Homosexual marriage II

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

All animals, including humans, are bisexual at birth. We learn to be hetero, or homo.

That's quite a bold statement... could you possibly link to a study that supports that theory?

[GrayMouser]

Yeah, just from an evolutionary viewpoint that seems highly unlikely.

[Jonathan]

It's just a perspective. One could also state that all are asexual from birth and that would be equally valid.

[GrayMouser]

Last time I checked, most people are born with one of two kinds of fiddly bits.

[brownjenkins]

The desire for sexual activity and biological reproduction are not the same thing.

Bisexual simply means that someone likes to be sexually stimulated with no regard to the source's sex. Anyone who has had a dog hump his leg, or any other pup that is around, be it male or female, can deduce the lack of selectivity in their sexual activity. They get pushed away when the receiver is not enjoying the advances, and learn where to steer their desires. But, at birth, all they have is their desire to be stimulated.

Humans are asexual at birth, and we become sexual in our teens once we are able to physically express it, but any preferences, hetero, homo or bi, are learned.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Bisexual simply means that someone likes to be sexually stimulated with no regard to the source's sex.

Bisexuality is sometimes distinguished from pansexuality precisely on the grounds that pansexuality does not regard the sex of the object, but bisexuality does; it just delights in both male and female objects.

A significant element of this understanding, I think, is that there are grey areas between the two sexes, both in terms of identity and in terms of physiology. But even not considering that, it seems to me that there is a difference between being attracted to a man as male and to a woman as female, and between not being concerned with the sex of the objet d'amour. So, for instance, some bisexuals are drawn to both sexes, but more to one than to the other, which is not the same as simply not regarding the sex of the other.

But, then again, I don't really know any bisexuals . . . not identifying, anyway.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

All animals, including humans, are bisexual at birth. We learn to be hetero, or homo.

As stated, I think that's an overly simplistic expression, but a modified version seems to me to be the best explanation for the history of sexuality.

[GrayMouser]

The question is, what is the dog thinking of at the time?

If there had been a... sexually receptive female dog around, what choice would the dog have made? Anyone who's owned female cats or dogs can testify the power of heterosexual attraction is not something that needs to be taught.

I was a teenage male myself, have three teenage sons, and teach classes full of teenagers, so yeah, I know there are urges that will express themselves in ways that are not directed at the appropriate object, but that's generally through lack of opportunity. We can see this in involuntary single-sex environments like prisons and British public schools, but the vast majority of people who come out of those revert to heterosexuality.

A certain amount of homosexual play is normal while growing up, and I think there would be a lot more if it wasn't so vigorously repressed. As well, many people have varying levels of bisexuality- from fully hetero- to fully homo- is a spectrum.

However, and on the whole, I think that most people are mostly heterosexual. Otherwise, we would have disappeared long ago.

[brownjenkins]

Sexual desire doesn't need to be taught. What is taught is the idea of when, where, and with whom you can not express it. Absent that, there would be no preference. It would be expressed wherever possible.

In the wild, males and females have to chase off early adolescent males. When the time is right, the females become receptive and the males learn where to focus their attentions.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

British public schools

Good shout, heh. Don't forget "Rum sodomy and the lash" as well. Built an empire it did.

I agree with GM on this though: pansexual, or maybe omnisexual, might be a better description. I too don't know any people who remained bisexual, they have all gone one way or the other. Although that may well be down to social conditioning or pressures.

Females of course, seem to be subject to much fiercer sexual conditioning from an earlier age. It is far more acceptable, generally, for males to go around shoving their knob wherever they fancy than it is for females to do the same. Presumably, partly, because they are more likely to have to live with the consequences. Literally.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Otherwise, we would have disappeared long ago.

I don't think that is necessarily so. People could well all be gay, yet still have males and females come together for the purpose of procreation.

What about tigers, who live solitary lives, presumably either they are asexual or autosexual, reading tiger porn and rubbing themselves up and down trees, and only come together to mate?

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Anyone who has had a dog hump his leg, or any other pup that is around, be it male or female, can deduce the lack of selectivity in their sexual activity. They get pushed away when the receiver is not enjoying the advances, and learn where to steer their desires. But, at birth, all they have is their desire to be stimulated.

Humans are asexual at birth, and we become sexual in our teens once we are able to physically express it, but any preferences, hetero, homo or bi, are learned.

I wouldn't go as far as saying sexual preferences are purely something that's learned. While culture undeniably plays an important role, we only have to look at ethology in the animal kingdom to see that inherent triggers affect preferences.

Made-up example:
Show a hundred hens a picture of another hen, and one hen would try to mate with the pic.
Show a hundred hens a photo of a rooster and ten hens would try mating. Show a hundred hens a weather vane and fifty hens would jump it.
Give a hundred hens a live, breathing sexy rooster - which expresses every single one of all those sexual triggers that the hens were born with - and all hens would go at it.

The hens haven't been taught any preferences, they just mate with whatever that displays enough sexual triggers (shiny feathers, a scarlet comb, a strong cock-a-doodle-doo...). At a certain threshold, the triggers combined will provoke an instinctual sexual response in the hens. With individual discrepancies of course.

The leg-humping dog in your example, has also had its humping triggered by sexual stimuli from the leg in question. Another dog would express more triggers than the leg, and the dog would certainly prefer the other dog instead. Were the other dog differently gendered, it would display stronger sexual stimuli (from a straight dog's point of view) than a dog of the same sex.

Why should humans function differently? There's culture and experiences involved, evidently. But if animals have their innate responses to certain stimuli then surely humans do to. Surely a man can be born with a tendency of sexual response at the sight of big breasts and a steady behind.

My point being the following:
I'm not saying you're born to be hetero-, homo-, bi- or even asexual. Just saying it's unlikely that all are born asexual.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

To add to that, twin studies have shown that if one of a pair of identical twins is gay, then the other has about a 50% chance of also being gay. Doesn't that suggest that there's a pretty significant genetic component to sexual preferences, even if it's not the whole picture?

[Jonathan]

Only if the twin studies consisted of twins that were brought up separately. Too many confounders otherwise.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

To add to that, twin studies have shown that if one of a pair of identical twins is gay, then the other has about a 50% chance of also being gay. Doesn't that suggest that there's a pretty significant genetic component to sexual preferences, even if it's not the whole picture?

Absolutely. In fact this holds true in situations where the twins have been separated at birth and had no ability to influence each other at all.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

We can see this in involuntary single-sex environments like prisons and British public schools

No need to be redundant now.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Only if the twin studies consisted of twins that were brought up separately. Too many confounders otherwise.

My understanding is that similarity of sexuality applies both to those raised together, and to those separated at birth, though I haven't looked too much into the matter.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I'm not saying you're born to be hetero-, homo-, bi- or even asexual. Just saying it's unlikely that all are born asexual.

I have four boys and I can assure you that they are asexual before they hit puberty. Sex does not enter their minds at all for quite a few years though, once it does, we can never really remember those years again.

We tend to attribute a lot of behavior in humans, and even in animals, to gentic inheritance, because we are not willing to accept how quickly cultural inheritance can be passed on. We assume that to actually "teach" something, it has to be constantly enforced over long periods of time because that is what it takes us as adults. So we don't give as much credit to our ability to learn from a single instance at certain points in childhood development. Something that happens in the rest of the animal kingdom all the time.

As far as "twin studies" go, I'd want to see the facts and the sample sizes. I've seen enough sketchy medical studies over the years to accept that kind of statement at face value. The samples would have to be incredibly large to nullify the twelve or so years of learning that come about before a human expresses their sexuality.

[GrayMouser]

Congrats, America

More than half of Americans say it should be legal for gays and lesbians to marry, a first in nearly a decade of polls by ABC News and The Washington Post.

This milestone result caps a dramatic, long-term shift in public attitudes. From a low of 32 percent in a 2004 survey of registered voters, support for gay marriage has grown to 53 percent today. Forty-four percent are opposed, down 18 points from that 2004 survey.
.......
While younger adults and liberals remain at the forefront of support for gay marriage, the new results underscore its expansion. In an ABC/Post poll five and a half years ago, for example, under-30s were the sole age group to give majority support to gay marriage, at 57 percent. Today it's 68 percent in that group – but also 65 percent among people in their 30s, up a remarkable 23 points from the 2005 level; and 52 percent among those in their 40s, up 17 points.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/suppo...ry?id=13159608

One interesting result- support among Catholics has gone up 23%; a 53% majority of white Catholics- a political swing group- is in favour.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Congrats, America



http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/suppo...ry?id=13159608

One interesting result- support among Catholics has gone up 23%; a 53% majority of white Catholics- a political swing group- is in favour.

Its of course an inevitability as those in favor of discrimination die out and are replaced by younger more gay friendly folks. And I have actually met a number of people who at first opposed gay marriage but in the past few years have come to see the light on this issue and change their opinion which is a wonderful thing.

Unfortunately, its going to still be a long slow process. Im embarrassed to say even in my so called liberal state of Maryland, they just chose to shelve the prospect of legalizing gay marriage for at least a year because of the ironic teaming of old guard Maryland rednecks in the southern and western part of the state and hypocritical blacks in PG and Baltimore Counties who have spent generations fighting for civil rights but then choose to discriminate against gays based on religious concerns.

[EllethValatari]

I haven't been following this discussion very closely, but I wanted to share my side of it. I just finished a short essay on the subject actually-so sorry for the format. Unlike other essays I have written which address things from a purely biblical standpoint, this one addresses the issue of homosexual marriage from biblical, legal, social and biological points of view.

On the Legalization of Homosexual Marriage

A recent poll by CBS and New York Times asked Americans if they believe same sex couples should be allowed any legal recognition. Of all the Americans who responded, results showed that 58% of Americans believe couples of this kind should be allowed either only civil unions or no legal recognition at all. The other 42% of Americans believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. The country is evidently divided.

According to the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), 76% of Americans claim to be Christian. Upon compiling the information in these surveys, it is apparent that many Christians in the United States believe that same-sex marriages deserve legal recognition. I, as a Christian and citizen of the United States stand strongly opposed not only to any church blessing, but also to the state’s legalization of homosexual marriages.

As both an American and an Anglican Christian, I understand the importance of the separation of Church and State. The First Amendment to the Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I intend to be consistent with our country’s constitution, and will therefore address the issue of homosexual marriage from Biblical, legal, and biological points of view.

Christians who support homosexual marriages often argue that the Bible never explicitly states that marriage must be between a man and a woman. This is true. The Bible, however, does warn against same-sex marriage and clearly states the sin behind it. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, God defines homosexuals as “among the wicked” and lists them among those whom he determines will “not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Genesis 19 tells of the demise of a city of homosexuals: Sodom. Finally, in Romans 1 St. Paul states that a relationship between a man and a woman is natural and good, while that between persons of the same sex is “against nature” and “unseemly.” The Biblical arguments against homosexual marriage do not leave Christians with the option to overlook/disregard what God has judged as great sin.

On the other hand, the most dispute concerning homosexual marriage centers on whether they can procreate-an idea that both legislators and church leaders hold to be an essential aspect of both marriage and family. Many argue that even though homosexuals can’t naturally pro-create, they can always adopt, use in vitro fertilization (IVF), or use a surrogate mother. Even though this is true, it is essential to consider the best interest of the children. Children hunger for their biological parents. Just like children of divorced parents, children of homosexuals will look at other kids with a mom and dad and wonder why they are different. They may even come to doubt themselves, asking “Why isn’t he/she here? Didn’t he/she/ like me?”

People also often argue that if heterosexual couples too old to reproduce get married all the time, why shouldn’t homosexuals in the same situation be able to? Although this topic avoids the issue of procreation, the problem is that homosexual marriages, no matter the age, gender, etc., of the individuals, “contradict right reason because they fail to promote marriage as an institution essential to the common good” (Pope Benedict XVI).

From a Christian perspective, there are no grounds for judging a homosexual marriage to be at all similar or even comparable to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is a holy, and presented to us as a sacrament in the Bible. Homosexual actions, however, not only go against natural law but also against Scripture. In Matthew 19:4-5, Christ gives the most plain and simple statement of what marriage should be: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?” God made man male and female, and here Christ affirms God’s purpose for marriage to be between a man and a woman.

The civil law is much less encompassing than the moral or spiritual law-but it cannot contradict reason without losing its control over the people. Every law the government creates is legitimate as long as it follows the “Natural Laws”, reason, and “certain unalienable Rights” recognized by the Constitution. Therefore, from a legal perspective, homosexual marriage should not be promoted or even permitted. Paraphrasing a letter by Pope Benedict XVI’s on homosexual marriage, ‘laws in favor of same-sex marriage are contrary to reason because they fail in their duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.’ But how can a law contradict the common good if it only allows certain behaviors rather than completely preventing them? How is legal recognition of homosexual unions against the natural law? Firstly, allowing people to engage in certain behaviors that please them is different than giving special legal privileges to activities that can in no way positively influence society. Second, if the law approved homosexual marriages, they would be integrated into the legal structure. They would be a state institution. The affects of this are exponential. Not only would the U.S.’s overall recognition influence other countries; the entire organization on America’s society would experience changes. And drastic modification of society is against the common good. As for new, younger generations, their perception of normality and basic morality would be blurred, as well as their image of what marriage naturally is.

Finally, homosexual marriages are totally deficient of the biological elements that would otherwise grant them legalization by the government as well as some churches. But biologically, such relationships are completely incapable of contributing to society and the survival of humanity through procreation. In addition, children cared for under these unions lack either a father or a mother, making their lives very emotionally difficult. Therefore a homosexual couple’s obtainment of a child contradicts the principle held by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child that “the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be paramount in every case.”

From Biblical, legal, and biological analysis, it is proven that the legal recognition of homosexual marriages would greatly damage society, the institutions of marriage and family, and the children cared for by such persons. I am not a Catholic, but I believe that the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly summarizes the issues I have presented concerning homosexual marriage:

“Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

Nonetheless, men and women with homosexual tendencies should be respected and accepted with both compassion and sensitivity. All unjust discrimination is uncalled for and unethical.

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by EllethValatari

Finally, homosexual marriages are totally deficient of the biological elements that would otherwise grant them legalization by the government as well as some churches.

Governments do not require you to have children to marry. For example, my boss and his wife are in their 40's and they have a 5 year-old girl... they were married for 15 years before they decided to have a child. The government did not revoke their marriage license because they failed to produce an heir.

biologically, such relationships are completely incapable of contributing to society and the survival of humanity through procreation.

Again, from a legal view the point of marriage is not solely to have children. Otherwise there would probably be legislation on condoms and other items.

As for any fear of ending the human race, despite the fact that a gay couple cannot have children by themselves, that does not prevent the people within that marriage from having children and raising them. I am not voicing a moral opinion on people who do that, just stating that homosexual couples are very capable of contributing to the procreation of the human race.

allowing people to engage in certain behaviors that please them is different than giving special legal privileges to activities that can in no way positively influence society.

How does who you're married to influence how you contribute to society from a legal stand point? I have some thoughts of my own, but I am curious to hear what you think happens that would cause homosexual marriages to be a detriment to society in a legal way that heterosexual marriages are not.

Second, if the law approved homosexual marriages, they would be integrated into the legal structure. They would be a state institution. The affects of this are exponential. Not only would the U.S.’s overall recognition influence other countries; the entire organization on America’s society would experience changes. And drastic modification of society is against the common good.

Please explain. In my opinion, drastic modification of society is not always against the common good.



I am not trying to pick on you, but my personal opinion is that you have an incorrect view of the legal ramifications of homosexual marriage, although I will not try to sway your moral views.