Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[Rían]

IMO, it doesn't even matter if it's genetic or not.


TWFM - evolution (the theory as a whole) is NOT a fact, as any scientist with integrity would be sure to say.

[Insidious Rex]

oh boy here we go again....

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

IMO, it doesn't even matter if it's genetic or not.

i agree on that

[Juicybearfut]

Originally Posted by 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...

well we talk about issues in the gay community and recent news events (gay marraige has been one thats come up alot) and we have speakers come in also. We also have been trying to do some fundraisers and trying to intergrate the club into the community....i think we're trying to get a grant so we can order the popular rubber bracelets that everyone wears....i think we're getting red ones with the world ALLiance on them and we're going to hand them out to people for free....with the implication being that everyone who wears them knows someone who is gay and that it will bring awareness to the school community about how many people know someone who is gay and they might be offended by some comments made

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

oh boy here we go again....

(I sure hope you would agree with that, IRex - you seem to think the truth is important )

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by 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?

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw black kettles?

Actually, though I do favour some theories over others, I don't particularly care if being gay is genetic or hormonal, a choice or not... or some combination, or something else.

The human brain is a complicated thing. I still think being gay is good and right no matter what of the above turns out to be true.

Personally I think it's hormonal, but meh.
EDIT: This could be taken the wrong way... I mean, isn't all sexuality hormonal? *nudge nudge wink wink*
What I mean is, I think it's a hormonal development in the brain that occurs when you are still a foetus. I guess that same development would occur in straight people to cause heterosexuality.


OT:
Evolution is quite an interesting theory. It has flaws, but all in all I think it's quite a good theory. Should we bump that thread?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

evolution has flaws? what like linoleum?

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by 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?

I don't believe it is pots and kettles. Evolution is a centuries-old teory that has received scientific validation thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) or times. Evolution has been refined and ameliorated; since the advent of genetics it has been further refined and validated.
The study of the basis of sexual orientation is in its infancy. What is being published at the moment are the very first attempts that might well be overturned 180 degrees. I encourage these very first attempts because you have to start somewhere but I don't take them as conclusive. Also I have not read the study fully, but I seem to understand that they don't rule out at all that homosexuality has a genetic basis, it only rules out that it has a basis in the specific zones they looked at, when these zones are taken in isolation

Originally Posted by inked

And that other one about people who live in glass houses?

Indeed

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by inked

pesky data thing again!

Why is it pesky, Inked?

So homesexuality is more complex than simply blaming it on one gene. I thought we already knew that. The fact that homosexuality isn't directly determined by a gene, does not mean that it must simply be a choice of an individual.

Hm, I have the feeling I'm repeating what other people have already said before...

[inked]

It is pesky Earniel because some people playing scientism assert as fact rank falsehoods on merest of suggestion. If you think I am being overblown, check out the disaster befalling the Anglican Communion because of the false assertions 1) homosexuality is an in-born genetic trait beyond the control of the individual, and 2) moral standards of indisputable antiquity and cross-cultural establishment are erroneous, and 3) we discard those standards based on this "evidence".

It is a real world issue based on the ASSUMPTION without VERIFICATION. That's why the data is pesky. It keeps getting the way. Remember the old axiom of scientism, "I know what I want/need/desire (the data to say). DO NOT CONFUSE ME WITH FACTS (or the lack of them)."

[Nurvingiel]

Not everyone uses data like that Inked.

Anglicans are far from unified on this issue, so I don't imagine that the "pro-gay-marriage" and "anti-gay-marriage" sides are unified in their respective reasonings either.

Being in the "pro-gay-marriage" camp, I can say that personally, the reason that I support gay marriage is because my heart tells me, very forcefully, that being gay is good and right. Maybe it's God telling me that. This is one of my strongest beliefs, so maybe it is God telling me this. But that's another thread.
As I said before, it doesn't matter to me why people are gay, just that they are gay, and I think that's just fine.
We have the chance to help end discrimination based on sexual orientation! Finally! After 100s of years of persecution. I want to be among those that take this opportunity, because it's the right thing to do.
I don't believe in arbitrarily throwing out traditions, but I do believe that people are more important than traditions. When traditions interfere with human rights, I see no reason to keep them.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

the disaster befalling the Anglican Communion

I don't think it qualifies as a disaster. Yes there is strain, but people are not killing each other. Also I don't think that this state of affairs has been reached "because of homosexuality", it has been reached because of the homophobia of some backwater people

Originally Posted by inked

1) homosexuality is an in-born genetic trait beyond the control of the individual,

I am not aware of the fact that this statement was mentioned in any official declaration of the Episcopal Church, but maybe you can dig it up for me.

Originally Posted by inked

2) moral standards of indisputable antiquity and cross-cultural establishment are erroneous,

But I just showed you that there are tons of other moral standards of indisputable antiquity that we now consider abominable, and in your reply you end up giving more evidence to support my point (althogh you state exactly the contrary).
Moreover, "cross-cultural" is also an overstatement. Homosexuality was forbidden in some scriptures of ancient Judaism and from there it migrated to cristianity. But there was no equivalent prohibition in Greece, Rome or Egypt at that time.
Nor there had been any prohibition of homosexuality in the history of Japan before WW2. Of other culture I don't know/remember, but I am fairly certain that it is not the majority that prohibted same-sex relations before christianity influenced them last century.

Originally Posted by inked

It is a real world issue based on the ASSUMPTION without VERIFICATION.

But you see that it is not the lack of scientific proof on the origin of homosexuality that stands in the was of solving the issue, it is the "moral standards" that you quote. "Moral standards" that there is no good reason to adopt

[inked]

You can check out the available data on a variety of Anglican sites or ECUSA.org but the contentions of the Presiding Bishop and the House of Bishops issued in January are clear as are those of the dissidents in a Minority Report. Try here http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/m...p?storyid=1929

Given the nature of your individual claim to be the sole arbiter of ethics and morals, I fail to see any justification for your assessments as noted above. If, on the other hand, you really believe that there is common ground to make the assertions you do about moral values, I would love to have you elucidate them. Else, TWFM, we are not in the same universe by other than merest chance!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

Evolution is a centuries-old teory ...

Well, Darwin was born in 1809 and published The Origin of Species in 1859, and I would think most people give him credit for really defining the theory in a semi-scientific way, so I don't know about "centuries-old" ...

... that has received scientific validation thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) or times.

Not the most important parts, such as macroevolution. Macroevolution is outside the realm of science due to its very nature of being in the past; it CANNOT be a valid scientific hypothesis because one cannot run a scientific test on something in the past. However, scientists do the best they can and make educated GUESSES, which is fine, as long as people realize they are not proven and CANNOT EVER be proven, because again, we're talking about things in the past.

Evolution has been refined and ameliorated; since the advent of genetics it has been further refined and validated.

Again, not the important parts; only some of the lesser parts.

Personally, I think the evidence supports creationism more than evolutionism. You probably think the evidence supports evolutionism more than creationism. Each of us need to look at the evidence and make up our own mind.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Well, Darwin was born in 1809 and published The Origin of Species in 1859, and I would think most people give him credit for really defining the theory in a semi-scientific way, so I don't know about "centuries-old" ...

Ok, I learnt something today.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

Else, TWFM, we are not in the same universe by other than merest chance!

Indeed, I believe it is only by chance

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Not the most important parts, such as macroevolution. Macroevolution is outside the realm of science due to its very nature of being in the past; it CANNOT be a valid scientific hypothesis because one cannot run a scientific test on something in the past. However, scientists do the best they can and make educated GUESSES, which is fine, as long as people realize they are not proven and CANNOT EVER be proven, because again, we're talking about things in the past.

Rian when we see a supernova from a star that was tens of millions of light years away from us do you have a problem accepting the fact that it is INDEED an exploding star? Or must we doubt our eyes?

[Juicybearfut]

how did we get from gay and lesbians to evolution?

[Insidious Rex]

wait till we wind up talking about monks and breweries.

[inked]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

Indeed, I believe it is only by chance

And I by design!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

juicybear "how did we get from gay and lesbians to evolution?"
__________________

I can't believe you guys do not know how we got from GLBT to evolution, its a natural progression (remember >99% of mutations are degenerative not progressive!). But, the end of monks and breweries is a good mutation because BEER is the whole point of evolution! (until distillation allows Scotch, of course!)