{UAH} GOOK I AM THROWING A VERY SEPERATE LUPANKA IS THE GAY LASIB CHURCH

Friends

 

In as much as I do not want to go after this writing I need to raise how complex is the issue we started of homosexuality and straights and in-betweens and God help me who falls under what classification. I am not homophobic, my God I live in a middle of Gays and Lesbians quarter and we are proudly  yes proudly holding the first world Gay Lesbian parade in this city come this summer.  But here is the complex matter I need to raise to you for it has beaten me.

 

Few days ago we had a man out of UK who claimed to be a woman sitting in a man’s body. I mentioned his escapades in passing in the forum, but this is what I need to raise about him/her. He/She claims that he/she is a woman and I do not have a problem with that what so ever, where I have a problem is that his/her birth certificate reads male. You see in as much as we can cut off his genitalia and plant a Kandahar on him to become a her, the birth certificate remains reading male. If it remains reading male then all on forward documentation of this individual must read male for they all develop based on the status the birth certificate states. So passport driving permit social insurance number and all identification crap must read male. And here is my argument. A birth certificate is a medical documentation signed by a medical professional of what has just dropped out of a woman. The medical professional uses his/her certified education to separate the sex of the baby through identification of the genitalia of the baby. And the conclusion the doctor makes at birth is final for that is who you have dropped out to earth as. We cannot roll time back again to reexamine you and decide that this gene or that gene  has now become this or that so the genitalia is changing to a woman. This identification is only done once and it never happen again for it is only done once. And I opine that if we as society agree to change that historical fact that happens at birth then we have lost our mind and it means we can actually decide to change the day and call it a night and vice versa.

 

We  were created and thrown into this world with only one formula to decide who is a male and who is a female and that decision is solely based on the genitalia. Now countries like Germany are starting to come with a classification of unknown gender, and I really have a problem with that decision for I question how that decision will affect the child when he/she becomes an adult with a birth certificate reading undecided. If God had created the sex based on the Gene then we would be pocking every baby for a drop of blood to go and get tested then 3 weeks after birth wala we have the sex of the child. No we open the legs and the story is told and we are moving on. Since God never gave us a right to change our history we as society have no right to change a birth certificate to read female when one was born a male. For when you stand today to change an adult’s birth certificate to a different sex you need a reason you saw at birth to back up that decision medically. What you are seeing today 25 years down the road cannot be used to change what was decided 25 years ago based on medical evidence. If you need society to hold authority to change the sex on a birth certificate you need the very same society to change and make decisions based on genes, but even if you do that still the original birth certificate remains reading what was identified and the rest of us are moving on as this individual we so love dearly lives a woman but with identification documentation identifying her as a male.

 

Lord as you know I am a very old man, society has become  so complicated that even at my age even at a point of being a critical thinker, this is not the debate I need at this age. Please call me home for the world is yes you guessed it, too fucked up for my stay on earth.

 

Geeezzzz !!!!!

 

EM

On the 49^th Parallel          

 

            Thé Mulindwas Communication Group
"With Yoweri Museveni and Dr. Kiiza Besigye Uganda is in anarchy"
           Kuungana Mulindwa Mawasiliano Kikundi
"Pamoja na Yoweri Museveni na Dk. Kiiza Besigye Uganda ni katika machafuko"

 

From: ugandans-at-heart@googlegroups.com [mailto:ugandans-at-heart@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Hannah Ogwapiti
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 8:50 AM
To: ugandans-at-heart@googlegroups.com
Cc: beti kamya; Jonny Rubin; Kale Kayihura; gerwanira@yahoo.com; Tugume Sam; WB Kyijomanyi; Norbert Mao; jnansikombi@yahoo.com; Naava Nabagesera; Joseph Kamugisha
Subject: {UAH} The Scientific evidence Museveni needs to sign the damn anti-Homo bill revealed!

 

The Scientific evidence Museveni needs to sign the anti-Homo bill revealed!

Feb 19, 14 11:00 AM

Author Abbey Semuwemba Categories Parenting and sex, Science

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rate This

 

In 1901, Havelock Ellis argued that homosexuality was inborn and therefore not immoral. This view was equally promoted by the famous psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud. By claiming homosexuality is inborn, proponents argue that it cannot be classified as an illness; it’s not a vice and it’s not something to be ashamed of or even practiced secretly. This and other similar psychoanalytic theories of homosexuality were soon shot down when great flaws were observed in the study approach. For instance, it was detected that the theories were not subjected to rigorous empirical tests (Herek, 2009).

It’s over a century now and this same argument is being put forward again, but this time more vociferously. Leveraging changing social norms, a politically stronger homosexual community and, most importantly, an amazingly strong media backing, the biological argument that homosexuals are born that way has found its way into the public domain yet again.

According to Dean Byrd, a clinical professor at the psychiatric department as well as the department of family and preventive medicine, University of Utah, “The initial ‘evidence’ used to support a biological model of homosexuality came from Simon Levay, Dean Hamer, and the research team of J. Micheal Bailey and Richard C. Pillard. Of the four researchers, three are self-identified homosexuals.”

Considering the homosexual orientation of these researchers, the outcome of their study isn’t really surprising. Explaining further, Professor Byrd pointed out the often ignored fact that Levay’s research had a number of limitations, including an insignificant amount of information about the sexual histories of the research subjects. Nonetheless, his unconvincing study was sufficient proof for homosexual activists and major media outlets to drive home their argument that homosexuality is indeed biologically induced.

“Opposing views were, for the most part, silenced. Any junior-level scientist could quite quickly see that this claim was far from accurate, but most dared not speak out for fear of being ostracized or even labelled homophobic.” (Byrd, 2010).

Interestingly, Levay eventually recanted when he apparently contradicted the media’s interpretation of his findings.

“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.” (Nimmons, 1994).

Surprisingly, while the mainstream media provided substantial coverage for Levay’s research, a similar gesture was not replicated when recent research showed that the media’s interpretation of Levay’s research was flawed (Leonard, 2005). The other major evidences given in support of the biological argument are not markedly different, a litany of half-truths, often times misinterpreted by the mainstream media.

Is there Really a Gay Gene?

Of all the studies generally put forward as evidence of a biological basis for homosexuality, Dean Hamer’s genetic study arguably enjoys the most mention. In this study, Hamer and his team asserted that a stretch of DNA located at the tip of the X chromosome is responsible for male homosexuality. If successful and widely accepted, the research would provide conclusive and irrefutable evidence for the claim that homosexuality in men is actually caused by a “gay gene”.

This would imply homosexual orientation in gays is a natural, normal and involuntary feeling triggered by certain genes in the body. In its desperation to provide undeniable proof for the ‘homosexuals are born that way’ argument, the media in its characteristic fashion latched onto this ‘new discovery’ and gave it unprecedented publicity. It was victory at last for the numerous gay rights movements, or so it seemed.

Just like similar studies in the past, this new finding too crumbled like a pack of cards under rigorous scientific tests and scrutiny. The first person to pick holes in this widely acclaimed new discovery was no less a personality than Yale University’s renowned scientist, Dr. Neil Risch, the very man who invented the method used by Hamer and his team in their genetic study.

“Hamer et al suggest that their results are consistent with X-linkage because maternal uncles have a higher rate of homosexual orientation than paternal uncles … however, neither of these differences is statistically significant,” Dr. Risch wrote (Risch, 1993).

In an attempt to validate his claims, Risch and his colleagues replicated Hamer’s study and their findings were revealing to say the least. According to these researchers, “it is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer’s original study. Because our study was larger than that of Hamer et al, we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as was reported in that study. Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position Xq28.” (Rice et al, 1999).

Rattled by sustained criticisms of his study, Hamer was apparently humbled and left with no choice but to acknowledge the limitations of his findings.

“The pedigree study failed to produce what we originally hoped to find: simple Mendelian inheritance. In fact, we never found a single family in which homosexuality was distributed in the obvious sort of pattern that Mendel observed in his pea plants,” he admitted.

Since homosexuality is not a result of some special genes in the body as often erroneously reported in the media, the million dollar question is: what causes homosexuality? Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, co-founder of US-based National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) proffers an explanation.

“Homosexuality is most likely caused by a combination of developmental, social and (in some cases) biological factors,” he told OnIslam.net. “Developmentally, we most often see a failure to identify with the same-sex parent, and emotional isolation from same-sex peers.”

Explaining further, he mentions that the biological factors would be those that make a person grow up to feel less gender-identified. Known for the great influence it exerts on virtually all spheres of human behavior, the environment is yet another factor that plays a key role in shaping an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes the influence of family and peer relationships, as well as the media.

Yet another important fact, though rarely mentioned, is an individual’s choice in developing a sexual preference. In the words of Camille Paglia, a lesbian activist, “there is an element of choice in all behavior, sexual or otherwise,” and people can choose how they respond to unwanted homosexual attractions.

Researchers and medical experts might be divided on the actual causes of homosexuality; they might even have divergent views on its classification as a mental illness or otherwise. But what is scientifically clear is that the hyped idea of a single master gene that makes people homosexual is farfetched.

According to a child trends report, research clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. There is thus value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents (Byrd, 2008).

Another cause for concern is the harm caused to homosexuals themselves.

“Anal sex is very damaging to the body and, I believe, to the psyche as well; it introduces more pathogens, because it misuses a bodily organ. Encouraging homosexual behavior will increase bisexual experimentation and distort our culture’s understanding of healthy gender roles,” he explained, adding that clients repeatedly complain that a gay lifestyle is unsatisfying and maladaptive for them.

Extensive medical evidence supports greater rates of medical disease among homosexuals. For instance, homosexual behavior has been identified as the major means through which the AIDS epidemic is transmitted in the United States. Furthermore, the rate of anal cancer infection is 10 times higher than that of heterosexual males (Byrd, 2008). Similarly, lesbians have higher rates of Hepatitis B & C, bacterial vagirosis, heavy cigarette smoking, intravenous drug use and alcohol abuse.

Considering the huge threats posed by same-sex marriage, it is expedient to nip this dangerously growing trend in the bud. If left unattended, the negative effects of same-sex marriage will not be limited to the participants alone, but the society at large will equally bear the brunt.

It is encouraging to note that people with homosexual orientation can actually be helped to change such orientation to a heterosexual one. Nicolosi offered the following advice.

“I believe our bodies tell us who we are, and that we were designed for heterosexuality, not for homosexuality, which distorts our true nature. The client can be helped to see how he or she really is connected to his or her biological gender, and we can help him break down the ‘mysterious’ image of the unavailable same-sex person that cause him to romanticize his own sex. People can reduce their unwanted attractions significantly, and develop their opposite-sex attractions to a degree varying from person to person, through therapy.”

References

Herek, Gregory. M. Facts about Homosexuality and mental health. (2009). http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html

Byrd, D.A. Homosexuality: innate and Immutable? What Science Can and Cannot Say. (2010). Liberty University Law Review. Volume 4, Number 3

David Nimmons. Sex and the Brain, 15 Discover 64, 66 .(1994).

Sax, L. Why Gender Matters 208. (2005)

Neil Risch, Elizabeth Squires-Wheeler & Bronya J.B. Keats. Male sexual orientation and genetic evidence. (1993). 262 SCIENCE 2063, 2064

George Rice, Carol Anderson, Neil Risch & George Ebers, Male Homosexuality: Absence of Linkage to Microsatellite Markers at XQ28. (1999). 284 SCIENCE 665,667

Byrd, Dean. A. Conjugal Marriage Fosters healthy human and Societal Development. (2008). what’s the Harm? University Press of America.

SOURCE: http://ugandansatheart.org/2014/02/19/the-scientific-evidence-museveni-needs-to-sign-the-anti-homo-bill-revealed/

--
H.OGWAPITI
-----------------------------------------------------
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that  we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic  and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
---Theodore Roosevelt

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2247 / Virus Database: 3705/6605 - Release Date: 02/18/14