who oppose a change on both sides of politics are a frightened majority.

Not that you’d know it.

A casual reader of the news could easily be left with the impression that this is all just a fait accompli.

Here we are again, back in the zone where having an ­alternative view makes you the enemy.

Speak against the fashion and be prepared to be smeared, ridiculed and bullied.

These are the climate change tactics back again.

Something is wrong with you if you haven’t decorated your Facebook photo with rainbow colours. Good luck if you have but it turns out you’ve been sucked in by yet another data-collecting exercise.

Those who resisted were “deniers”, “out of touch”, “fossils and dinosaurs”, “selfish” and “in the pocket of the oil companies”.

Same game, different story.

The left is again framing its debate so that anyone who disagrees is bashed into a lonely corner.

It’s a schoolyard tactic that has spineless politicians frightened of speaking out.

Large sections of the media have drunk buckets of the Kool-Aid and have lost all objectivity on the issue.

It’s just like the dirty game of push-polling. Keep telling them change is inevitable and if you don’t believe that, here’s another survey to prove it.

And, if that doesn’t work, pull out the “international embarrassment” card.

How many times this week have you heard that we should be there too — just like New Zealand, Ireland, and now the United States?

It’s dumb logic but it works.

Something is wrong with you if you haven’t decorated your Facebook photo with rainbow colours. Good luck if you have but it turns out you’ve been sucked in by yet another data-collecting exercise.

The marriage equality argument has come down to humiliation and ridicule and a claim that to resist is to sit on the wrong side of history.

Just like climate change, and the push towards a republic in the late ’90s, gay marriage has become the latest and greatest moral challenge of our times. The trouble is, it’s not.”

 

 

 

Personally, I think Gay Marriage is terrible and should not be allowed!  Being bullied into believing Gay Marriage is suitable, reflects on how appalling the whole idea is anyways.  Don’t let anyone tell you that this new push for equality is appropriate.  Don’t let anyone bully you into thinking that you are a bigot, just because you think Gay Marriage is gruesome and vile.  If you can, report any bulling to the proper authorities to stop this aggravation. Don’t let the internet brain wash you into thinking that same sex marriage the norm, because its not!

 

Source:  dailytelegraph.com.au

Smoking increases child being gay

A woman’s lifestyle during pregnancy is directly linked to  whether they may be gay, or having an impact on their IQ

 

A neuroscientist has claimed a woman's lifestyle during pregnancy is directly linked to the development of their children, influencing whether they may be gay and having an impact on their IQ

A neuroscientist has claimed a woman’s lifestyle during pregnancy is directly linked to the development of their children, influencing whether they may be gay and having an impact on their IQ

 

Women who smoke or who lead a stressful life during pregnancy can affect sexuality and your child’s IQ , a neuroscientist said .
The lifestyle of a pregnant woman to have an impact on the development of their babies woman – drinking, drugs and even live in an area with a lot of pollution that affects children in later life .

Dick Swaab , professor of neurobiology at the University of Amsterdam , suggests drinking and taking drugs can lower the IQ of a child while taking synthetic hormones and smoking can increase the likelihood of being lesbian or bisexual girls.

Having more older brothers are also thought to increase the possibility that the boys are gay, possibly by the development of the immune system of the mother to be stronger to male hormones with each child born replies .

” Prenatal exposure to nicotine and amphetamines increases the likelihood of daughters lesbians”

“Pregnant women who suffer from stress are also more likely to have gay children of both sexes, as the high level of the stress hormone cortisol affects the production of sex hormones in the fetus. ”

He said the brain of the fetus begins to develop within two weeks , with all that introduces toxins in the body that has an impact on this development. Studies show women taking synthetic estrogen between 1939 and 1960 to reduce the chances of miscarriage had a higher probability of bisexuality and lesbianism in her daughters.

Swaab added: ” In women who drink heavily , cells that were destined to migrate through the fetal brain may end up leaving the brain as a whole. ”

Living in a hot zone is linked to an increased risk of autism.

Swaab said lifestyle factors are only one influence , with genetics play the biggest role , but said the research shows that brain development during pregnancy is directly related to the lifestyles of adults.

Why homosexuality occurs

Study finds epigenetics, not genetics, underlies homosexuality:

Study finds epigenetics, not genetics, underlies homosexuality

Study finds epigenetics, not genetics, underlies homosexuality

 

KNOXVILLE – Epigenetics – how gene expression is regulated by temporary switches, called epi-marks – appears to be a critical and overlooked factor contributing to the long-standing puzzle of why homosexuality occurs. According to the study, published online today in The Quarterly Review of Biology, sex-specific epi-marks, which normally do not pass between generations and are thus “erased,” can lead to homosexuality when they escape erasure and are transmitted from father to daughter or mother to son. From an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality is a trait that would not be expected to develop and persist in the face of Darwinian natural selection. Homosexuality is nevertheless common for men and women in most cultures. Previous studies have shown that homosexuality runs in families, leading most researchers to presume a genetic underpinning of sexual preference. However, no major gene for homosexuality has been found despite numerous studies searching for a genetic connection. In the current study, researchers from the Working Group on Intragenomic Conflict at the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS) integrated evolutionary theory with recent advances in the molecular regulation of gene expression and androgen-dependent sexual development to produce a biological and mathematical model that delineates the role of epigenetics in homosexuality. Epi-marks constitute an extra layer of information attached to our genes’ backbones that regulates their expression. While genes hold the instructions, epi-marks direct how those instructions are carried out – when, where and how much a gene is expressed during development. Epi-marks are usually produced anew each generation, but recent evidence demonstrates that they sometimes carryover between generations and thus can contribute to similarity among relatives, resembling the effect of shared genes. Sex-specific epi-marks produced in early fetal development protect each sex from the substantial natural variation in testosterone that occurs during later fetal development. Sex-specific epi-marks stop girl fetuses from being masculinized when they experience atypically high testosterone, and vice versa for boy fetuses. Different epi-marks protect different sex-specific traits from being masculinized or feminized – some affect the genitals, others sexual identity, and yet others affect sexual partner preference. However, when these epi-marks are transmitted across generations from fathers to daughters or mothers to sons, they may cause reversed effects, such as the feminization of some traits in sons, such as sexual preference, and similarly a partial masculinization of daughters. The study solves the evolutionary riddle of homosexuality, finding that “sexually antagonistic” epi-marks, which normally protect parents from natural variation in sex hormone levels during fetal development, sometimes carryover across generations and cause homosexuality in opposite-sex offspring. The mathematical modeling demonstrates that genes coding for these epi-marks can easily spread in the population because they always increase the fitness of the parent but only rarely escape erasure and reduce fitness in offspring.”Transmission of sexually antagonistic epi-marks between generations is the most plausible evolutionary mechanism of the phenomenon of human homosexuality,” said the study’s co-author Sergey Gavrilets, NIMBioS’ associate director for scientific activities and a professor at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville.

###

The paper’s other authors are William Rice, a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Urban Friberg, a professor at Uppsala University in Sweden. The National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS) brings together researchers from around the world to collaborate across disciplinary boundaries to investigate solutions to basic and applied problems in the life sciences. NIMBioS is sponsored by the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture with additional support from The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Homosexuality as a consequence of epigenetically canalized sexual development.

Ban hate speech against Jews defending mockery of Muslims

How can we ban hate speech against Jews while defending mockery of Muslims:

How can we ban hate speech against Jews while defending mockery of Muslims

How can we ban hate speech against Jews while defending mockery of Muslims

Jews have too much influence over U.S. foreign policy. Gay men are too promiscuous. Muslims commit too much terrorism. Blacks commit too much crime. Each of those claims is poorly stated. Each, in its clumsy way, addresses a real problem or concern. And each violates laws against hate speech. In much of what we call the free world, for writing that paragraph, I could be jailed. Libertarians, cultural conservatives, and racists have complained about these laws for years. But now the problem has turned global. Islamic governments, angered by an anti-Muslim video that provoked protests and riots in their countries, are demanding to know why insulting the Prophet Mohammed is free speech but vilifying Jews and denying the Holocaust isn’t. And we don’t have a good answer. If we’re going to preach freedom of expression around the world, we have to practice it. We have to scrap our hate-speech laws. Muslim leaders want us to extend these laws. At this week’s meeting of the U.N. General Assembly, they lobbied for tighter censorship. Egypt’s president said freedom of expression shouldn’t include speech that is “used to incite hatred” or “directed towards one specific religion.” Pakistan’s president urged the “international community” to “criminalize” acts that “endanger world security by misusing freedom of expression.” Yemen’s president called for “international legislation” to suppress speech that “blasphemes the beliefs of nations and defames their figures.” The Arab League’s secretary-general proposed a binding “international legal framework” to “criminalize psychological and spiritual harm” caused by expressions that “insult the beliefs, culture and civilization of others.” President Obama, while condemning the video, met these proposals with a stout defense of free speech. Switzerland’s president agreed: “Freedom of opinion and of expression are core values guaranteed universally which must be protected.” And when a French magazine published cartoons poking fun at Mohammed, the country’s prime minister insisted that French laws protecting free speech extend to caricatures. This debate between East and West, between respect and pluralism, isn’t a crisis. It’s a stage of global progress. The Arab spring has freed hundreds of millions of Muslims from the political retardation of dictatorship. They’re taking responsibility for governing themselves and their relations with other countries. They’re debating one another and challenging us. And they should, because we’re hypocrites. From Pakistan to Iran to Saudi Arabia to Egypt to Nigeria to the United Kingdom, Muslims scoff at our rhetoric about free speech. They point to European laws against questioning the Holocaust. Monday on CNN, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad needled British interviewer Piers Morgan: “Why in Europe has it been forbidden for anyone to conduct any research about this event? Why are researchers in prison? … Do you believe in the freedom of thought and ideas, or no?” On Tuesday, Pakistan’s U.N. ambassador, speaking for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, told the U.N. Human Rights Council:

“We are all aware of the fact that laws exist in Europe and other countries which impose curbs, for instance, on anti-Semitic speech, Holocaust denial, or racial slurs. We need to acknowledge, once and for all, that Islamophobia in particular and discrimination on the basis of religion and belief are contemporary forms of racism and must be dealt with as such. Not to do so would be a clear example of double standards. Islamophobia has to be treated in law and practice equal to the treatment given to anti-Semitism.”

He’s right. Laws throughout Europe forbid any expression that “minimizes,” “trivializes,” “belittles,” “plays down,” “contests,” or “puts in doubt” Nazi crimes. Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic extend this prohibition to communist atrocities. These laws carry jail sentences of up to five years. Germany adds two years for anyone who “disparages the memory of a deceased person.” Hate speech laws go further. Germany punishes anyone found guilty of “insulting” or “defaming segments of the population.” The Netherlands bans anything that “verbally or in writing or image, deliberately offends a group of people because of their race, their religion or beliefs, their hetero- or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental handicap.” It’s illegal to “insult” such a group in France, to “defame” them in Portugal, to “degrade” them in Denmark, or to “expresses contempt” for them in Sweden. In Switzerland, it’s illegal to “demean” them even with a “gesture.” Canada punishes anyone who “willfully promotes hatred.” The United Kingdom outlaws “insulting words or behavior” that arouse “racial hatred.” Romania forbids the possession of xenophobic “symbols.”