posted
It's one of the reasons non-democrat feminists have long decried "reproductive rights" because abortion is so commonly used to choose a boy baby instead of a girl. Though occasionally folks want one of each and so are looking for a girl.
Of course, it is really rampant in China. To what degree it is true of American Chinese, I don't know. Usually, male dominant/preferring cultures persist beyond the actual religious beliefs that would tend to be against such frivolous use of abortion.
P.S. since this is the top of a page I'll try to bring it back to the topic. If a genetic test were available for homosexuality, I would not seek it, and if the results came through due to my needing some other test, I wouldn't abort based on that.
P.P.S. To Mabus- folks not replying just means your points stand for themselves. Or don't make any sense. Take your pick.
posted
Mabus, an amalgamation of pro-life principles and pro-choice principles is certainly possible. You might even say we have something like it already.
But the point is not "find an abortion solution to satisfy the pro-life camp and the pro-choice camp all at once"; it is to honor and respect the forces of choice and life as inseparably connected and interdependent entities. One cannot "value life" without making a choice to do so, but neither can you make a choice without a framework of values with which to measure your response. It is the insistence upon crowning one principle above the other that causes both sides of this and many other debates to be drawn towards diametrical opposition.
posted
If there is one thing that I have learned, it is that there are things we can not gage in another. We can not feel the intensity of anothers pain, or anothers fear, or anothers love or anothers faith.
These are things felt only in the mind of those who bear them.
So how can anyone so flippantly say that your love is wrong, only my love is right?
Choice 3 mentioned above talks about the only solution bearable to certain Christians--that of Celibacy.
If you find yourself attracted to someone of the same sex, don't sin, but live a life without sex.
That is not a request to live without love--or is it?
If two Christian men were to live together, but in separate bedrooms. If they were to spend all their time together, gaze longingly in each others eyes, walk hand in hand together, even kiss each other in public, but not engage in the forbidden consumation of their love, would they still be sinners? Would you welcome them into your church? If they preached celibacy, and were honest church going, God fearing men, but they held hands and cuddled in public, would you trust them to babysit your children?
Would it be enough to refrain from the sin, or must they also refrain from all semblance of sin in order to be acceptable?
quote:So how can anyone so flippantly say that your love is wrong, only my love is right?
Same with faith.
Can you see that requesting that someone believe whatever they want but not live or advocate it is requesting them to be either a public or a private liar?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
JK, something is a "value" when someone values it more or less than something else. Saying there should be no hierarchy of values is ridiculous. The hierarchy should also be very responsive to reality and may not always be predictable before one is placed in a situation of choosing.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Can you see that requesting that someone believe whatever they want but not live or advocate it is requesting them to be either a public or a private liar
Kat: I guess the difference is that not many (if any)homosexuals feel they have to advocate their beliefs to other people.
Thinking about this: I take that as meaning most/if not all homsexual people don't go out on recruiting missions. There is no trying to spread the "message" that one is homosexual (that is put in quotation marks to try and avoid any misunderstanding... ).
The issue of homosexual marriage and rights is, I feel, different from advocating homosexuality. I see it as a non-discrimination issue. And just as I can oppose discrimination agianst various churches without advocating joining that church, I would think people could oppose discrimination against homosexuals without advocating homosexual behaviour.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Imogen, the problem is that we have different views on what constitutes discrimination here. For one thing, we don't agree on what exactly is a marriage, so we differ on whether homosexuals can marry (or rather, marry the people they want to).
I could say that I oppose discrimination against homosexuals, but my list of items that constitute discrimination would be different from yours, and both of ours from several other regulars here.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can you see that requesting that someone believe whatever they want but not live or advocate it is requesting them to be either a public or a private liar?
And yet you do not shrink from placing others in the same predicament, though it were wholly possible--and reasonable--to protect that which needs protecting without threatening those who pose no threat.
Or at least that's the way it appears.
quote:Saying there should be no hierarchy of values is ridiculous.
Respecting and honoring both choice and life does not suggest an absence of hierarchy among values. Almalgamtion of these principles does not suggest this, either. At best you could argue that I said there's no point in codifying a hierarchy between these two values specifically, but then you'd be missing the point anyway. In this case you are dealing with values that at their core are inextricably entwined, and to devalue either one with the crowning of the other is simply to devalue them both at once.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
JK - I'm not sure I understand what your advocating with your amalgamation analogy. Could you explain it a little further, including how a particular position does or does not live up to this ideal? (Edit: as an example to help understanding.)
posted
I'm back! And WOA! This thread has exploded! And so many nice people! I never would have imagined such a welcome. Thanks guys!!
I'll prepare my comments and hope to post soon.. back to work!
PS> [edit] Two of the reasons I argue for homosexuality being biological is because as a gay man I know what I am and how I feel and have always felt, and secondly because if it is (and there is no doubt in my mind) then goverment and people would not have a valid reason for persecusion. They have every right to not like gays, but they couldn't do anything to us about it.
And one more point... someone was talking about being Jewish is biological? I would argue that being Jewish is the same as bing Catholic. You aren't a certain religion by genetics. You choose it. You have Slovac/Russian Jews, Arab Jews, Euro Jews... lots of different ethinc breeds all the same religion.
[ March 16, 2004, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Telperion, this kind of result is very common with homosexuality threads. Though I must admit that this one is surprisingly civil.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Telperion, sorry I am late to welcome you, it is good to have you here. That is a wicked cool name.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lets bring this back to the issue, about biological determinism.
We've gone to the extreme of abortion. But I think the the great majority of the people who would be interested in curing the biological causes of homosexuality would completely reject the abortion solution.
Pooka, you said you would not request such a test but what if the help in such a situation was merely a change in diet, or taking a supplement? If that was a scientifically proven method to prevent genetic or hormonally induced homosexual tendancies? What would you do then?
How would adult homosexuals feel about this? And why?
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Telperion, as some of the Jewish folk here will tell you, Judaism is at least as much an ethnicity as a religion (that is, not exactly either--what was it you called it, rivka? Olivet? Ela?). It isn't genetic, but it is in a sense "inherited"; primarily it is passed down through families rather than by acquiring converts. Therefore it isn't usually thought of as a choice in the sense you seem to be thinking of.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amka, they'd probably feel the same way you would if discovered how to cure heterosexuality and people started doing it.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Korea, the gender imbalance is incredibly large. In 1990, the government declared it illegal to tell a woman the gender of her unborn after ultrasound or amniocentesis. The doctor will have their license revoked if caught.
It's hard to catch, of course. But it's really reached a crisis in Korea and the government had to address it. There are 113 males for 100 females, and in certain age groups (I remember reading a few years ago that among middle-school age children, boys outnumber girls 2:1) it is a much larger gap.
I could see genetic counseling coming under very strict regulation in the years to come. I don't have an opinion on whether or not this is the right thing to do. Is it okay to prevent Down's Syndrome? Then why not prevent brown hair? I have no clue how a line would be drawn.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Judaism is a religion, but there is a Jewish race as well, decended from Jacob who was named Israel. Jacob had 12 sons. During a famine they went into Egypt. Their children kept the traditions of their fathers and married only others who believed in the God of Abraham. Thus, they became their own race and then Moses brought them out of Egypt and after a few decades they founded their own nation.
Very condensed. Lots of cool stories in there.
But basically, someone can be Jewish by race but not by religion.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What an interesting possiblility. "Curing" homosexuality as a biological treatment.
If possible, I think it would be immoral. Just imagine if suddenly blacks were condidered to be "out of fashion" and we wanted to "cure" them?
Or the Jews for that matter?
Or to "fix" people who have a "propensity towards violence"? Just imagine... custom make people to the current political fad of the time! How like "Gattaca".
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Apart from any religious argument, heterosexual behavior is naturally essential to the propegation of the species and homosexual behavior is not. Heterosexual behavior is the norm and homosexual behavior is not. There are no special conditions (meaning conditions outside of what is typical) for heterosexuality to immerge, and there are special conditions (though as we have said in this thread, we do not know what they are) for homosexuality to immerge.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amka, you're copmletely ignoring my point. I have no interest going down this path with you, I know where it's going to end up. I'll trust someone more eloquent than me to run with it for the benefit of those who haven't seen it before.
All I'm saying is that it really isn't that hard to emphasize with how homosexuals would feel. Horrified, degraded, outraged, depressed and quite a few others that defy words.
Schuklenk U, Stein E, Kerin J, Byne W. Hastings Cent Rep. 1997 The ethics of genetic research on sexual orientation. Jul-Aug;27(4):6-13.
Abstract:
quote:Research into the genetic component of some complex behaviors often causes controversy, depending on the social meaning and significance of the behavior under study. Research into sexual orientation-simplistically referred to as "gay gene" research-is an example of research that provokes intense controversy. This research is worrisome for many reasons, including the fact that it has been used to harm lesbians and gay men. Many homosexual people have been forced to undergo "treatments" to change their sexual orientation. Other chose to undergo them to escape discrimination and social disapprobation. But there are other reasons to worry about such research. The very motivation for seeking an "origin" of homosexuality reveals homophobia. Moreover, such research may lead to prenatal tests that claim to predict for homosexuality. For homosexual people who live in countries with no legal protections these dangers are particularly serious.
For those unfamiliar with the Hastings Center Report, it's arguably the most prestigious bioethics publication in existence. (Still manages to publish a fair amount of cr@p, but that's bioethics for you.) Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahhh, religion. That is a much better analogy than race. Homosexual behavior follows that pattern more closely than it follows the pattern of racial inheritance.
You see, racial characteristics are always inherited. They can be diluted and strengthened by which mate is chosen.
Homosexuals do not follow that pattern at all.
So, let us get down to that: what if religion could be cured. Answer: it can be.
*points to Soviet Union*
*points to children of atheists*
What are the difference of these two examples? One is mandated by the state, to disasterous results. The other is mandated by the parents upon the children whom they love. With the state, it is propoganda. With the parents, it is the teaching of principles which they themselves believe and, I daresay even for an atheist, hold dear.
So I, as a religious person who believes that my child would by spiritually harmed by being biologically homosexual should have the choice, don't you think? This is MY child, and not the child of other homosexuals.
posted
I think the analogy that Mike was suggesting is something along the lines of:
If believing in religion could be pinpointed as having genetic correlation (lets say, certain personality characteristics), would it be acceptable to allow genetic counseling to choose between affinity-for-religion and affinity-for-no-religion?
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
You'd have to assume (and I'm willing to do so) that the ultimate goal here is to protect life and the right thereto while ensuring that all life is the result of choice--which is a kind of protection in itself, as well as an integral piece of life's very nature. And again, I don't think this applies just to the ethicality of abortion.
You might take that to mean that I favor approaching the issue from the question: How do we prevent unwanted pregnancies so we do not have to choose between them? But that is far too simple. Despite the fact that human beings are quite capable of solving that question, and could thereby numb the entire debate into uselessness, it would require a level of collective conscience that takes it off the table of immediate solutions.
I do think, however, that our bloodthirsty tendency to give one principle dominion over another--in this and other debates--is perhaps chiefly responsible for holding us back from coming to the conclusions that would serve us all.
None of that is helpful to the just-impregnated teenager who wants to destroy her child before it becomes any more human while her faith demands that she does not, or vice versa. I just maintain that the true moral dilemma lies completely outside of that scene, since any conclusion that you graft upon it will necessarily be flawed.
posted
Amka you aren't allowing for crossover though.
In your children of atheists example you are assuming they will also be athiests. In reality it isn't that cut and dried. Some stay athiest some become religious. It goes the exactly the same way for children of religious parents. Some stay in their parents religion, some choose a different religion and some become atheists.
quote: Pooka, you said you would not request such a test but what if the help in such a situation was merely a change in diet, or taking a supplement? If that was a scientifically proven method to prevent genetic or hormonally induced homosexual tendancies? What would you do then?
I wouldn't take a supplement, even if it became regulated by the government, because that would be relying on the arm of flesh in a matter that I feel involves faith (i.e. the wider question of whether to have a child even though it could have birth defects). I wouldn't do anything extreme, even if it were "just with food". Though I guess my views on food could be seen as extreme by some.
I have been avoiding soy, though it's because I think it is generally unhealthy and not specifically to avoid the estrogenic effects on my baby (baby is nursing now, but I did avoid it when I was pregnant as well). I guess folks drink cider and eat yogurt in the hope of having a baby with more hair. There are theories of using nutritional manipulation to increase chances of having a boy or a girl. Pretty weird if you ask me. It seems they work about half the time
If I thought watching cartoons with violence in them would make my son less likely to be gay, I still wouldn't encourage that. But I also don't believe in buying boys Barbies (I have a cousin who does). I don't believe in buying girls Barbies either. I don't know if that gives you any clearer picture.
P.S. BannaOj, isn't that the case with homosexuals? Some have straight parents? Some straight folks learn their parents were closeted homosexuals?
posted
JK - thanks for answering. I'm still not sure I understand it, but I'm going to digest it a while before asking more questions.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Just for having such a cool name, I make you an Honorary Wench. The Tavern is currently inactive, but we may bring it back up.
I'm one of those who is so sick of the Homosexual Debate on Hatrack that I only post in mockery. My mind is made up, and I'm tired of arguing. And maybe a little worried that I may offend our hosts with my complete inability to find common terminology from which to begin. So I just shrug and feel slightly smug in the belief that we'll eventually come around to being as reasonable as Canada (if not as polite or clean ).
So... welcome.
P.S. I'm so glad this thread has been so civil! I would have given it even odds that a homosexual newbie would have been burned at the stake by the second page. I'm glad I was wrong. It just reminds me of why I like Hatrack.
quote:John L, since my position derives straight from the Scripture, I really don't have the option to change it unless someone can demonstrate to me that my interpretation is incorrect.
That's all well and good, but what scripture are you referencing? Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu? Regardless, all scriptures have undergone many doctrinal reinterpretations throughout the years, and I can even cite Christian ones (if I searched, probably the others as well, but I know Christian ones). Simply put, even if you interpret things in a certain way, it's from the results of previous reinterpretations of scripture already. That is, unless you've done your own translating and hunting down of the most original of texts. Everything from dietary practice to marriage practice to what day(s) of the week are holy have been reinterpreted throughout the course of time. I know of no single person who follows any scripture to the very letter of the context it was originally written, and anyone who believes they do are believing a lie. This isn't a mark against religions, either—like I've said elsewhere, this flexibility is an example of a strength.
rivka:
quote:Never use just one study out of context. <-- Can we have that tattooed on all newswriters' foreheads?
Backwards, so they can read it in the mirror.
Geoff:
quote:Didn't someone mention some twin studies earlier, that concluded something or other about the role of genetics in determining sexual orientation? I'm wondering because it can be difficult to positively determine that a psychological trait is genetic simply by observing its occurrence in a family line. Family lines are just about as good at passing down environmental influences as they are at passing down genetic markers.
See rivka's above statement. Also, genetics doesn't work by simply "passing down" traits, and even with identical twins, there are slight divergences in the basic DNA. What things those minute differences are, on the other hand, are largely unknown. I mean, I know of a few cases where one twin contracted a disease that tranferred genetically, requiring the other twin to be tested to see if they actually were identical. One in particular turned out to be completely identical, but the second twin never got the disease. Since as far as modern science is concerned, these two were exact duplicates of each other, why did one get a genetically-contracted disease while the other did not? The only logical answer is that we haven't enough information to determine exactly why yet.
I also find the fact that you're addressing the biological question from the premise of it being strictly psychological only rather against the idea of being open to the possibility.
pooka:
quote:Brian and I don't see eye to eye on a lot of things, but I agree with him that the science is more fashionable than it is theoretically strong.
You know what? So is religion. However, there's never any need to completely dismiss a religion because you don't like one aspect of how it has drawn conclusions. However, the study of genetics is just fine to dismiss as a bunch of malarky because while people don't know "for sure," there are conclusions being drawn? You don't see a double-standard there (of course you don't, it's mostly a rhetorical question, but answer if you have a ready one)?
Amka:
quote:Yes, I too am especially curious by the adopted brothers and biological brothers having the SAME rate of homosexuality. This seems to indicate to me that genetics may not even factor in at all, congenital homosexuality may be caused by hormones in the womb instead.
Actually, that seems to indicate that the statistics didn't take a large enough sample to get more accurate numbers, or that these are heavily rounded-off numbers. This is why I usually completely disregard most political question statistics (or take them with a grain of salt), because the sample taken may not be biased, but I have a hard time accepting that 1,000 people who consented to be tallied (and the consent part plays a large role) are that much of an indicator of the general populace. And if regional issues are taken into account, did they consider the concept of repression? (repression is the most difficult to gauge, since it's unreasonable to go accusing people of being gay and not admitting it)
Dagonee:
quote:John, considering there are people who use religion to justify horrible acts against people whose differences clearly are genetic, I fear that the more rabid anti-homosexuals would not change their position at all.
I suspect that some people who currently believe homosexual actions are sinful would conclude that they are not a sin. I think more people who currently believe homosexual actions are sinful would not change their minds and conclude that celibacy is the non-sinful approach for people with homosexual tendencies.
I agree, but I'm more curious about what people's expectations to scriptural validity would be. I'm more curious from a study perspective, because while I have my own opinions on how culture and religious thought deals with change, this is a chance to have a glimpse of a modern example.
KarlEd:
quote:This arguement should only be about to what degree can the government regulate the bedroom. Whether I am gay, or whether I choose to act that way should make no difference in the answer to that question.
Egg-zactly. I feel the same.
*nervous* Not that I'm gay or anything...
Steve[troll]:
quote:Is being Jewish biological, or is it just a personal choice?
Both. Does that make a good analogy? [/troll]
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
John's admission doesn't make it so. However it looked more to me like an admission that science and religion have some things in common. (Maybe we can invent a pill that'll "cure" scientific curiosity... )
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike, either pooka is just kidding, doesn't know how to read, or is delusional, because I admitted no such thing. Science is just a different reason than religion for asking "why" concerning the universe.
Atheism, however, is a religion. It just has no institution.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
And just because we don't have an institution, doesn't mean that we can't (or shouldn't) be institutionalized!
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
).![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
And maybe a little worried that I may offend our hosts with my complete inability to find common terminology from which to begin. So I just shrug and feel slightly smug in the belief that we'll eventually come around to being as reasonable as Canada (if not as polite or clean ![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
