iNow Posted November 10, 2008 Posted November 10, 2008 No gay person is being denied anything where any other person has a right. This is patently false, as already repeatedly demonstrated in this very thread. Hell, the ENTIRE PREMISE of the thread is that gay people are being denied somehting to which others have a right. I don't think any person is born gay/lesbian, at least not from my own experiences. To me its a perversion/rebellion or that old being different attitude all kids go through, including myself. While you are welcome to your own beliefs, I wish to point out to you that your beliefs are in direct contrast with nearly all scientific evidence. Again, this has already been addressed in this very thread, but I will say again... Nearly all scientific evidence indicates that homosexuality is genetic, regardless of what you personally choose to believe. Your "perversion/rebellion" comment, as well as the implication that you could have "turned gay" only magnifies our collective perception of your ignorance, bigotry, misguidedness, and bias on this issue.
Mr Skeptic Posted November 10, 2008 Posted November 10, 2008 I don't think any person is born gay/lesbian, at least not from my own experiences. To me its a perversion/rebellion or that old being different attitude all kids go through, including myself. This is your problem. There are indeed genetic factors, in humans and various animals from Drosophila (fruit flies) to primates, that cause gay behavior. While gay people may choose to counter their genetic predispositions (just like straight people could choose to have sex with guys, or monks may choose not to have sex at all, or some people may choose to refuse to eat until they starve to death), it is quite different than a choice with very little or no genetic factors (eg someone who chose to learn how to make buggy whips). Now you could argue that wanting to have sex or wanting to eat are simply choices regardless of the genetic factor, but good luck trying to prevent people from making choices that have genetic predispositions.
doG Posted November 10, 2008 Posted November 10, 2008 I don't think any person is born gay/lesbian, at least not from my own experiences. To me its a perversion/rebellion or that old being different attitude all kids go through, including myself. So you actively make a conscious choice as to which sex you are attracted to?
john5746 Posted November 10, 2008 Posted November 10, 2008 Hi Moon; Perceived injustices happen TO ALL PEOPLE and on a daily basis, its part of life and we should live with most and if change is required it should be for the betterment of that society. If marriage is good for society, then how can having more marriage between consenting adults not be a good thing? More couples to adopt children seems like a better society to me. It also continues the trend of more tolerance and less bigotry in society. I don't think any person is born gay/lesbian, at least not from my own experiences. I won't argue this point, I'm sure you will get an earful on this forum. But, specific religions are clearly a choice(maybe ground into you as a child, but still a choice). So, if the people in Utah decide that only Mormons can marry, then that means the rest should be OK with that, since they too can marry a Mormon or become a Mormon themselves? Mormons tend to have more kids than regular christians, so maybe that would that be better for society?
iNow Posted November 10, 2008 Posted November 10, 2008 Considering the challenges we are facing right now with resource scarcity and over-population, I cannot fathom how any sane person could argue that having more kids would make for a better society (given the realities of our current circumstances).
jackson33 Posted November 10, 2008 Posted November 10, 2008 This is your problem. There are indeed genetic factors, in humans and various animals from Drosophila (fruit flies) to primates, that cause gay behavior. While gay people may choose to counter their genetic predispositions (just like straight people could choose to have sex with guys, or monks may choose not to have sex at all, or some people may choose to refuse to eat until they starve to death), it is quite different than a choice with very little or no genetic factors (eg someone who chose to learn how to make buggy whips). Now you could argue that wanting to have sex or wanting to eat are simply choices regardless of the genetic factor, but good luck trying to prevent people from making choices that have genetic predispositions. My comments to 'Moon', which I specifically stated 'FROM MY EXPERIENCE' was not intended to take on the 'cause' for sexual preferences. It has been my experience and from owning/operating many business, including Bars and had no problems discussing gay issues, that first sexual contact can set a pattern for life. I'll leave genetics to the biologist and their findings to those that have agenda, I have none on that issue. iNow; Name calling in a discussion is really not necessary with me. I dare say, I know more about the gay/lesbian lifestyle, those practicing and why than you will ever know and base my opinions more from their testimony than you would accept. If I and I often do, explicitly indicate something is my opinion or in this case experience, this leaves the door open for other viewpoints being correct. I will add for your benefit, the probably 200 or more of this group I have known are more respectful of others and their viewpoints than those that oppose them. Bigotry stems from ignorance, as does the accusation, be carefull...
iNow Posted November 10, 2008 Posted November 10, 2008 iNow; Name calling in a discussion is really not necessary with me. I dare say, I know more about the gay/lesbian lifestyle, those practicing and why than you will ever know and base my opinions more from their testimony than you would accept. If I and I often do, explicitly indicate something is my opinion or in this case experience, this leaves the door open for other viewpoints being correct. I will add for your benefit, the probably 200 or more of this group I have known are more respectful of others and their viewpoints than those that oppose them. Bigotry stems from ignorance, as does the accusation, be carefull... When you miss a point, you sure do miss it hard, Jackson. This is what I said: While you are welcome to your own beliefs, I wish to point out to you that your beliefs are in direct contrast with nearly all scientific evidence. Again, this has already been addressed in this very thread, but I will say again... Nearly all scientific evidence indicates that homosexuality is genetic, regardless of what you personally choose to believe.
Sisyphus Posted November 10, 2008 Posted November 10, 2008 (edited) It seems to me that in order to be convinced it's a "choice," then you must have made that choice yourself, i.e., you are gay and denying yourself. Most of us aren't "tempted" to "give in" to sexual acts contrary to our self-identification. If you are, there's a term for that: closeted homosexual. That would also explain why so many vocal critics seem to get caught in embarrassing situations... I say this, of course, with the same qualifications as always. There are undeniably genetic factors at work, and there are undeniably societal factors at work, and neither I nor apparently anyone else is qualified to sort it all out completely. Luckily, we don't need to be, since no matter what causes it, it's still just consensual adults leading happy, responsible, otherwise normal lives, and so any persecution is pointless, straightforward bigotry. Edited November 10, 2008 by Sisyphus
jackson33 Posted November 10, 2008 Posted November 10, 2008 (edited) So you actively make a conscious choice as to which sex you are attracted to? IMO, We all make a conscious choice based on natural physical reactions to others, male or female. Your welcome to include nurturing, environment or peer pressure, but in short as these feelings develop, consequences are the last thing thought about. Let me be clear, for iNow; If the choice or the turn on, is same sex, there is nothing right or wrong in that choice. iNow.. No, this is what you said... Your "perversion/rebellion" comment, as well as the implication that you could have "turned gay" only magnifies our collective perception of your ignorance, bigotry, misguidedness, and bias on this issue. Edited November 10, 2008 by jackson33 multiple post merged
Realitycheck Posted November 10, 2008 Posted November 10, 2008 It seems to me that in order to be convinced it's a "choice," then you must have made that choice yourself, i.e., you are gay and denying yourself. Most of us aren't "tempted" to "give in" to sexual acts contrary to our self-identification. If you are, there's a term for that: closeted homosexual. That would also explain why so many vocal critics seem to get caught in embarrassing situations... I say this, of course, with the same qualifications as always. There are undeniably genetic factors at work, and there are undeniably societal factors at work, and neither I nor apparently anyone else is qualified to sort it all out completely. Luckily, we don't need to be, since no matter what causes it, it's still just consensual adults leading happy, responsible, otherwise normal lives, and so any persecution is pointless, straightforward bigotry. Once you self-identify, then going back is kind of difficult seeing as how you have already made a choice. You also have to figure in awareness, as in if there was no awareness of it existing, would it go into your decision-making process? Being different is frequently a way of setting yourself apart, of taking the easy way out. Too much emphasis is placed on subtle nuances that genetic factors play a part of. The fact is that when you stand together with another of a same sex and say, "We're together. We're a pair. We're married.", this is a lie. This is NOT the same thing, by definition. When you call a compound a solution, does that fly at scienceforums.net? No, simply because they are two different things.
jackson33 Posted November 10, 2008 Posted November 10, 2008 It seems to me that in order to be convinced it's a "choice," then you must have made that choice yourself, i.e., you are gay and denying yourself. Most of us aren't "tempted" to "give in" to sexual acts contrary to our self-identification. If you are, there's a term for that: closeted homosexual. That would also explain why so many vocal critics seem to get caught in embarrassing situations... I say this, of course, with the same qualifications as always. There are undeniably genetic factors at work, and there are undeniably societal factors at work, and neither I nor apparently anyone else is qualified to sort it all out completely. Luckily, we don't need to be, since no matter what causes it, it's still just consensual adults leading happy, responsible, otherwise normal lives, and so any persecution is pointless, straightforward bigotry. I really don't like arguing what can be perceived anti-gay attitude, but where does 'consensual adults' leave the genetic issue. Every person evolves in life sexually speaking and any long married couple or Dr. Ruth and others will tell you to keep a marriage alive to keep trying new things. This is fetish development and there is no evidence people are born predisposed to any of these, IMO even being straight or gay. Are transvestites, cross dressers, exhibitionist or any of the 200 categories found on any porn site all born with some genetic defect. Bi-sexual is probably the most common if nothing else finding some same sex persons, sexually attractive. Does this mean the person has some gene between these two extremes or a learned desire. Many of both sex, of one race are attracted to other races, even if simply some trait to their appearance. There could be some brain effect, where some part of the brain is more/less active in different people or in some manner activated, but this would be no less true on any issue which makes all basically different.
Mr Skeptic Posted November 10, 2008 Posted November 10, 2008 I really don't like arguing what can be perceived anti-gay attitude, Then stop being anti-gay, and maybe people will stop perceiving you as anti-gay. Denying that you are anti-gay won't make you not be anti-gay, just like denying that there are not genetic factors for homosexuality will make that be the truth. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own truth. but where does 'consensual adults' leave the genetic issue. Every person evolves in life sexually speaking and any long married couple or Dr. Ruth and others will tell you to keep a marriage alive to keep trying new things. This is fetish development and there is no evidence people are born predisposed to any of these, IMO even being straight or gay. Except for all that scientific evidence, you mean? If you want to state as a fact that there is genetic factor, be prepared to prove it. For example, when I say that animals from Drosophila to primates exibit gay behavior, and that there are genetic factors to homosexuality, I mean it as a fact, not unsupported opinion. And fact overrides opinion (unless you have a particularly strong agenda). Homosexual fruit flies "We have isolated a new Drosophila mutant, satori, males of which do not court or copulate with female flies." You can chemically alter a fruit fly's sexual orientation "Armed with this knowledge, the researchers found they were able to use either genetic manipulation or drugs to turn the flies’ homosexual behavior on and off within hours." Homosexual behavior in primates is also observed, though it is harder to do genetic experiments due to animal cruelty or simply time and cost because they take far longer to mature. Also in over a thousand animals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, not necessarily sex, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them. As for humans, twin studies show that there are genetic factors in homosexuality. Which of these facts would you like to argue against next? Are transvestites, cross dressers, exhibitionist or any of the 200 categories found on any porn site all born with some genetic defect./QUOTE] Why would it have to be a defect? Bi-sexual is probably the most common if nothing else finding some same sex persons, sexually attractive. Does this mean the person has some gene between these two extremes or a learned desire. Many of both sex, of one race are attracted to other races, even if simply some trait to their appearance. There could be some brain effect, where some part of the brain is more/less active in different people or in some manner activated, but this would be no less true on any issue which makes all basically different. That is true about bisexuality. I don't think that everyone is 100% straight or 100% gay. People who are in between could easily choose to be more straight or more gay, much like you could easily choose between blondes and brunettes. Perhaps much of your experience that being gay is a choice is with bisexuals, and you are assuming that it applies to everyone else. Also possible is that many people who are gay don't immediately realize it because as a child they aren't sexually attracted to anyone but probably think that they are straight because of how they were brought up, and so think they are choosing to be gay when they grow up and realize that they are gay.
bascule Posted November 11, 2008 Author Posted November 11, 2008 Well, after posting this thread, I couldn't help but balance it out with
waitforufo Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 I have never been particularly fond of the argument that since genetics plays a roll in sexual orientation, homosexuality must therefore be accepted. Sociopathic behavior has also been linked to genetics. (See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder, Causes) Sociopaths however exhibit various antisocial behaviors which often lead to harming others. As a society we should consider the potential genetic origins of sociopathic behavior when we limit the liberty of a sociopath, but based on their actions we would indeed limit their liberty. Homosexuals however do not limit the liberty of others and so they should be free to live their lives as they see fit.
insane_alien Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 whether you are fond of the idea of genetics determining your sexuality or not it is folly to say that they do not play a significant role as this can and has been proven scientifically. but that is to say that it is not the only factor and it is possible to override it.
bascule Posted November 11, 2008 Author Posted November 11, 2008 I have never been particularly fond of the argument that since genetics plays a roll in sexual orientation, homosexuality must therefore be accepted. I think the intention is to counter the Christian argument that we shouldn't let gays marry because they have a treatable mental disorder and if we just rehabilitate them then they can enjoy a normal heterosexual marriage.
waitforufo Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 whether you are fond of the idea of genetics determining your sexuality or not it is folly to say that they do not play a significant role as this can and has been proven scientifically. but that is to say that it is not the only factor and it is possible to override it. I think you are misunderstanding me. I believe people are born gay. I don't know enough about genetics to comment on how that comes about. I do however trust those that do know. Nowhere did is suggest that a persons sexual orientation could be overridden. Be that as it may, how a society treats individuals within its community should primarily be determined by how those individuals treat others, not their genetics. Since gay people do not deny the liberty of others or harm them in any other way, their liberty should also not be denied. So if gay people want to legally marry, they should be permitted to by law. On the other hand a person may be born a Sociopath. This may be determined by their genetics. If this genetic condition causes them to actually treat people poorly or deny them their liberty, then society has the right to deny the liberty of such individuals. It is their action that permits society to deny them their liberty. A just society would take into account their genetic condition and perhaps put them in a mental hospital rather than prison. In any case their liberty would be denied. My argument is that genetics should have limited impact on law. I think it is irrelevant to Proposition 8. I think the intention is to counter the Christian argument that we shouldn't let gays marry because they have a treatable mental disorder and if we just rehabilitate them then they can enjoy a normal heterosexual marriage. I agree with this intention you mention, but it I believe bringing religion into the matter over complicates it.
Mr Skeptic Posted November 11, 2008 Posted November 11, 2008 I think the intention is to counter the Christian argument that we shouldn't let gays marry because they have a treatable mental disorder and if we just rehabilitate them then they can enjoy a normal heterosexual marriage. I thought they considered it a sin. I guess that they wouldn't like to hear about genetic factors, as that might say something bad about their god, so some of them will whole-heartedly deny the facts.
bascule Posted November 12, 2008 Author Posted November 12, 2008 I agree with this intention you mention, but it I believe bringing religion into the matter over complicates it. I don't think there's a whole lot of secular opposition to gay marriage
Mr Skeptic Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 Secular people might think that it is disgusting or abnormal, but not "sinful".
iNow Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 Since gay people do not deny the liberty of others or harm them in any other way, their liberty should also not be denied. So if gay people want to legally marry, they should be permitted to by law. That's an excellent point. Well said.
Realitycheck Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 My whole take on it is this. I don't want to get in the way of anybody or whatever, but I have a very strong aversion to "them" categorizing themselves with me. Make up their own term, coin a new word or whatever, but it is not the same and until it is characterized differently, I have no wish at all to be associated in that way, other than being human. It is an inhuman marriage. Make something up.
pioneer Posted November 12, 2008 Posted November 12, 2008 "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State." This decision was required because white and black couples did not have the option to simply change the wording away from "marriage" into civil unions or any other tailored language, to enjoy all the benefits of this basic civil right. It didn't matter what you called it, back then, because the spirit of the civil right was what was in debate. With gays, the spirit of marriage is not in question, just the term "marriage". The analogy is someone saying you can have this new automobile but you have to call it is tree. The argument is, they are discriminating against us having an auto. Anyone with common sense realizes the value is in the auto and not the name. The name is superficial and has nothing to do with the reality of the auto. One would have to be out of touch with reality to think you are driving a tree. This may tell us something about a possible side affect of the gay gene. It may not allow one to see the nuts and bolts of reality. One way to look at this is with the question, is the reality of a woman what is below the make-up, or is her reality defined by the make-up? The gays have access to everything below the make-up. But they need to define themselves with social make-up. They are even twisting the reality of discrimination based on cosmetics.
Recommended Posts