Gay Marriage - A Gathering Storm

[Ksandra]

So, the way by which one could become attracted to the same sex does not have to involve a large event in one's life that is somehow the sole determinant of one's sexuality, just like you probably don't know why you like certain colours, certain looks on the sex you like, certain foods, or certain musics, this works the same way for sexuality, you don't know how it happened, but because you don't know you assume it must have been innate. The implications for a more complex system that determines sexuality could very well be systematic and not singular.

That was my point Kuya, I said SOME people might be homosexuals because of an event in their life (like my HS friend). But that others it might be biological. I did not mean they needed both. I was pointing out that I don't care which way someone is a homosexual, they still deserve rights and protections.

[Penthesilea]

No, I have, but never really thought of the compromise a pious person would have to make reconciling their desire to have a straight child with their anti-abortion stance.

hypocrisy runs rampant through religion, don't expect them not to go this route.

[Faris]

I dont know about you, but i think what those scientists are saying is that noone really knows why people are gay.

[Charismatic]

I dont know about you, but i think what those scientists are saying is that noone really knows why people are gay.

You, sir... are correct.
But I'll tell you why people are gay.

They simply have not accepted Jesus Christ as their lord and savior/

[Kuya]

Um... so he's saying that physiological functions determine our attitudes and behaviour, and those behaviours can lead to homosexuality? Kinda sounds like there's some linkage there.

His theory is more detailed in the sense that he explains how things may interact instead of saying that there are correlations. It should be remembered that even when you establish causation (though there is no causation at the moment) you can't determine with just that how the interaction works. Take for example, super intelligent children and their parents, and you find a causal relationship, but is the causal relationship parent > child or child > parent or is there a third factor that piggybacks along with one of the previous two subjects? In this case, his theory explains the nature of the relationship, as he said, there's no direct link, so saying that it is biological, to him, is incredibly disingenuous.

That was my point Kuya, I said SOME people might be homosexuals because of an event in their life (like my HS friend). But that others it might be biological. I did not mean they needed both. I was pointing out that I don't care which way someone is a homosexual, they still deserve rights and protections.

Usually that's called a political reason, for example, a woman who chooses women because she's been treated badly by many men, these sort of lesbians (and they are quite common) get criticized a lot because they essentially destroy the idea that sexuality is solely an issue of biology. Anyway, yea sure, might be biological for some, a choice for others, or some sort of different relationship, even though the biological one is at best conjecture.

I dont know about you, but i think what those scientists are saying is that noone really knows why people are gay.

More or less.

[Yuri-G]

That was my point Kuya, I said SOME people might be homosexuals because of an event in their life (like my HS friend). But that others it might be biological. I did not mean they needed both. I was pointing out that I don't care which way someone is a homosexual, they still deserve rights and protections.

I will attest to this. Without getting too personal, I can think of at least two or three major events from my childhood that directly contributed to my homosexuality. Would I have been gay anyway? I don't know, I think I would have been at least bisexual, but there's no way to tell now.

[Yuri-G]

You, sir... are correct.
But I'll tell you why people are gay.

They simply have not accepted Jesus Christ as their lord and savior/

I accepted Jesus Christ, in my ass, all night long. Dude is a stud.

[Charismatic]

I accepted Jesus Christ, in my ass, all night long. Dude is a stud.

Don't even go there.

[thatwasnifty]

Kuya, did you actually link to Concerned Women for America as a legitimate source? (An an online Mormon journal?) Read Mustanski's paper that the Concerned Bitches cite. The authors clearly acknowledge the limitations of the study, and even if it doesn't support a genetic basis for homosexuality based on the genes investigated, it certainly doesn't refute a genetic basis, either.

LeVay's 1991 paper is also problematic. He looked at brains of gay men who had died of AIDS, which presents two problems: the disease may have altered the relevant areas of the brain so they'd be different from healthy men and women, and that particular part of the brain could (then, I don't know about now) be observed in autopsy and not while the subject was alive so death itself may have affected the brain. I believe even he addresses this in Queer Science.

In any case, no serious person argues that sexuality is a purely genetic trait, and especially not the result of a single gene. That doesn't mean it doesn't have a biological basis, though. The fetal environment can affect development, and there's a hypothesis that fraternal birth order could be responsible in some situations: ScienceDirect - Journal of Theoretical Biology : H-Y Antigen and Homosexuality in Men

[Kuya]

Kuya, did you actually link to Concerned Women for America as a legitimate source? (An an online Mormon journal?) Read Mustanski's paper that the Concerned Bitches cite. The authors clearly acknowledge the limitations of the study, and even if it doesn't support a genetic basis for homosexuality based on the genes investigated, it certainly doesn't refute a genetic basis, either.

LeVay's 1991 paper is also problematic. He looked at brains of gay men who had died of AIDS, which presents two problems: the disease may have altered the relevant areas of the brain so they'd be different from healthy men and women, and that particular part of the brain could (then, I don't know about now) be observed in autopsy and not while the subject was alive so death itself may have affected the brain. I believe even he addresses this in Queer Science.

In any case, no serious person argues that sexuality is a purely genetic trait, and especially not the result of a single gene. That doesn't mean it doesn't have a biological basis, though. The fetal environment can affect development, and there's a hypothesis that fraternal birth order could be responsible in some situations: ScienceDirect - Journal of Theoretical Biology : H-Y Antigen and Homosexuality in Men

You're going to have to make your critique more concrete; are you saying their intentions discredit the information they are citing?

Yes, no serious person would say that sexuality is caused by a single gene... they just say that it's biological, even if there is no proof for that and the issue is a lot more complex then they are making it out to be, which goes back to what i've mentioned over the political reasoning, and that is the idea that if people believe it's biological, then they will accept homosexuals. I have already raised my critiques of that.

[thatwasnifty]

I say that CFWA has a history of distorting the facts to fit their sexist, nationalist, religious, and homophobic agenda, so they're unreliable. It'd be like asking Neosutra to discuss the merits of a religious upbringing.

I do agree with that one passage you quoted, that acceptance of sexual variants should be on the merits of freedom and equality. However, in the US legal system, a criterion for a group's status as a protected class (which is necessary to establish in order to get the courts to take you seriously) is the trait's innateness, so it is a valid topic of research and discussion.

[Jefe]

Boy, there sure are a lot of gays here @ BG. Not that there's anything wrong w/ that...

[finitek]

It's hard to fathom Iowa is socially more progressive than CA. I have always under the impression that CA is the liberal mecca. A shame really.

California is just the battleground (San Francisco is symbolic for its gayness), the people (religious groups or otherwise) who are against gay marriage feel like if they can defeat it in California it will end the argument and all the states will just roll over.

People arguing that its wrong are just trying to impose their will on others. Sounds like a violation of Civil Rights to me. But you cannot argue with people who put so much stock in a book (that one that starts with a B) that was written by MEN and voted on by MEN.

Another reason California is so attractive is that there is very high population of Catholics, most of the Latino people in CA are Catholic and lets not forget what the mother fucking Pope just said a few weeks back cough *Condoms help spread AIDS* cough...

The churches are trying to hang on to what they feel is their last bastion of power which is bullshit, Marriage is more a business proposition anymore these days anyway.

This thread is full of trolls that make young people look like giant bigots where is the tolerance in this younger generation? Or is it just that the haters are the ones that like to speak up the most?

[Telamond]

Boy, there sure are a lot of gays here @ BG. Not that there's anything wrong w/ that...

You don't have to be gay just to support gay rights...

[Kuya]

I say that CFWA has a history of distorting the facts to fit their sexist, nationalist, religious, and homophobic agenda, so they're unreliable. It'd be like asking Neosutra to discuss the merits of a religious upbringing.

I do agree with that one passage you quoted, that acceptance of sexual variants should be on the merits of freedom and equality. However, in the US legal system, a criterion for a group's status as a protected class (which is necessary to establish in order to get the courts to take you seriously) is the trait's innateness, so it is a valid topic of research and discussion.

Actually, it would be more like asking Neosutra if religious upbringing is destroying America and him citing viable sources that do explain the negative effects of religious upbringing; we expect Neosutra to exaggerate for his own benefit, but the sources are there for our own benefit. In any case, i did provide a second, though more longer link.

As for status as a protected class, one of the links mentioned that religious groups are also protected classes (they do in fact constitute a social class), you can't infringe their liberty to practice their religions, yet we know quite well that Christians aren't Christians because of biological reasons, but they are protected, and so gays, as a social group, should be protected too as, well, they simply aren't a substantial danger to society. Unlike pedophiles on the other, who have research to support that pedophilia has links to biology (and NAMBLA is trying to take a note from the playbook of the gay community), but they don't seem to realize that just because they may be determined biologically, does not mean we should allow that kind of behaviour. Hence why i say the merits of homosexuality should not be based on its causes, because it being biological does not preclude us from censoring it, but it should be based on a moral basis. It's a shame too, there is so much information on homosexuality's uses throughout cultures and eras that very good arguments could be made from a socio-historical standpoint, but the US does have a history of preferring biological explanations for social phenomena.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Sorry I'm late. Friday and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is more what I was thinking. Family Corporations.

All I've read of his is Stranger in a Strange World and his view of family and relationships in that book is, in one word, strange.

[Kuya]

Boy, there sure are a lot of gays here @ BG. Not that there's anything wrong w/ that...

You mention this every time. When does it cease to be surprising for you?

[Correction]

You, sir... are correct.
But I'll tell you why people are gay.

They simply have not accepted Jesus Christ as their lord and savior/

The black man tells lies. Do not believe his sinister teachings. Jesus never liked you guys anyway.

[AkashiXI]

why can't you guys accept that you're inferior and we're trying to eliminate you from existence? Stop asking for full-course meals when all we're going to give you is scraps

[Drabblecox]

You know, the real ones we should be persecuting are "bisexuals." With gays and straight people, you know where they stand, but the "bisexuals" are just riding the bandwagon of homosexuality without committing to it.