|
Post by gillianren on Nov 10, 2008 17:01:37 GMT -4
There is no single gene for a lot of things. My mental condition is distributed across some six genes, all of which must interact in a certain way to produce bipolar disorder. However, there is no real scientific dispute that bipolar disorder is largely genetic. Further, in doing research into my condition, I discovered that a failing of twin studies is cutoff. Both twins may, for example, exhibit homosexual behaviour, but one may be gay and the other merely bi. I don't know the specifics of the study at hand, but there is no cutoff in human behaviour, merely a spectrum.
Either way--environmental or genetic--we have very clear evidence that it isn't a choice. Since it is behaviour between consenting adults, what's the problem? Your book says it's wrong? Mine says it isn't. (Or it would, if my religion had a book.) Since the First Amendment takes religion out of government, your religious beliefs have no place in determining law.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Nov 10, 2008 20:05:55 GMT -4
Either way--environmental or genetic--we have very clear evidence that it isn't a choice. Since it is behaviour between consenting adults, what's the problem? Your book says it's wrong? Mine says it isn't. (Or it would, if my religion had a book.) Since the First Amendment takes religion out of government, your religious beliefs have no place in determining law. Gene or genes. There is currently no proof that homosexuality is genetically transmitted. If it's caused by environmental factors, it's a choice, and that removes it from equal protection under the law. It's a chosen behavior. Nobody's trying to stop consenting adults from having same sex relations. Most people just don't want such behavior to have the same recognition as heterosexual marriage. Major confusion. Religion doesn't even enter into it at this point. This is starting to turn into another same sex marriage thread--which was closed. I think the point under discussion is violence against people who disagree with one's point(s) of view. We've seen it in this country before; notably in regard to racial equality. What's interesting is that in regard to Prop 8, it's the "victims" who are who are victimizing those who disagree with them. I object.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 10, 2008 20:14:16 GMT -4
Yeah, well, it's hardly as though the gay rights movement doesn't have its martyrs, either. Martyrs don't make a movement right. I also suggest you look up what "environmental" means. It does not mean you have a choice.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Nov 10, 2008 22:33:01 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 10, 2008 23:37:21 GMT -4
I have never heard a good answer to this question: why would anyone choose to be something that is discriminated against as harshly as homosexuality often is? Gay people have been beaten and killed, and yet they still continue to "choose to be gay". If they could make their lives easier by simply choosing not to be gay why wouldn't they? I don't think it's as easy as saying two identical twins would both be gay if it is genetic. I think it's a combination of factors. Let's say a pair of identical twins both have the genetics that make them more susceptible to developing cancer, but only one of them does. Why? Did one of them choose to get cancer? Unlikely. I think it's a combination of genetics and environmental influences lead to only one twin getting cancer. Likewise, I think people can have genes that make them more likely to become gay, but the genes only get them part of the way. Maybe there is a chemical in our foods that influence our hormones and when combined with "the gay gene" they are pushed all the way into the gay camp. Just an idea.
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Nov 11, 2008 0:09:02 GMT -4
I have never heard a good answer to this question: why would anyone choose to be something that is discriminated against as harshly as homosexuality often is? Gay people have been beaten and killed, and yet they still continue to "choose to be gay". If they could make their lives easier by simply choosing not to be gay why wouldn't they? Good point, I suppose the answer is exactly the same as why we do like a determined kind of woman (for men), fall in love with and fight against every obstacle that surges (including family, economic issues, legal issues, etc). So, logic stops being logic when one has fallen in love, does it not? Unfortunately, as far as science has gone within this, there's no single proof that demonstrates that a certain gene combination may lead to homosexuality (correct me if am wrong). And seems that environment has little effect over homosexuality (please, correct me if am wrong )
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 11, 2008 0:17:59 GMT -4
It is my personal opinon that churches should give up their tax exempt status and start exercising their right to free speech. They should never have gotten into bed with the government in the first place. It's not necessary. Church's can already express themselves, as the LDS Church did. The IRS has only forbidden them from supporting specific political candidates on pain of losing their tax-exempt status. I'm trying to understand what you mean by this. Does this mean that your complaint is just about semantics? That if marriage-as-legal-contract had a different name from marriage-as-holy-matrimony you wouldn't have a problem with extending (legal) marriage to same-sex couples? Both sides are basically fighting over semantics, yes. As I pointed out earlier, CA same-sex couples already have all the rights of a marriage by law. That was not enough for them - they want to force moral acceptance of their relationship as equal with traditional marriage. From the LDS Church's press release on Prop 8 passing: The Church would object to same-sex couples adopting children, but not most other issues. No it's not, but legal recognition of a relationship as marriage undermines the meaning of marriage. It forms a foundation for further court cases and legislation to force churches to accept homosexual behavior as moral and to persecute them when they do not. As I have pointed out, there are already calls for the LDS Church to be stripped of its tax-exempt status (and worse) for speaking out on the issue. Which is exactly what happened when miscegenation laws were struck down. Race and gender are seperate issues. The reason the state recognizes marriage in the first place is because it has an interest in future citizens - children, and marriage laws have been used to simplify inheritence and promote healthy child care. Mixed-race couples still produce children. Same gender couples do not. The legal purpose for recognition of a same-sex couple's relationship therefore cannot be the same as recognition of a marriage, and a change here therefore represents a fundamental change in the purpose for recognizing the relationship. Hint: It was the pro-slavery delegates who wanted to count blacks as a full person. Only because they'd have been utterly outnumbered on a count of only full citizens It was desperation, not superior morality. Right on the lack of superior morality and self-serving nature of the choice, wrong on the details. Slaves could not legally vote. But representation in the House and Electoral College and taxation was apportioned based on population. If the slave states had counted slaves as full persons, they would have had greater representation in the House and more votes in the Electoral College - more delegates would have been allocated to slave states. Taxes gathered by the Federal government was apportioned by population. States that were more populous received a bigger slice of the pie. Again, if the slave states had counted slaves as full persons, they would have received more funds. In short, the 3/5ths compromise was designed to avoid giving slave states more government power. Abolitionists wanted slaves to not count at all, but the slave states would not ratify such a constitution, and a compromise had to be made. I have never heard a good answer to this question: why would anyone choose to be something that is discriminated against as harshly as homosexuality often is? Gay people have been beaten and killed, and yet they still continue to "choose to be gay". If they could make their lives easier by simply choosing not to be gay why wouldn't they? Surely no one ever chooses to murder someone. Why would they chose to become something that is as harshly discriminated against as murderers often are? Surely no one ever chooses to rape someone. Why would they chose to become something that is as harshly discriminated against as rapists often are? Surely no one ever chooses to become a pedophile, or serial killer, or thief, or liar, or an alcoholic, or a card cheat, or someone who forgets to turn their cell phone off in movie theaters, or any number of other labels that are discriminated against, right? I guess we should just empty the prisons, since no one would ever really choose to commit a crime that would send them to prison, right? Personally, I believe that genetics is a factor in same-sex attraction, but that it's only one factor of many, and that personal choice is effectively the deciding factor.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 11, 2008 0:40:03 GMT -4
Another way to look at this study is to say that human sexuality is a combination of genetic and environmental factors. This contributions can result in hetero or homo sexual attractions. At most people find it natural at some point in their lives to expresses their feelings though actions.
I think the choice issue is a canard. Yes people have a choice as to who they have sex with. But so what. For most of us the feelings of love and attachment are something we experience very little choice over. I am attracted to women and I could not choose to be in love with a man, as I am with my wife, if I wanted to. There is simply no ability within me to do so. For gays it is the the reverse. Most simply cannot choose to be in love or have sexual feelings for women. That is not a conscious choice, it is a matter of who they are. I think that to deny them the right to have equal standing under the law to marry and express emotions in a legally identical manner to heteros is unconscionable. Separate is not equal.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Nov 11, 2008 3:42:33 GMT -4
If it's caused by environmental factors, it's a choice, and that removes it from equal protection under the law. It's a chosen behavior. Thank you, you just ruled out religious affiliation as a basis for protected status. [Edit to add: And that certainly is a... novel... interpretation of "environmental factors." Unknowingly living next to a toxic waste dump is an environmental factor. Does that make the resulting health problems "choices?"] I beg to differ. A great many people are. [ETA: One need not look any farther than the mere existence of anti-sodomy laws.] At one time "most people" didn't want heteroracial marriage given the same recognition as homoracial marriage, either. Yeah, what was with those uppity slaves, anyway?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Nov 11, 2008 4:26:42 GMT -4
The reason the state recognizes marriage in the first place is because it has an interest in future citizens - children, and marriage laws have been used to simplify inheritence and promote healthy child care. In which case all married couples would be required to reproduce or adopt. The fact that they aren't clearly demonstrates that producing and/or raising children is not the be-all-end-all of the legal marriage contract.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 11, 2008 13:34:14 GMT -4
If it's caused by environmental factors, it's a choice, and that removes it from equal protection under the law. It's a chosen behavior. Thank you, you just ruled out religious affiliation as a basis for protected status. Which is why religious affiliation needed a special ammendment guaranteeing that religion, a choice, is to be given equal protection.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 11, 2008 13:37:34 GMT -4
In which case all married couples would be required to reproduce or adopt. The fact that they aren't clearly demonstrates that producing and/or raising children is not the be-all-end-all of the legal marriage contract. I seem to recall arguing this point long ago on another thread. Producing children is the reason for legal recognition of the marriage relationship, but married couples are not required to produce offspring, merely encouraged to do so by the benefits granted them by the state. Even couples who are barren are still male and female, and still represent the potential for reproduction despite their own indivdual lack of capacity.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 11, 2008 13:57:20 GMT -4
I just think the whole thing is blatant hypocrisy on the part of the Mormon Church. A very short time ago, historically speaking, they were upset over having something that was undeniably a choice being legislated. Since, they have systematically repressed others, as seen by, for example, the Church's lengthy fight against the ERA. There are some places where, frankly, no, you don't get to have an opinion. You don't get to say, "Women are inferior." You don't get to say, "Indians are inferior." You don't get to say, "Blacks are inferior." And, no, you don't get to say, "Gays are inferior" unless you're willing to back it up with a heck of a lot more than "because my Book says so."
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 11, 2008 15:00:21 GMT -4
Tolerance and free speech means tolerating opinions you don't agree with and allowing them their voice.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 11, 2008 15:05:09 GMT -4
I have never heard a good answer to this question: why would anyone choose to be something that is discriminated against as harshly as homosexuality often is? Gay people have been beaten and killed, and yet they still continue to "choose to be gay". If they could make their lives easier by simply choosing not to be gay why wouldn't they? It is an interesting question. Makes you wonder why so many people choose to become Christians at a time when they were being crusified, staked, burned alive, and feed to lions.... Even in more resent times choosing to become a Christian could have led to your being shot in Soviet Russia, and today in some countries it will lead to your being stoned to death (and not in the good way) or poisoned by your own family. It'd be a lot easier to not do it, but still people do. Amazing that.
|
|