posted
Who in their right mind could think homosexuality is genetic? Think about certain things male and female bodies wouldn't produce if they're "born that way". Why won't advocates of this belief acknowledge the physical aspects of homosexuals that no argument, mental or envromental, can outweigh?
Sorry, just something I read in the first post that annoyed me.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cheiros, humans still have tails. We still have an appendix, which has no discernable purpose. Not everything about the human body makes sense. Your argument does not stand.
I'm not sure if I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly. Are these "certain things" you refer to eggs and sperm? What about this physical aspect closes the case in your opinion?
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
cheiros do ender Who in their right mind could think homosexuality is genetic?
Who in their right mind could deny that there is a genetic component to homosexuality? Just as there is a genetic compenent to almost every aspect of life and perference. Why do some people like pork chops and others like lamb chops? Why do some people like strawberry ice cream and others like chocolate? Why do some guys like blonds, while others like redheads, and still others like guys? You can say that they are just making a choice, but if you go down one more level, something is making them make that choice. Something is making strawberry ice cream more desireable than chocolate.
Something is driving that choice, and it is the natural genetic diversity that one would logically expect to find in a long surviving species.
I see gay people the same way, how could they not exist? With over 6.6 billion people on earth, how could some of them not like strawberry ice cream, and how could genetic diversity and random genetic mutation not produce some people who were attracted to the same sex, just as some people are attracted to blonds and others are not? While you may think the existence of gay people is illogical, it seems to me to be a perfectly logical statistical likelihood. It seems to be just one of the many many diverse likelihoods of over 6.6 billion genetic pairings.
Think about certain things male and female bodies wouldn't produce if they're "born that way". Why won't advocates of this belief acknowledge the physical aspects of homosexuals that no argument, mental or envromental, can outweigh?
I actually have no idea what you are talking about. What 'physical aspect' could you possibly be referring to? If you are talking about the mechanics of the reproductive organs, I still don't see the point. The mechanical functioning of the reproductive organs of gay people work just fine even if they don't lead to reproduction.
Remember something deeper than thought drives the desire to couple (mate, reproduce, whatever). The desire for sex, affection, companionship, and the ability to love while related to reproduction, are actually incidental to reproduction.
Everyone desires these things whether they intend to reproduce or not. It is the acting out of these instinctive biological imperatives that lead to reproduction, but again reproduction is incidental, the biological imperitives are the way that nature forces reproduction, but does it through uncontrollable desires and urges. Gay people through random genetic deviation, simply channel those desires and urges in a differnt direction.
To think that homosexuality is pure choice, is hopelessly misguided, and probably driven by a social agenda.
quote:I would define sin more along the lines of "Doing something you know should not be done."
It can be defined that way. Just expect to confuse people and miscommunicate when you do, except, I'd imagine, under very specific circumstances.
From dictionary.com:
quote: 1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate. 2. Theology. a. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God. b. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience. 3. Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.
I'll grant you, your definition is valid under number three. I think, however, that most people, most of the time, will use it to mean deviance from the will of God, or something similar. Either way, it's clear that rollainm was using definition number one.
cheiros do ender, It sounds like you aren't qualified to answer your own question.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My response to the claim that genetics cannot influence sexuality is the question- do flies have free will? Because you mutate a specific gene in flies, and the boy flies spend all their time trying to mate with the other boy flies. And every time you mutate this one gene, the flies behave the same way. No genetic component there at all. So, it's only flies, but for some reason, scientists aren't allowed to mutate people like we can flies. ;-) However, gay flies seem to only exist in the lab. This is do to the fact that they do not mate so an evolutionary deadend. This may be cheiros was claiming. However, in humans, looking at self-reported homosexual males, their sisters have higher fecundity than the average population. So, the genes are being passed on through the sisters. Common enough in genetics.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I watched a documentary about a year ago that asked whether there was homosexuality in the animal kingdom and if so was it conditioned (by whatever forces)or genetic.
There were many cases of gay animals (or animals that preferred same-sex companionship and/or sex) from far to jungle to to zoos. Some of the animals refused to mate with the opposite sex even if it the opp sex was abundantly available.
The sickening but laughable part was when the documentarian asked a woman who somehow headed wildlife television programming why all of the gay animal sex always ended up on the cutting room floor and was never mentioned on any programs. She said, in a stuffy, scolding english accent, that they would not want to teach such immoral behavior to the masses who watched.
Yes, let's all live in an imaginary world that only depicts what we want! Posts: 17 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: I see gay people the same way, how could they not exist? With over 6.6 billion people on earth, how could some of them not like strawberry ice cream, and how could genetic diversity and random genetic mutation not produce some people who were attracted to the same sex, just as some people are attracted to blonds and others are not?
And similarly, how could there not be some people who are attracted to prepubescent children? Yet the existence of such attraction is not relevant to evaluating the morality of pedophile behavior, IMO.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, but it pisses me off when people compare homosexuality to pedophelia. Can a child give legal consent? No. Can another adult? Yes. Whether they are opposite sex or not.
Between consenting adults, there should be no objective morality laws. Some people would outlaw bdsm, or threesomes, or any number of non-missionary position, non-strictly-for-fertilization sexual practices. IMHO, you can't have it both ways. If you feel that gay sex is morally wrong, where does the line go? The slippery slope argument flows more than one way.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just poking my head it out of morbid curiosity as to how this thread is still going.
P.S. Was it already mentioned how Brokeback Mountain did not refute OSC's view on homosexuality? I still side with St. Paul that everyone is latently gay, but maybe it's just the case that everyone experiences sexually related abuse or trauma.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, pooka, it kind of is. I mean, I can choose to sleep with a guy. But what I can't choose is for it to feel anything but wrong. As wrong as it would feel to a heterosexual person to sleep with a member of the same sex.
Sure, it's a matter of choice, on that level. But that's a semantic argument.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason I commented on the genetics is because it was earlier stated "Who in their right mind could think homosexuality is genetic?" Whether or not it is genetic does not determine the morality of it. Ultimately who you choose to have sex with is a choice, even if who you enjoy having sex with is not. I find the pedophilia comment a bit offensive. Pedophilia might be genetic. But it is not the same as homosexuality. Homosexual acts do not have a victim any more so than heterosexual acts imply a victim.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irregardless, And similarly, how could there not be some people who are attracted to prepubescent children? Yet the existence of such attraction is not relevant to evaluating the morality of pedophile behavior, IMO.
While others object to you bring 'pedophilia' into the mix, you are none the less right, everything on some level is related to the complex and diverse combining of genes. Pedophila likely is genetic deviation, but if you read this thread -
on pages 3 and more so, 4 and 5 we discuss the nature of sin and morality. In the simplest words sin=harm. Something is a sin because it causes some spiritual, emotional, psychological, physical, or practical HARM.
That harm is not necessarily true of homosexuals, and is usually true of pedophiles. More accurately, I should refer to behavior rather than tendency or propensity.
To expand, homosexuality, propensity to thief or murder, propensity to benevolents and charity, propensity to like strawberry over chocolate, and pedophilia all have a genetic component. They are all the acting out of innate genetic desires.
However, to any sane person, we must temper genetic urges with civil restaint. Straight guys of any age find teen girls attractive; they are beautiful, how could they not. Further they may even find them sexually desirable on a fantasy level, but they do not act on those urges. Further they have alternative, legitimate, and legal method of satisfying their desires.
A person with pedophilic tendencies and normal psychological control can and do moderate their urges and channel them in non-harmful directions. Just as some people with murderous desire, do not act on murderous urges or find legal ways to act out those desires.
The current controversy of homosexuality is based in the real and civil context of harm. Who do two consenting people cause harm if they choose to express themselves in this way? Not one that I can see.
Now some may argue that sex between a consenting adult and a consenting, eager, and willing child causes no harm, and in an extremely small number of cases that might be true, but we can not allow the harm to many many kids simply because a few might not be harmed. The potential for harm is substantial and so likely that it can not be ignore, so we make this practive illegal.
Note that in some societies today, the age of absolute consent is as young as 12. However, any where in the modern world, it's reasonably assumed that young people are having sex with young people. In slightly more enlightened areas, that young age of consent is tempered by laws that modify it to control the age gap or age diffential between the partners. In otherwords, to insure that it really is young people having sex with young people.
So, back to the central point, yes, pedophilia is genetic just like homosexuality, and just like preferring strawberry over chocolate. The central issue strictly from a civil and legal perspective is whether gay sex causes harm that is significant, substantial, and likely to the extent that society can justify outlawing it.
So, far all bans on homosexuality have been based in fearful prejudice and/or religious objections. You are certainly free to object on religious grounds as long as you keep in mind that religion doesn't dictate civil or criminal law.
Remember that not everything that is immoral has to be illegal, and not everything that is illegal has to be immoral. Morality is the personal choice of the individual and his conscience guided by his/her religious faith. Legality is the consensus of society with the intent of protecting that society from genuine measurable HARM.
posted
I think there are genetic elements to pretty much everything, but that it is often not the whole story.
But I also beleive that there can be instances where events shape the choice (and I use that word rather loosely) of one's actions.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is not beyond the realm of what the genetic determinists claiming that driving an SUV is a genetically influenced choice. These people don't think they are harming anyone as long as they can afford to pay for their gas. And, in the interest of drawing in the OSC aspect, I was rather surprised to hear he commutes to another state in a pickup. But I don't know what the reasons were for that. Anyway, OSC's view on gays which I do agree with is that it is not a private matter between consenting adults, but has a definite influence on the moral "economy" of society.
Well, I am going to try harder not to edit my posts. I've gotten lax.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka Anyway, OSC's view on gays which I do agree with is that it is not a private matter between consenting adults, but has a definite influence on the moral "economy" of society.
From a purely religiously driven moral perspective, I agree with you. But, religious morality does not necessarily drive civil and criminal law. The question presented to society today is not what is moral or immoral, but what can justifiably be made legal or illegal based on true, direct, and measurable harm to society.
If we want to deal with the moral 'economy' of society, doesn't rampant promiscuity and pre-marital sex also undermine the moral economy? So, should pre-marital hetrosexual sex be made illegal? And, if it was, would anybody actually be willing to enforce it?
Don't corporate money-grubbing and greed undermine the moral economy as well? So, while greed is clearly immoral, should it actually be made a crime in and of itself?
So, on purely moral grounds, I might agree with you, but I can't agree on the grounds of civil and criminal law.
Princess Leah I think there are genetic elements to pretty much everything, but that it is often not the whole story.
But I also beleive that there can be instances where events shape the choice (and I use that word rather loosely) of one's actions.
Again, I agree. Truly harmful urges can be moderated. Anyone with sound psychology can control their harmful urges and/or channel them into legal activities.
Further, events in our lives certainly affect who we grow to be, and how we grow to act. That can both influence the decisions we make, and influence our ability to make those decisions. But explanation doesn't mitigate actions. Just because I can explain why you murdered someone, doesn't excuse the fact that your did. True harm and true danger need to be controlled, if the individual can't do it then society must.
But who does homosexuality really harm? I don't see it as harming anyone any more than pre-marital hetrosexual sex does. Not implying that harm can't happen in either case, just implying that the occurance of harm is not significant or frequent enough to make the activity illegal.
posted
How does it effect the "moral economy" of a society? Even having rules that are too strict can have that effect. You get a bunch of people who will rebel from the so-called standards of society which wouldn't happen if they had reasonable freedoms. Middle groud and really understanding things is what is needed. Like the way irresponsible sex can cause a lot of harm in the form of diseases and children peopel cannot or do not want to take care of, but responsible sex between 2 people who have thought things out? How is that anyone's business?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: Who in their right mind could think homosexuality is genetic? Think about certain things male and female bodies wouldn't produce if they're "born that way". Why won't advocates of this belief acknowledge the physical aspects of homosexuals that no argument, mental or envromental, can outweigh?
Sorry, just something I read in the first post that annoyed me.
(Newbie, here. Just thought I'd jump into the deep end of the pool at the beginning, simply because this topic interests me.)
Who in their right mind could think that homosexuality is not genetic? Or heterosexuality? Or bisexuality? Or asexuality? Each of these forms of sexual attraction have a strong genetic componant.
How many of us ever sat down at puberty, carefully reviewed the various attractions available and made a clear, deliberate choice about which path we would take? I am heterosexual and the first physical sexual stirrings I felt were 'aimed' at another 12-year old named Jeff. I did nothing to 'aim' these feelings. They 'just happened'.
Additionally, there are many species of animals where homosexual behavior, even homosexual behavior to the exclusion of all other behaviors, occurs at about the same percentage as that in humans. That's a pretty hard statistic to ignore.
However, the point really isn't about how someone came to make his/her gender choices. The point is whether or not we humans allow individual religions to dictate the legality or illegality of consensual adult behavior. There are thousands of religions and denominations within major religious groupings and they all have different 'absolute truths' regarding human sexual behavior. Religions have every right to dictate the behaviors of their members. Religions have absolutely no right to dictate the behaviors of non-members. Secular society has the right to pass legislation permitting/forbidding behaviors that affect that society and religion has no business sticking it's nose into those legislations. Allowing religion to dictate legislation for an entire society is theocracy and is permissable only under a freely-chosen theocratic society. Religion has no standing in a secular government.
Whether or not homosexuality is a 'sin' MUST have no bearing on secular legislation and marriage is secular. Marriage is NOT religious. Anyone can marry without the presence of a religious representative as long as s/he follows secular procedures set up by secular government. No one can marry in a religious ceremony without getting a secular license. Even in churches where it is possible, dogmatically, for a couple to 'marry each other' and where the religious representative merely acts as witness, couples who do so will be considered to hold a 'common-law' relationship to each other without secular licensing and their children will be, legally, illegitimate.
Marriage laws exist to protect the legal/financial rights of spouses and children. The only legal way that secular government can forbid homosexual marriage is by providing clear, neutral evidence that such unions harm the secular society and trample on the legal/financial rights of spouses and children. So far, no one has provided such evidence and, lacking such evidence, I would never vote against homosexual marriage.
And the religions most against homosexual marriage, especially fundamentalist Christianity, need to start looking for that beam because the GT is entirely clear that anyone who remarries after divorce (excepting sexual 'cheating') is committing adultery...one of the Big Ten No-Nos. In order for Christians to call for secular law forbidding homosexual marriage they must also require that every divorced person be legally forbidden to remarry and that those currently remarried leave their present spouses and either return to their former spouses or remain alone and celibate for the rest of their lives.
Anything else is gross hypocrisy.
Posts: 1 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
