Homosexuality: does one choose it, or is it pre-determined?

[CloseTheBlastDo]

BawBag,

 

I totally agree. At this point, I don't see how homosexuality can be viewed as anything but an example of human diversity.

i.e. I'm with you on this.

 

And I'm asking those who don't agree to justify their viewpoint (assuming they can)

[BawBag™]

I see CTBD......

 

But justify their reasons?

 

*Calms self down*

 

It's simple. They can't. There is no possible way. Without reffering to a book from what i've seen so far. Prove me wrong guys.

[lukeskywalker1]

And I'm sorry, but how would homosexuals slow population growth? They have no way of reproducing, and they don't lure heterosexuals away from their busy reproductive schedule. This makes no sense whatsoever.

 

Someone said that.. here or somewhere else.... they said the population wouldnt go up as fast, because they dont reproduce. Thats the point of my above statement, it doesnt do anything.

 

War, famine, and disease happen, and they take care of themselves, so we should make no effort to do otherwise? I'm almost inclined to agree with Dagobahn's course of action for you - I'm not sure you have the slightest inclination of how offensive a statement this was.

 

maybe it was offensive, but im saying using the example of homosexuality slowing the population growth isnt a good example. Im not saying we shouldnt do anything about the wars, famine and diseases! Im saying that the population sorts itself out!

 

Start a new thread called 'Why the bible is unquestionably true - FULL STOP'. I will gladly discuss with you in this thread why I believe the bible is NOT unquestionably true.

 

Its not unquestionably true. It cant all be proven, i never said it could be. So it would be stupid of me to say it IS true. All i say is, i believe it is. That the conclusion we would reach, it cant be proven, nor disproven, and its a waste of time trying to do either. Its faith in the end.

 

b. YOU believe that the bible is the only REAL truth. (i.e. it's like a trump card which means it out-weighs any other evidence or argument any of us can bring to the table)

 

Yes, i believe it is true, without a doubt, but not the ONLY truth.

 

might i ask what evidence have you brought to the table concerning anything? true, a few experiments that "COULD" mean that your born homosexual. But it doesnt mean it IS.

 

Homosexuality is just simply "something". It's very difficult to put into words. It's not a birth defect, it's not an addiction, it's not "something" that's forced upon people.

Gay people are gay because of feeling, because of emotion. Yes, some people are gay due to growing up in an environment with gay people, but what's wrong with that? I don't worship god (or any god for that matter) because that's how I was brought up, so you can like it or lump it. Your not going to change my mind. Exactly the same for gay people. They choose that way of life.

 

i agree with this. I dont think its the persons fault (even though it can be, but not always) IE: A heterosexual who just says they want to be gay, and then they are... I veiw them as sinners, no more no less. It is a sin according to the bible right? But then again, the bible doesnt say to treat sinners disrespectfully. I agree its wrong. Its wrong to bash someone for there own personall choices, that they can decide! Thats my view, its a sin, im part of that religion, it applies to me. The thread asked, i answered. Whether right or wrong, it asked for opinion (i think) Its right to a christian? Homosexuality is wrong, but not to people who dont follow the religion, as i stated earlier.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I don't like double-posting, but I figured it'd make things a bit more organized than just throwing this into the place where it fit the best in my last post:

 

What I wanted to discuss is your reference to deaf people opposing the changing of a deaf fetus's DNA, and the comparison of that to gays.

 

You're thinking about how gays who oppose a 'cure' to homosexuality do so because they don't know what it's like to be straight.

 

Maybe they do. But did you ever think about people who became gay, or became straight, like deaf people should listen to those who haven't always been deaf?

 

There's a difference between a person who's been deaf all their lives saying that deafness should not be treated, and a person who's become deaf speaking up. What's the difference? That the person who's become deaf, and thus wants deafness treated, knows the other side.

 

A person who's been straight all their lives may want homosexuality treated. A person who's been gay all their lives will not.

 

Here's the pincher:

People who are born gay, but become straight are happy being so, but many people who become gay are also happy being so. If I, who've been both 'gay' and 'straight', oppose these treatments, doesn't that tell you something?

Now, I've seen both sides. I've even been bullied for being gay. Badly too. I still oppose 'treatment' of gays, and so do my other friend who's gone from being straight to being lesbian.

 

I'll leave you to ponder that one.

-Eagle

[CloseTheBlastDo]

JediSpy,

 

First of all, despite the fact that we obviously have differing viewpoints and attitudes on this subject, I repsect you for the fact that you are at least attempting to discuss this on a rational level. For that I am appreciative.

 

However, there are (of course!) several things I am going to (strongly) dispute in your arguments - and several things I want to clarify in regards to my own comments.

 

First of all, yes, I admit - this discussion has gone off topic from the original title of the thread. But hey - this happens sometimes. If your unhappy about it, then ask a mod to split this thread into a new 'Is homosexuality wrong' thread. i.e. seperate it from the inherent religious inference by the title.

I want to discuss homosexuality in a UNIVERSAL way. Not just as it applies to any particular church. So far I think I've just been follwing the natural progression of the topic.

 

Anyway - to continue...

 

Yes I have read this report too. Like you said, they have found that homosexual brains do have differences in how they have developed. However, is it fair to classify this type of development as homosexual?

 

This result shows - plainly and clearly - that in ALL the test cases, a specific part of the brain is consistantly different between homosexuals and hetrosexuals. It is not only different, it is CONSISTENTLY different. This is fact.

From these results, is it fair to see a link between homosexual behaviour and the make-up of the brain?! HELL YES! What other sensible hypothesis can you POSSIBLY conclude?! (Assuming you have considered the evidence - you claimed to have done...)

In fact, the only other sensible hypothesis is that these results were a sheer fluke. OK - I accept that as a possibility. This is why I have said we should continue to study and make sure these results are continually checked.

 

(If your really SO worried about the possibility of a fluke that you can't take the evidence seriously - go and pick a die, and then roll it 10 times. Did they all come up 6? No. Good. So we can move on then...)

 

So - ALL the homosexual brains were consistantly different from the hetrosexual brains. So what are these changes attributed to?

You have stated - on many occasions - that homosexuality is NOT inborn. Instead, it is a lifestyle choice. Here are the quotes:

 

'Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. People are gay, because they want to be gay.'

'Gay people are not born gay. It is not natural for someone to be gay.'

'ZERO scientific proof that they are born that way. '

 

(Notice how every single one of these statements is said as fact. NO ROOM for doubt or error...)

 

So - how do you explain the physical differences in the brains tested? If you really do think it was sheer fluke - well - I think it's best you save that amazing theory for someone a bit less gullible than myself.

Do you think that the brain differences happenned as people accepted the homosexual 'lifestyle' - that their brains physically altered and MORPHED in some way?! If so - wow - I wasn't aware that this was possible. You mean that when I make a choice, my brain could start physically changing around in my skull?!

Show me ONE other known case of this happenning, and I'll take you seriously. Until then, again, save it for the gullible.

 

So - after all this, what is the ONLY sensible conculsion from these findings? It is this - these brain differences were inbuilt from birth. And if these brain differences have 'so far' only been found in homosexuals, then that obviously implies (to anyone using their brains) that homosexual behaviour (at least for the subjects tested) was inborn.

 

If you have another hypothesis which rationaly explains the results of the study - that makes any sense, feel free to voice it. I'D be VERY interested to hear it.

 

So all of the tested homosexual brains had that type of development. Does this mean that there is not one heterosexual brain in the entire world that has the same type of development?

 

This is where you have to assume - because of course it is obvious that not every single brain IN THE WORLD is going to be tested. But stastically, going by the results of the study, it's highly likely that MOST hetrosexual brains will not have the marked difference.

 

If, say, half of the brains from the people in the test group who claimed to be homosexuals had the noted difference in brain make-up, you can then theorise that it is split evenly in all cases. Which would of course mean that there is no real correlation.

If it was - say 3/4 correlated and 1/4 non-correlated, then you could say there is at least a STRONG correlation.

The fact is that this correlation was consistent in EVERY SINGLE SUBJECT CASE. THis provides a VERY STRONG correlation and therefore clearly points to a majority of active homosexuals having the marked brain difference.

...now explain to me which part of that you DIDN'T follow?

 

Yes - I used the word 'assume'. This is not a bad thing. The only bad thing about using assume is when you use it innappropiately. Even worse, when you DON'T use the word assume when you SHOULD. (Case in point - the statemments you voiced as 'fact' earlier - when you should have said you 'assume' these things)

 

We will never be able to study ALL the brains in the world. Therefore, you HAVE to assume - you have no choice. You can only be certain in INDIVIDUAL cases -such as the individuals used in the study. From these individuals, you can construct stasticial data. From that, your assumptions become less like guesses, and more like FACT. If you would now like to try and dispute the legitamacy of learning truth from stasticial data, then well - go ahead. but then don't complain when people accuse you of being backwards thinking and ignorant...

 

 

If I have a child whose brain develops in that manner, does that mean that he/she is destined to be gay? I doubt it seriously. There is nothing in what you said that suggests contrary to the choice of lifestyle.

 

That is EXACTLY what this study suggests.

Well - let me clarify what the study clearly suggests. If your child were to have the brain make-up identified as marking a homosexual, then they will be naturally attracted to the same sex - JUST AS CLEARLY AS YOU - AS A HETROSEXUAL - ARE ATTRACTED TO THE OPPOSITE SEX.

This DOES not mean you child will grow up to 'be' gay - in the sense that they will have homosexual sex. If you teach it from day one that homosexual sex is a 'sin', then there is every chance the child will try and fight their in-built urges, because they have been taught they are wrong. I can't say for sure what they would do - people choose whether they follow their inbuilt urges or not. You have said this before - and I don't disagree. The difference between us is that you ignoring the evidence presented which clearly indicates what the inbuilt urges WILL BE in the first place...

 

Honestly - if you don't like the answers, then don't ask the questions in the first place...

 

One last final point for this section of my reply - and please pay careful attention to this part...

...I have not mentioned genetics ONCE during this post.

 

...why? Because HOW these brain differences oocur have NO bearing on the fact that the brain differences are THERE.

I very much doubt the source is genetic (not only because of your twin example, but also from other evidence I have already provided in this and other threads).

But the fact is that even though we may not be sure HOW the changes are there - that doesn't change the fact that they ARE there.

 

...this is only the first part of my reply. I am at work, and I do have to get on with some

...but rest assured I will be replying to the rest of your points in due course...

[Kurgan]

Sorry, this is in response to several posts, and I was planning to post this earlier, but I had computer troubles, so forgive me if these points are addressed better elsewhere. I didn't want to rewrite the entire thing....!

 

------------------------------------------

 

Well one common argument is how it relates to AIDs and certain other STD's.

 

It's been established that anal sex has a much greater chance of spreading the virus that causes AIDs than vaginal intercourse.

 

Of course, the argument doesn't really hold up anymore because the disease is spread through people having multiple partners, many of whom are bisexual, and through sharing of drug needles (often stolen from hospitals, or used by prostitutes who are addicted to IV drugs). And of course it is perfectly possible for heterosexual couples to enage in anal sex as well.

 

I do think that sexual promiscuity is an irresponsible thing to do and a major problem, but of course there are just as many if not more heterosexual people like that as there are homosexuals.

 

Being homosexual doesn't necessitate that a person be sexually promiscious, anymore than being hetereosexual necessitates this. Marriage in remedying this is also is a non-issue, because like any oath or vow made by a flawed human being, marriage vows can be easily broken a person decides to. Perhaps legal sanction to gay marriages would encourage more homosexuals to be monogamous, but at the same time many would not be, just as is the case with heterosexuals.

 

The other main argument of the harm that homosexuality does to society is in that it makes people depressed, confused, alienated, etc. But this problem seems to be coming from without, from societal pressure against it, rather than from within. If society as a whole taught that homosexuality was fine/normal/good whatever in so many words "accepted it", then this problem would theoretically disappear.

 

My whole point about homosexuality being a disorder is that IF it is indeed a disorder, whether medical (like diabetes or asthma) or psychological, why should effective treatments NOT be made available to those who wish to make use of them? I'm not saying force anybody to "convert" if they don't want to, and right now we don't know if an effective treatment could be made, but I think that option could be kept open (just like we have sex change operations and cosmetic surgery and that sort of thing for people who have problems with their bodies).

 

And finally, there's that homosexuals with regards to having families and raising children will not be as good for society because they cannot have both male and female role models in the home (it is important for children to have these when growing up, especially in their early years), because children model themselves on the lives they see their parents lead.

 

But of course there are also single parent families (gay or straight) and even heterosexual couples that may not be good parents (compared to some homosexual couples who might make better parents than these examples) so that isn't absolute either. Sadly many parents end up having their kids raised by daycare workers (who may or may not care about them at all and may not be there when needed) and this is not an issue of sexual orientation.

 

The argument that lack of procreation (without donation in the case of lesbians of course) would be bad doesn't hold up either because there are many heterosexual couples who are infertil and nobody argues that they shouldn't be allowed to stay married just because they can't have kids.

 

That and homosexual couples who adopt could help out a major problem because, at least in this country, it seems easier to have an abortion than to adopt (but there are millions of loving couples who would gladly adopt, they just have to wait a long time and go through a lot of hullaballoo to get there). Giving these orphans or "unwanted" children a loving home is better than them not having one.

 

I think perhaps some of the opposition to this idea (of homosexual couples adopting) might be that they think the kids will be "brought up gay." Of course if homosexuality is "nature" and not nurture as many gay rights groups say, then this would not be an issue. The kids might get made fun of because of their parents, but that's not the kid's fault, and that again would deal with education and tolerance built in the community over time.

 

So no, I guess for me for now, I can't think of a truly compelling and purely secular reason why homosexuality is "wrong," except to say that it serves no (known) useful purpose in nature. But then perhaps we will find one one day, with enough research...

 

 

Now if the human race were dwindling in numbers and our survival depended on having as many children was possible, I would argue against it (maybe that would explain why so many ancient tribal people's made laws against homosexuality?).

 

Sexual morality is one area where people have some pretty inflexible opinions I've found. The way to try to bridge those walls of entrenched opinon is usually to point out societal effects (such as the spread of STD's, unplanned pregnancies, breaking of the families, etc), since these are tangible effects that cross belief systems and philosophies. I may not be able to convince you that a certain behavior is right or wrong, but I may be able to convince you that it is "risky" or "harmful" and thus something to be regulated or avoided. In this case however, it seems I haven't brought to bear a very strong case for that.

 

When you ask *my* opinion on the matter you'll see that I've tried to look at it from a religious standpoint and a non-religious. Of course, as a religious person, that worldview still influences my opinion on the matter. Thus, I may feel that it is against what is the "right way to live" in my understanding, but this is not something I can force on somebody who doesn't share this worldview. That answer your question?

 

[update] And that's pretty much how it stands with me, without more conclusive evidence. As far as the genetic therapy might be, if somebody was to change my genes before birth to cure me of say diabetes or something like that, I would not look upon it as an attack on my freedom or of human diversity.

 

As far as disorders go (I know that homosexuality is no longer considered a psychological disorder by mental health professionals in the US but bear with me), one could ask if its right to cure people who suffer from various types of depression or mental illness. On the one hand, these people are suffering inside, but on the other, many of the world's greatest artists and performers have been "insane."

[Eldritch]

Originally posted by jedispy

No offense, but whether or not a person is gay is of no consequence to me. How is my life affected by the fact that you were attracted to a boy once?

It's not, but it's evidence for his case, just as all your little stories about your homosexual friends are evidence for your case.

That's nice that you think that. By the way, right handed or left handed is genetic.

Interesting, but not always true. In some cases involving identical twins, one was found to be right handed and the other to be left handed. If identical twins share the same DNA as I believe you described earlier for one of your examples about your twin friends (one being gay, the other not) then why the discrepancy? Mary-Kate and Ashley (the Olsen twins) are one such example.

As stated before, there is no conclusive evidence that there is a genetic cause for homosexuality.

That's true. But many Christians still insist that evolution isn't "conclusive" either. Just how large a pile of evidence would you need to reasonably assume it would be?

When humans sinned in the garden of Eden, human nature fell and became sinful. This affected not only human nature, but all nature became corrupt. In the garden, animals did not fear people. After the fall, animals feared us as they would a predator. That which lived in purity, now sank to impurity.

 

Now I know that you don't believe in the Bible, and you think I'm full of crap. And you know what...that's o.k. I don't expect you to believe what I believe. I believe that homosexuality is not natural. It is a product of a corrupt sinful nature. Now I'm not saying that animals sin. Let's not even bother going there because that would take us WAY off topic.

I fail to see how bible verses and parables provide "conclusive" proof that homosexual is wrong or even sinful. The bible was written by men (not God, or Jesus, or any other divine figure), and as such is opinionated and subject to bias.

So please, stop using religious material as a means of prooving your point. This goes for your "pornea" claim and the like.

Your arguement is flawed because that is assuming that evolution is a fact. However it is a theory. It is a well put together theory, but a theory nevertheless. If evolution is not correct, then anything you say about it is false.

The nature of science is that NOTHING is ever proven conclusively. That is the beauty of it, that it is flexible and adaptable, expanding or contracting to fit new information as it comes in. There are literally millions of pieces of evidence to support evolution. What would it take to get you to admit that it's reasonable to assume that it's the most likely case? Especially since no other "theory" comes close. Creation is one such "theory" that science has looked into, but it's a little lacking in the evidence department.

I'm trying to recall If I used the word "seems" when relating to evidence and fact.

You may not have actually used the word "seems," but by relating your opinion and personal experiences, you've done the same thing.

First of all I don't know any. Second of all there are plenty of people engaged in pornea that are happy with it.

Stop with the pornea. It's a Christian concept, supported only by Christian doctrine and has no bearing on a logical, reasonable debate.

Does an alcoholic immediately choose to be an alcoholic? No. He/she chooses to drink enough to the point to where they become addicted.

That's not true. For many, one drink is enough. The concept of alcoholism is that alcoholics have no control of how much they drink. Once they start, they don't stop. That is why they say that no one is ever truly "cured" of alcoholism - they're just either on or off "the wagon."

A parable:

Irrelevant. You described an uninformed choice. If Bob had been informed that he would make less if he didn't get his BA, who's to say that he would've chosen that life?

Before responding to anything in this one, please read my previous post regarding the topic of this thread. i would really like to stay on topic if at all possible.

We are on topic. Since being gay was made a morality issue by some Christians in this thread, and the subject in question is a gay bishop, we are debating whether or not homosexuality is wrong. If it is proven to be, then perhaps he should not be bishop. If it's not, I see no reason why he shouldn't continue to do his job (as it is now, I don't see any reason why he shouldn't).

[CloseTheBlastDo]

Kurgan,

 

I thank you. I asked for your opinion. You gave it, and I repect it as a perfectly sensible and valid view.

[Homuncul]

After reading this thread I can't myself any longer define homosexuality. I wonder if anyone can?

[Eldritch]

From dictionary.com:

 

ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty

n.

1. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.

2. Sexual activity with another of the same sex.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

OK - first of all, I'm glad that we seem to me making headway in this debate. (At least as far as I'm concerned.)

 

First of all, I think we can all safely say that this statement:

 

ZERO scientific proof that they are born that way [homosexual].

 

is catagorically false. Anyone is welcome to try and (rationally) dispute the concusions I have drawn from the evidence (i.e. that homosexuality can be inborn), I don't mind that.

But anyone who is still clinging onto the notion that this evidence doesn't even exist(!), or the existing evidence is worth nothing - are only fooling themselves.

 

I can't fully agree here. A blind man from birth doesn't even know what it is to see and while it is discribed to him as a marvelous thing by other people, he's probably at least half way thinks like this: a deaf saw once an invalid man with one leg and thought how difficult it must be to live like that. But then he forgets about himself completely being an invalid too. How it's really a problem for me if I don't count myself invalid, he says to himself. I got my own tricks to "hear things", furthermore I can see and smell much more than an avarage person can do. I talked with a deaf from birth man and he described me this situation.

 

It doesn't mean that if preposed the blind man would have refused, but that if he's not he wouldn't care much about it.

 

So it is only people that see a limitation here. Homosexuals may not realze why it is limiting. Still it is only for them to decide.

 

First of all, I apologise for the use of the word 'problem'. I admit this was the wrong word to use. It was not specific enough,

 

and can infer attitudes I did not wish to convey. Indeed - 'disability' is the word I should have used.

However, I still think I am spot on in critisising the parallels being drawn between blindness, alcholism etc. and homosexuality.

 

THIS is what I am trying to convey.

 

And with due respect Homuncul, your reply to my statement is slightly leading. You are implying that I mean a blind man would want to correct his blindess because otherwise he can't function, or his life will not be 'complete' in some way. (If this is unfair, let me know). This is not what I was infering.

 

A blind man can have a fulfilled life. He can be 'happy' - just as or potentially more then a person with sight. (Of course the term 'happy' can be argued, but I hope everyone get's what I am saying)

This is a trait I admire in human beings - even when people are placed in circumstances where you wonder whether they are able to be truly happy, mankind has the ability to overcome obstacles and trials, and instead focus on the good in their lives.

 

However, this does not change the fact that blindness is a disability. Sure, his other senses improve and compensate in many ways. But this does not replace the ability of sight. You still need a walking stick and/or a guide dog to navigate your enviromnent. (Safely. Note I'm talking about TOTAL blindness here. Of course partial blindness is a different matter.)

Restoring the blind man's sight isn't 'nessesarily' going to make him any happier. It just means he can pop down the shops without the need of a guide dog. He can see the faces of his loved ones. He can enjoy looking at wonders like the Grand Canyon or the Taj Mahal.

Being blind does not EXCLUDE you from all this. A blind man can still feel the faces of his loved ones. He can still climb down into the grand canyon - feel the rocks - and hear the ambience when within it. But with the ability to see, he could appreciate these things more.

 

The bottom line is - there are a number of clear disadvantages to being blind. (and clear advantages to being able to see.). This - as far as I'm concerned - is what defined a disability. i.e. If the disadvantages to a particular condition or affliction are strong enough.

 

OK - so now, we could list the disadvantages of homosexuality - to determine whether it - too - should be treated like a 'disability' or an 'affliction'.

 

Now some of you are bound to say - 'Were NOT trying to say homosexuality is a disability or afflication.'.

 

No? So in that case STOP USING ANALOGIES between homosexaulity and disabilities / afflictions then - because they are weak analogies which are misleading and miss the mark. THIS is my point.

 

.[/playing devil's advocate] Just something for you to think about.

 

as you can see jedispy, I have already thought about it - quite thouroughly. I hope this clarify's my position.

 

So what you are telling me is that you define what is right or wrong in your own book. Then what is your justification for

 

defining what is right or wrong in society around you?

 

Ok - good point. I more told you how I DON'T find my morals rather than how I DO. I aplologise - that was my fault.

I was just trying to think about how to 'sum up' my methods for determining right and wrong, but I don't know if I can.

 

Let's start easy - why do I think murder is wrong? (Murder meaning killing someone without DECENT motive. Wars, self-defense is another thing). Because it takes away the freedom of another person to live.

Therefore, I believe in the right of people to be free (as long as one person's freedom does not impose on the freedom of another)

 

...and so on and so on for any topic. I can continue if you like. But I think you were maybe trying to make a point, so I'll let you make it before I babble on unnessesarily.

 

Kurgan,

 

While I accept that the topic hes veered from the original title of the thread somewhat, and I may be partly responsible for that, I have never said that 'religion has no place in a reasonable debate'. What I think has no place in ANY debate is ignoring or dismissing evidence - EVER.

Some people have accused me of dismissing the bible as evidence. Not true - I don't ACCEPT it as evidence. THere is a difference.

 

(Actually, let me make myself prefectly clear - so there is NO misunderstanding. The bible is obviously not devoid of any historial basis or backing. I have no doubt a person called Jesus Chirst existed - or that the apostles existed etc. I WOULD dispute whether every single event and word ACTUALLY happenned as described though.

And there are many other people referenced in the bible who I seriously doubt actually existed. Probably my top 'suspects' would be Adam & Eve, closely followed by Job...)

 

I have read the bible from cover to cover. I have read most parts of the new testament SEVERAL times. I am also aware of it's history. OK, I wouldn't claim to be a bible scholor, but what I'm saying is I'm not ignorant to it. I fully understand all it's teachings (and interperetations.)

I have seriously considered the truthfulness of it for most of my life. I have not dismissed it. I have simply come to the conclusion that overall it is not 'literally' true, and therefore does not - alone - contribute much of anything to the topics at hand. And I have said, I will happily debate this - but this is a WHOLE other topic, and should be done in a seperate thread.

 

One thing is sure - believeing in the bible certainly does not give you an exuse to ignore or dismiss out of hand the evidence presented from other sources.

This has happenned - many times in this and other threads. THe people involved can deny it. Doesn't matter. It happenned. THIS is what I dislike in so called 'sensible' debates.

 

[edit]

Just re-read your post Kurgan, and OK - I accept this is no longer about just gays in the church. We are now talking about homosexuality in a more general way. I agree, maybe the thread should be split, or however we want to do this

[/edit]

[Eldritch]

Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo

What I think has no place in ANY debate is ignoring or dismissing evidence - EVER.

Some people have accused me of dismissing the bible as evidence. Not true - I don't ACCEPT it as evidence. THere is a difference.

This is my position as well. If there was a misunderstanding, or the language I used caused some confusion, I apologize. This was what I attempted to convey (thanks CloseTheBlastDo[ors]).

One thing is sure - believeing in the bible certainly does not give you an exuse to ignore or dismiss out of hand the evidence presented from other sources.

This has happenned - many times in this and other threads. THe people involved can deny it. Doesn't matter. It happenned. THIS is what I dislike in so called 'sensible' debates.

Good point. I'm inclined to agree with you here.

[SkinWalker]

Okay... I split the thread for the sake of the debates!

 

Kurgan raised a very valid point about the thread being hijacked. If you want to post about the origin and possible genetics of homosexuality, this is the appropriate thread.

 

If you are concerned about homosexuality in the church (or lack of it), please choose the original thread.

 

I'm sure someone will wish their post(s) was in the other thread, but I tried to be smart about where they should go as well as consider the flow of conversation. Kurgan made a double post by accident that I forgot to delete the other day, so I placed one in each thread

 

Most of jedispy's posts and the answering posts are in the Church/Gays thread, since he seemed to be focused on the topic from a religion/christian point of view.

 

If the post was regarding genetics, inborn, or choices (or lack of them), they're in here... but perhaps with an exception or two if they were relavent to another post in the other thread.

 

Cheers

 

Big Daddy Skin

[CloseTheBlastDo]

You seem to have done a good job of splitting the thread Skin. Thx.

 

Again, sorry for my part in the hijacking...

[lukeskywalker1]

heres something i have thought about, someone correct me if im wrong.

 

According to the bible, it says a man and a woman go together, and they become one. The one is a child, a combination of both parents (their genes, genetic trates) right? Or does it mean something else? So its possible that homosexuality is genetic, but its doubtful. Why? Because, in order for the child to be born gay, one of the parents must have been, or someone further down along the line (grandparents, great grandparents etc.) But it would have to have started somewhere. Someone must have made the choice to be gay in the first place, which would possibly start this whole thing, by spreading from parent to child. But what affect does homosexuality have on you genetically? None, that i know of. So the genes could not have had anything to do with this. They couldnt have been affected, could they? Or am i just all wrong on this... just a quick thought.

 

Show me the bible passage that says homosexuals are wrong. I've yet to see it. You say homosexuality is wrong, but that view (supposedly in the bible) is predicated on it being a choice. What if science proves that it's genetic? What if you can't choose not being homosexual any more than you can your eye color?

 

lol, i started typing what i knew from my bible, then started searching for others that i didnt know about, or have forgotten, and i found a site that lists a great deal of them.

 

Click Here

[CloseTheBlastDo]

heres something i have thought about, someone correct me if im wrong.

 

According to the bible, it says a man and a woman go together, and they become one. The one is a child, a combination of both parents (their genes, genetic trates) right? Or does it mean something else? So its possible that homosexuality is genetic, but its doubtful. Why? Because, in order for the child to be born gay, one of the parents must have been, or someone further down along the line (grandparents, great grandparents etc.) But it would have to have started somewhere. Someone must have made the choice to be gay in the first place, which would possibly start this whole thing, by spreading from parent to child. But what affect does homosexuality have on you genetically? None, that i know of. So the genes could not have had anything to do with this. They couldnt have been affected, could they? Or am i just all wrong on this... just a quick thought.

 

Before I answer this, I just quickly want to admit something I'm not proud of:

When I first read this, my first impulse was impatience and fustration. And I was preparing a terse response when I suddenly stopped, looked at what I was writing and realised I don't want to be the kind of person who makes these kinds of responses.

I shouldn't lose patience with people just because I think they are not following the debate properly.

 

Luke, I am sorry if I have spoken to you out of turn in previous posts.

No matter how much I disagree with you, that does not mean I have the right to speak to you any way I see fit. I hope you accept my apology.

 

That said, what you've just posted is a bit confusing if you don't mind me saying so - although I admittedly might not be exactly clear on what you mean.

 

First of all, you genetic make-up is not 'altered' by choices you make. i.e. if you chose to be gay as an adult (I assume in your test case, the subject was born hetrosexual), your genetic make-up will not suddenly alter to reflect this change.

 

Or maybe when you say 'made the choice to be gay', you DO mean they WERE born gay (through a chance genetic mutation perhaps?) and that's just another way of saying it...

 

Tell ya what - could you just clarify what you mean by 'choose to be gay' and then I'll finish my 'analysis' on your statement. Or maybe someone else get's exactly what your trying to say...

[Kain]

Even the smallest of imbalance of chemicals in the brain can cause all kinds of things to happen. It dosen't need a heritage of homo or heterosexuality for someone to be born one way or the other.

 

Example: A common loving family has a child, but the child grows into Jeffery Dalmer. Were the parents sociopaths? No. Were they gay? Obviously not.

 

The point is it is possible to be born the exact opposite of your genes dictate, depending on how the brain's chemicals react to certain stimuli.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

According to the bible,

 

Since this is a source based upon mythology and since information in the bible is unverifiable, we can disregard it altogether. In order to be valid as a source of information, it must be at least potentially falsifiable.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

So its possible that homosexuality is genetic, but its doubtful. Why? Because, in order for the child to be born gay, one of the parents must have been, or someone further down along the line (grandparents, great grandparents etc.)

 

This is assuming that if homosexuality is genetic that it is monogenic and not polygenic... among assuming other things. Such as the fact that homosexuality is a trait that is either phenotypically obvious or not. It could very well be that homosexuality is a polygenic phenotype that may not be obvious unless certain conditions are met. These conditions might include the matching of various alleles at various loci of a multiple chromosomes. It doesn't have to be as simple and clear-cut as a single allele of a single locus of a single chromosome.

 

The human genotype has 23 pairs of 46 chromosomes. Each chromosome has about 20,000 genes. Genes come in pairs and the individuals of a pair are called alleles. One allele might be dominant, the other recessive (this is usually, though not always the case).

 

Things such as hemophilia are monogenic and very predictable in precentage of occurance in offspring if family history is known. Things such as "height" and "weight" are phenotypes that are polygenic and influanced by genetic as well as environmental conditions. That is to say, there are many different alleles on perhaps different chromosomes that can act in concert to affect height, as well as prenatal and postnatal introduction of various chemicals into the developing infant.

 

Current studies seem to indicate that homosexuality is a condition, or mode of being/form of existance, that is brought on by a combination of polygenic happenstance and possibly environmental influences of either pre- or post- natal nature or both.

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

But it would have to have started somewhere. Someone must have made the choice to be gay in the first place, which would possibly start this whole thing, by spreading from parent to child.

 

Riiigght. Just like someone chose to have muscular dystrophy or hemophilia the first time and this passed down the line......

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

But what affect does homosexuality have on you genetically? None, that i know of. So the genes could not have had anything to do with this.

 

Ha. So because you are ignorant of something, it therefore must not exist. I'm glad science isn't satisfied with this kind of blind reasoning. We'll never find cures to MS, CP, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, cancer, etc...

 

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

 

Not a valid source of information... heavy influance on irrefutable evidence of human mythology. This would have been an appropriate link in the Gays and Church thread, however.

 

I'm thinking that you didn't read my post about splitting threads above

[Dagobahn Eagle]

(...)someone correct me if im wrong.

I won't be asked twice;).

 

According to the bible, it says a man and a woman go together, and they become one. The one is a child, a combination of both parents (their genes, genetic trates) right? Or does it mean something else?

I think it simply refers to their union. Many religions and philosophies refer to 'being one with' something, with the meaning of being closely knit together.

 

So its possible that homosexuality is genetic, but its doubtful. Why? Because, in order for the child to be born gay, one of the parents must have been, or someone further down along the line (grandparents, great grandparents etc.) But it would have to have started somewhere. Someone must have made the choice to be gay in the first place, which would possibly start this whole thing, by spreading from parent to child.

Most interesting, and you're right, in order for something to be genetic it has to start someplace (and, to be a smartass, everything has to start someplace).

 

But if they chose to have a gay lifestyle (that's what I assume you mean), then there's a high chance they wouldn't bear children, right? And if it's in their genes, then it's in their genes. Period. I heard being exposed to radiation can damage your DNA, but I doubt homosexuality does.

 

So if it's in your genes, it's in your genes, whether or not you're homosexual.

 

Except from those two things, your post is a good explanation on why homosexuality (with 98% probability )isn't genetical.

 

Eagle.

[Eldritch]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

lol, i started typing what i knew from my bible, then started searching for others that i didnt know about, or have forgotten, and i found a site that lists a great deal of them.

 

Click Here

Skin said it much better than me - "Since this is a source based upon mythology and since information in the bible is unverifiable, we can disregard it altogether. In order to be valid as a source of information, it must be at least potentially falsifiable."

 

Add to that the fact that never does it explicitly state homosexuality... only implies it.

[lukeskywalker1]

You asked for those verses Eldritch.... yes its implied, but it only matters to a christian, like its been stated before.

 

 

then there's a high chance they wouldn't bear children, right?

 

I stand corrected...

 

To explain what i said better (even though it really doesnt matter now) you start heterosexual, and you become gay by your own choosing, and it gets passed down through the genes to the children, who then have a possibility of being gay. But i guess it was wrong.

 

Since this is a source based upon mythology and since information in the bible is unverifiable, we can disregard it altogether. In order to be valid as a source of information, it must be at least potentially falsifiable.

 

The bible does have a lot more proof than mythology perhaps ill start that thread like closetheblastdo suggested?

 

Luke, I am sorry if I have spoken to you out of turn in previous posts.

No matter how much I disagree with you, that does not mean I have the right to speak to you any way I see fit. I hope you accept my apology.

 

Thanks man! Dont worry about it

[Eldritch]

Originally posted by lukeskywalker1

But i guess it was wrong.

I know it's nitpicky, but can't you just say, "I was wrong" rather than "I guess I was wrong" (which sort of implies you're not sure). If you dye your hair purple, you would not then have a "purple hair" gene with which to pass to your offspring. I think you get it, but I'm just making sure.

The bible does have a lot more proof than mythology perhaps ill start that thread like closetheblastdo suggested?

That depends on what you consider proof. Greek Mythology, for example, can trace some of its stories to events that actually happened thousands of years ago. But just because mythos evolved out of an event that actually happened doesn't mean that it happened as described in the story.

The whole nature of mythology is that it's larger than life - fantastical, whimsical, interesting... makes for wonderful stories, but Greek mythology is no more a history of ancient Greece than the Bible is of ancient Jews and Christians.

[CloseTheBlastDo]

I just want to clarify something about the discussion were having.

 

Yes, thus far it has been mainly about whether homosexuality is inborn or not.

 

But I also want to be able to talk about about the morality of homosexuality too - which is a seperate issue.

 

OK, not whether homosexuality is a sin - that's more a religious topic that should be left in the other thread.

 

...but we can still talk about whether homosexulaity is right or wrong - irrespective of religious matters - right...?Or do I have to start yet ANOTHER thread?! Can we just agree this is a valid topic within this thread?

 

I just to clarify this so that someone doesn't accuse me of going against the title of the thread if I bring up moral matters.

 

Sorry to be a pain Skin! It's just that I can see it happpenning!

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo

...but we can still talk about whether homosexulaity is right or wrong - irrespective of religious matters - right...?Or do I have to start yet ANOTHER thread?! Can we just agree this is a valid topic within this thread?

 

I can agree... it seems a valid point. It may actually have bearing on the desire (or lack of it) for some to find that it is an inheritable trait or predisposition.

[Datheus]

Homosexuality is not inborn. Period. End of discussion. No no no! It is NOT there at birth. And you know why? Because you're a soft-headed little sack of flesh. Your brain is so underdeveloped at the point in the your life...

 

Love is not something born out of flesh and blood. It's not born out of the way cells are flinging chemicals back and forth. How many trees do you see that are in love? Love is born out of the mind.

 

Homosexuality isn't something that comes as a package deal at birth. But it isn't a choice either. At least not by definition. You can tell a person to stop "being gay". They can do it by definition. They won't be happy (that is the key here), but a gay person can stop seeing people of their own gender.

 

It's not much different than when some battered wife refuses to leave her abusive husband. You can convince her to move out, but will she ever really stop loving him?

 

Yes, it's exactly the same. We're not talking about who's sticking what where. We're talking about love and happiness. Keep that in mind.

 

Argue about it all you want, but love is love is love. It's an emotion born out of our mind. You can't fully define homosexuality (nor heterosexuality) without being able to completely understand the human mind. And none of you do. No one does.

 

Homosexuality has nothing to do with your genes. I can almost guarantee you that there is NOT a chromosome on your DNA that marks down whether you're homosexual or not. There is NOT a chromosome that marks down what you will find attractive or beautiful in life. There just isn't! If there was, our culture wouldn't have evolved the way it has over these thousands of years.

 

So in summary:

A gay man can decide if he wants to see other men or not. If he chooses not to, they he will "learn" to be straight. People just get used to routines over time. But the question here is whether it will make him HAPPY. If it makes him HAPPY then he never really was gay. But if he's just denying what truely makes him happy, then he really is gay.

 

Don't get so caught up in the technicallity of it. The randomness of the heart and of the mind is what makes humanity beautiful.