Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[The Wizard from Milan]

inked,
The trouble is that we start from such a different ethical positions.

I don't know whether sexual orientation is nature or nurture or both, but I know that my orientation was already fixed at puberty (because I remember being sexually attracted to boys since the inception of puberty, and completely indifferent towards girls). As you seem to agree with me, I still had three choices of acts: same-sex, different-sex, celibacy. You seem to call this a choice and we agree on that. I agree that the choice to act (or not to act) upon one's orientation is a choice.
But I did not have any expectation to enjoy the three choices equally. My point is that I did not choose to enjoy more same-sex acts than different-sex acts, that was exogenously determined. That is what I say is not a choice. You seem to agree on that, but I would like to see a clearer statement.
I consider the choice of following my natural inclination (or exogenous taste) as perfectly legitimate. You do not seem agree for some ethical reason (which I am not sure you have explained, but I assume is religious of some sort). But here the crux of the disagreement rests. Because I do not recognize any religious system, nor do I recognize ethical systems that forbid acts that have no third-party effects. I actually denounce as immoral the proposing of pseudo-ethical (as I call them) systems that forbid acts with no third-party effects.

Marriage is a related but separate sort of question. I don't believe one can talk of a wester view of marriage, because marriage is a very different thing in different time and different places in the west. The wife was a slave in some times of the roman empire and was still the "subjected to the husband will" (although not a slave) in italy up to 1972.
John Boswell has fund evidence of same-sex marriages celebrated by the church in medieval time.
Moreover, I don't think that the traditional view has any relevance.
I simply don't think married couples should have any rights more than single people. They should have, of course, the right to visit each other in hospitals..., but no special rights.
I also think that same-sex married couples should have the same rightes than different-sex married couples, because I don't think the sex of the spouse should matter.
Same sex-marriage is related but not identical to a sexual orientation issue, because (as some conservatives would tell you, correctly) gay e lesbians can still marry heterosexually (conservatives just don't seem to grasp the implication of this though: mismatched-orientation couples undermine the traditional view of the family much more than same-sex couples)

[Varda]

The Bible is what I use as my handbook for life. It IS true. In fact, NOTHING in the Bible has ever been proven false. Although I agree, I can't MAKE anyone believe what I believe.
As for homosexuals, I don't hate them, I jut hate what they do. It is the idea of "Hate the sin, Love the sinner"

According to the rules of logic and academic thought, there are certain statements which cannot be proven true or false. "There is a God" is one of these statements, because although many people from the Bible claimed to have spoken to Him, since most of us today have not and since the Bible has been translated for over 2005 years, the Bible can be taken as a document of faith, not of 'proof'.

I've often been told that things cannot be considered true if they cannot also be proven false.

That being said, I have no objections to homosexuality. Not to offend anyone, but keep in mind I'm right next to the San Francisco Bay area. I witnessed my classmates standing out in the rain waiting to get married like many other tax-paying citizens, before our dear governor Arnold decided to anull all of their marriages. According to one bisexual friend of mine, these people were not disappointed because they have grown quite used to existing in a different status.

I believe no matter who you are, your sexual preference or spiritual guidance, God loves us even if we violate His/Her laws.

[inked]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

inked,
The trouble is that we start from such a different ethical positions.

I don't know whether sexual orientation is nature or nurture or both, but I know that my orientation was already fixed at puberty (because I remember being sexually attracted to boys since the inception of puberty, and completely indifferent towards girls). As you seem to agree with me, I still had three choices of acts: same-sex, different-sex, celibacy. You seem to call this a choice and we agree on that. I agree that the choice to act (or not to act) upon one's orientation is a choice.
But I did not have any expectation to enjoy the three choices equally. My point is that I did not choose to enjoy more same-sex acts than different-sex acts, that was exogenously determined. That is what I say is not a choice. You seem to agree on that, but I would like to see a clearer statement.
I consider the choice of following my natural inclination (or exogenous taste) as perfectly legitimate. You do not seem agree for some ethical reason (which I am not sure you have explained, but I assume is religious of some sort). But here the crux of the disagreement rests. Because I do not recognize any religious system, nor do I recognize ethical systems that forbid acts that have no third-party effects. I actually denounce as immoral the proposing of pseudo-ethical (as I call them) systems that forbid acts with no third-party effects.

Marriage is a related but separate sort of question. I don't believe one can talk of a wester view of marriage, because marriage is a very different thing in different time and different places in the west. The wife was a slave in some times of the roman empire and was still the "subjected to the husband will" (although not a slave) in italy up to 1972.
John Boswell has fund evidence of same-sex marriages celebrated by the church in medieval time.
Moreover, I don't think that the traditional view has any relevance.
I simply don't think married couples should have any rights more than single people. They should have, of course, the right to visit each other in hospitals..., but no special rights.
I also think that same-sex married couples should have the same rightes than different-sex married couples, because I don't think the sex of the spouse should matter.
Same sex-marriage is related but not identical to a sexual orientation issue, because (as some conservatives would tell you, correctly) gay e lesbians can still marry heterosexually (conservatives just don't seem to grasp the implication of this though: mismatched-orientation couples undermine the traditional view of the family much more than same-sex couples)

The marriage thread for that whole area, if you are interested, under general messages.

I don't think the non-traditional view has any relevance.

I think arguments from lack of data are just that. We do not know the source of homosexual orietation or heterosexual orientation. Social construct arguments can be validated.

To be truly confusing, brownjenkins contends that society is the arbiter of morals, but contends that this area of society in regard to prohibition is wrong. Go figure.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

To be truly confusing, brownjenkins contends that society is the arbiter of morals, but contends that this area of society in regard to prohibition is wrong. Go figure.

society is the arbiter... in the US it's the constitution... specifically the 14th ammendment, and the lack of any specific federal ammendment concerning marriage... not all that confusing

i'll ask the same question i do of you every day

if society is not the arbiter of morals, who is?

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

I don't think the non-traditional view has any relevance.

I imagined in my previous thread that it boiled down to this: I think that the traditional view does not have any relevance.

[inked]

so TWOM, what gives your version of morality special relevance?

As brownjenkins keeps asserting the morality of the society and denying it in the same breath ( e.g., see post above) and is the sole arbiter of morality without providing any reason as to why his morality should be applied to the matter at hand ("there are no absolutes") beyond his person, and since you deny the relevance of traditional morals, on what basis should your formulation(s) be accepted?

[inked]

duplicate deleted

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

As brownjenkins keeps asserting the morality of the society and denying it in the same breath ( e.g., see post above) and is the sole arbiter of morality without providing any reason as to why his morality should be applied to the matter at hand ("there are no absolutes") beyond his person, and since you deny the relevance of traditional morals, on what basis should your formulation(s) be accepted?

a given society's morality is reflected in the laws they devise and choose to live by... the purely legal argument against gay marriage in the US is a bit sketchy... it has nothing to do with my personal opinion on the matter

and laws can and do change... so they are not absolute either

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

I imagined in my previous thread that it boiled down to this: I think that the traditional view does not have any relevance.

You're certainly free to think that. I disagree, and I'm free to think THAT.

Originally Posted by Varda

According to the rules of logic and academic thought, there are certain statements which cannot be proven true or false. "There is a God" is one of these statements, because although many people from the Bible claimed to have spoken to Him, since most of us today have not and since the Bible has been translated for over 2005 years, the Bible can be taken as a document of faith, not of 'proof'.

Of course, "There is NOT a God" is one of those statements, too.

And the Bible is NOT translated from previous translations. It's translated from the original language from documents that are thousands of years old, as our languages change. It's NOT like a game of "telephone" where errors get accumulated.

I witnessed my classmates standing out in the rain waiting to get married like many other tax-paying citizens, before our dear governor Arnold decided to anull all of their marriages.

You mean those marriages that were NEVER legal in the first place, because official state documents were altered ILLEGALLY, and NOT thru the will of the majority of people in the State of California (who passed a law saying in California, marriage is between a man and a woman), but thru the will of one or two people who think they somehow were more smart/important than most other people?

I'm glad Arnold had the guts to stand up for our system of rule of law.

I believe no matter who you are, your sexual preference or spiritual guidance, God loves us even if we violate His/Her laws.

I believe that, too, very strongly. In fact, there's a Bible verse that says that God loved us while we were yet sinners. But that doesn't make something wrong suddenly right. I can love my son, even if he ends up killing someone. But I can love him and still condemn an act that he did if I think it was wrong.

[Juicybearfut]

i support gay and bisexual people completely...im on the board of my schools GSA (gay-straight alliance) and i love going to hte meetings they have. We also have a few gay/bisexual teachers in our school, so everyone in the school is kind of used to it.....

with gay marraige...i think at first we should allow civil unions...then eventually we can make it to marriage. Once the gay civil unions becomes the norm, then it wont be so hard for the public to make the step to marriage...

[Millane]

Gay-Straight Alliance BAHAHAHAHA it sounds great, what do you do at these meetings. I wish i had a GSA when i was at school...

[inked]

pesky data thing again!

New Genetics Study Undermines Gay Gene Theory

By Warren Throckmorton, Ph.D., & Durwood Ray, Ph.D.

2/10/2005

Even the author's "strongest finding" was not statistically significant.

A study to be published in the March 2005 issue of the journal Human Genetics, and available online now, actually undermines the commonly held view that homosexual orientation is determined by genetic factors.

The study's lead author, Brian Mustanski from the University of Illinois at Chicago, said in a news release: "There is no one 'gay' gene. Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so it's not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression."

However, a thorough examination of the actual report reveals no statistically significant findings for any of these DNA regions.

The authors describe in the article three non-X chromosomal "new regions of genetic interest" (7q36, 8p12, and 10q26). In the authors' view, a noteworthy aspect of the study is as follows: "Our strongest finding was on 7q36 with a combined mlod score of 3.45 and equal distribution from maternal and paternal allele transmission. This score falls just short of Lander and Kruglyak's (1995) criteria for genomewide significance." They go on to say "two additional regions (8p12 and 10q26) approached the criteria for suggestive linkage"¯again pointing out that neither was statistically significant.

Thus, even the author's "strongest finding" was not statistically significant by widely accepted scientific criteria.

The study also re-examined potential genetic contributions on the X chromosome from region Xq28. This is the region first identified by Dean Hamer as associated with homosexual orientation. However, this study re-analysis, to quote the authors, "did not find linkage to Xq28 in the full sample."

The regions hypothesized as relating to sexual orientation by the research team appear to relate to developmental precursors to temperamental factors that have been associated with environmental theories of same-sex attractions. For instance, one region identified is associated with hormones that impact sexual development. Another is linked to hemispheric development in the brain. Such genes may impact the temperamental traits of activity level and aggressiveness. Lower preferences for aggressive activities have been linked to the development of same-sex attractions in men. However, currently there is no research evidence in the Mustanski study or any other of a direct pathway from genes to sexual attractions that does not involve environment interacting with individual temperamental differences.

Consistent with an environmental explanation of same-sex attraction is the work of Daryl Bem. In a 2000 study, Dr. Bem demonstrated that there is no relationship between genotype and sexual orientation in men unless environmental interaction with the temperamental trait of gender nonconformity is taken in account. In other words, exploring individual temperamental factors lived out within certain environments may provide more precise areas for research into the action of potential genetic factors in the development of sexual attractions.

In summary, the Mustanski study finds no significant relationship between DNA regions and self-reported sexual orientation. Available evidence suggests that genes may be expressed via the interaction of temperament with certain environments. Practically, then, at present, one cannot know with any degree of certainty that a gene or combination of genes will distinguish why one man is homosexual and another is not.

To learn more on the claim that homosexuality is genetic, read Concerned Women for America's paper, Born or Bred: Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality is Genetic by Robert Knight. Click here.

Warren Throckmorton, Ph.D., is associate professor of psychology and Durwood Ray, Ph.D. is professor of biology at Grove City College (Pennsylvania).

References:

Bem, D.J. (2000). "Exotic Becomes Erotic: Interpreting the Biological Correlates of Sexual Orientation." Archives of Sexual Behavior , 29, 531-548.

Mustanski, B.S., DuPree, M.G., Nievergelt, C.M., Bocklandt, S., Schork, N.J. & Hamer, D.H. (2005). "A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation." Human Genetics, http://mypage.iu.edu/~bmustans/Mustanski_etal_2005.pdf.

[brownjenkins]

In summary, the Mustanski study finds no significant relationship between DNA regions and self-reported sexual orientation. Available evidence suggests that genes may be expressed via the interaction of temperament with certain environments. Practically, then, at present, one cannot know with any degree of certainty that a gene or combination of genes will distinguish why one man is homosexual and another is not.

interestingly enough, this also implies that heterosexuality is not genetic

[inked]

Actually, no, brownjenkins. The study might suggest that as a reasonable inference for investigation, but you cannot draw that conclusion from the data as designed.

[The Wizard from Milan]

It is interesting how highly motivated religious people may dismiss evolution as not a fact, but may brandish one study (valuable no doubt, but still only one study at the very beginning of what is a very new branch of science) as a fact.

[inked]

No more amazing than the embrasure of science for the justification of
homosexuality and then the ignoring it when it affirms choice in the individual. What is that old saw about pots and kettles? And that other one about people who live in glass houses?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Actually, no, brownjenkins. The study might suggest that as a reasonable inference for investigation, but you cannot draw that conclusion from the data as designed.

do you know of any studies that point to heterosexuality as being genetic?

[inked]

No. But I have never searched it, frankly. I'm not your best source on that.

[brownjenkins]

so, if all sexual orientation is a choice the question goes back to "is it a completely free and uninfluenced choice?"... could one just as easily choose to not be heterosexual?

i think you would agree that that would be a pretty tough, maybe even an impossible choice... so while it may be "choice", if you define choice as "not genetic"... it may not be "choice" in the way that most think of it... a choose what's behind which door type of thing

[Insidious Rex]

The regions hypothesized as relating to sexual orientation by the research team appear to relate to developmental precursors to temperamental factors that have been associated with environmental theories of same sex attractions. For instance, one region identified is associated with hormones that impact sexual development. Another is linked to hemispheric development in the brain. Such genes may impact the temperamental traits of activity level and aggressiveness. Lower preferences for aggressive activities have been linked to the development of same sex attractions in men. However, currently there is no research evidence in the Mustanski study or any other of a direct pathway from genes to sexual attractions that does not involve environment interacting with individual temperamental differences.

Consistent with an environmental explanation of same sex attraction is the work of Daryl Bem. In a 2000 study, Dr. Bem demonstrated that there is no relationship between genotype and sexual orientation in men unless environmental interaction with the temperamental trait of gender nonconformity is taken in account. In other words, exploring individual temperamental factors lived out within certain environments may provide more precise areas for research into the action of potential genetic factors in the development of sexual attractions.

This is hardly great ammunition for the “homosexuality is choice!” folks considering what is said several times above. Basically it seems to come down to is: is homosexuality a direct genetic result or is it genetics triggered by specific environmental factors? The latter would make more sense from a purely biological perspective. That an “odd” trait like homosexuality would appear when certain environmental factors necessitate it rather then appearing simply perfectly randomly. And its apparently what we see in a lot of the data. Now what we need to figure out is how environment brings out this genetic predisposition.