DVD Talk
Study : Sexual orientation of men determined before birth (merged) [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Study : Sexual orientation of men determined before birth (merged)


mrpayroll
06-27-06, 01:59 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060627/ts_nm/sexual_orientation_men_determined_before_dc_1

1 hour, 20 minutes ago

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - A man's sexual orientation appears to be determined in the womb, a new study suggests.

Past research by Dr. Anthony F. Bogaert of Brock University in St. Catherines, Ontario and colleagues has shown that the more older brothers a man has, the more likely he is to be gay. But it has not been clear if this is a prenatal effect or a psychosocial effect, related to growing up with older male siblings.

To investigate, Bogaert studied 944 gay and straight men, including several who were raised with adopted, half- or step-siblings or were themselves adopted. He reasoned that if the relationship between having older male siblings and homosexuality was due to family environment or child-rearing practices, it would be seen whether or not a man's older brothers were biological or adopted.

Bogaert found that the link between having older brothers and homosexuality was present only if the siblings were biologically related -- this relationship was seen between biological brothers who were not raised together. The amount of time that a man was reared with older brothers had no association with sexual orientation.

"These results support a prenatal origin to sexual orientation development in men and indicate that the fraternal birth-order effect is probably the result of a maternal 'memory' for male gestations or births," Bogaert writes in his report in PNAS Early Edition.

A woman's body may see a male fetus as "foreign," Bogaert explains, and her immune response to subsequent male fetuses may grow progressively stronger.

"If this immune theory were correct, then the link between the mother's immune reaction and the child's future sexual orientation would probably be some effect of maternal anti-male antibodies on the sexual differentiation of the brain," he suggests.

Other lines of research also support the sexual orientation-maternal immune response link, he notes.

SOURCE: PNAS Early Edition, June 26, 2006.


Chris

Jadzia
06-27-06, 02:32 AM
They should be spanked in utero.

Ranger
06-27-06, 02:38 AM
Paging Penn and Teller.

FinkPish
06-27-06, 03:04 AM
So lesbians are just faking it?

Charlie Goose
06-27-06, 05:01 AM
To investigate, Bogaert studied 944 gay and straight men
Sounds to me like one Dr. Bogaert has a few ulterior motives.

wishbone
06-27-06, 09:37 AM
The book "Why Men Don't Iron" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0806524731/sr=8-1/dvdtalk/qid=1151415431/ref=sr_1_1/104-1691926-3294319?ie=UTF8) has an interesting take on this subject.

RunBandoRun
06-27-06, 09:46 AM
So lesbians are just faking it?

We only fake it with men. :D

Bushdog
06-27-06, 10:26 AM
I'd be curious to know how strong the older brother --> Gay link is. Feels to me like something that exists but is hardly deterministic. I mean, I bet there are lots of only children who are gay, too.

OldDude
06-27-06, 10:47 AM
I'd be curious to know how strong the older brother --> Gay link is. Feels to me like something that exists but is hardly deterministic. I mean, I bet there are lots of only children who are gay, too.

Did you notice the article is "number free?"

You'd like to know:
1) If you have older brothers, how MUCH more likely are you to be gay, percent per brother, so to speak?
2) If you have no older brother, are you straight?

I don't have a link, but a news segment I heard on CBC covered this report. At then end, they threw out the statistic that only 30% of gay men even have an older brother. So it is not conclusive in either direction.

Save Ferris
06-27-06, 11:07 AM
what a useful study

Lord Rick
06-27-06, 11:18 AM
Did you notice the article is "number free?"


Yes, because this is an article in the popular press.

I did an Ovid search and found the original publication in a medical journal. The article is HUGE. I will try to post some relevant stuff in a minute.

Lord Rick
06-27-06, 11:20 AM
"Fig. 1 shows the residual probability of homosexuality as a function of handedness and number of older brothers. Negative values along the ordinate denote probabilities of homosexuality lower than the mean for all subjects, and positive values denote probabilities higher than the mean. The figure shows the usual association between increasing numbers of older brothers and increasing probabilities of homosexuality, but only for right-handed men. For non-right-handed men, the curve relating older brothers to homosexuality appears quite different, perhaps even opposite. It should be noted that the capping of the older brothers variable at “three or more” was done solely for the purpose of tidying the graphical display. In all statistical analyses, numbers of older brothers and older sisters were analyzed exactly as reported."

http://i5.tinypic.com/15xo5u0.jpg

Minor Threat
06-27-06, 11:21 AM
http://www.challies.com/media/stupidchart.jpg

wendersfan
06-27-06, 11:22 AM
http://i5.tinypic.com/15xo5u0.jpgNot Found
The requested URL /15xo5u0.jpg was not found on this server.

Lord Rick
06-27-06, 11:24 AM
Just so you know there are lots of numbers:


Results

The data analysis was conducted from two different perspectives: one taking sexual orientation as the dependent variable and one taking handedness as the dependent variable. This was done partly because it facilitated comparison of the present results with those of earlier studies, which have varied in their designation of the dependent variable, depending on their focus. It was also done because interaction effects–the topic of the present research–can be viewed from different perspectives, and the conclusions suggested by one view are not necessarily redundant with the conclusions suggested by another.
Sexual orientation as the dependent variable

Most recent statistical analyses of sexual orientation and fraternal birth order have treated sexual orientation as the dependent variable (e.g., Bogaert, 2005). This approach follows directly from the assumed causal model–a man’s number of older brothers might influence his sexual orientation, but not vice versa–and it also enables quantitative estimation of the impact of each older brother. The present question, “Do older brothers have the same effect on sexual orientation in right-handed and non-right-handed men,” was therefore investigated in a series of logistic regression analyses, with sexual orientation, coded 0 for heterosexual and 1 for homosexual, treated as the criterion (i.e., dependent) variable.

The first analysis used only one predictor (i.e., independent) variable: the subject’s original sample (hereafter, source). Source was deviation-coded, with Ellis’s sample as the reference category. In this context, the choice of deviation coding (weights = −1, 0, or 1) for this categorical variable was arbitrary, as was the designation of Ellis’s sample as the reference category (the category with weight = −1).

The first analysis was actually just a preliminary step in graphing the statistical relations of primary interest. Its sole purpose was to control for between-samples differences–specifically, the large differences in the proportion of homosexual subjects–in the visual representation of the main findings, and thus to partly parallel our control for these differences in the statistical analysis of those findings. To this end, sexual orientation was regressed on source, and the standardized differences between the observed and expected probabilities of homosexuality were saved as a new variable, the residual probability of homosexuality.

Fig. 1 shows the residual probability of homosexuality as a function of handedness and number of older brothers. Negative values along the ordinate denote probabilities of homosexuality lower than the mean for all subjects, and positive values denote probabilities higher than the mean. The figure shows the usual association between increasing numbers of older brothers and increasing probabilities of homosexuality, but only for right-handed men. For non-right-handed men, the curve relating older brothers to homosexuality appears quite different, perhaps even opposite. It should be noted that the capping of the older brothers variable at “three or more” was done solely for the purpose of tidying the graphical display. In all statistical analyses, numbers of older brothers and older sisters were analyzed exactly as reported.


Enlarge Image (21K)

Fig. 1. Standardized residual probability of homosexuality as a function of older brothers and handedness. Higher values indicate greater probabilities of homosexuality. See text for explanation.

Analogous data are shown in Fig. 2 for number of older sisters. There is, again as usual, little evidence of any association between a man’s number of older sisters and his likelihood of homosexuality. The curve for right-handers is virtually flat, and the curve for non-right-handers does not depart markedly from that.


Enlarge Image (18K)

Fig. 2. Standardized residual probability of homosexuality as a function of older sisters and handedness.

The second logistic regression analysis investigated whether regression lines fitted to the data shown in the figures would in fact differ significantly in slope between right-handed and non-right-handed men. There were six predictors, four of which represented main effects: older brothers, older sisters, source, and handedness. Number of older brothers and number of older sisters were treated as continuous variables. Handedness (right or non-right) and source (the five samples of origin) were treated as categorical variables. These were deviation-coded; the reference categories were right-handed for the handedness variable and Ellis’s sample for the source variable. The other two predictors were the product of handedness and older brothers and the product of handedness and older sisters. These terms carried the interactions of handedness with older brothers and older sisters, respectively. The results are shown in Table 2. The results confirmed that handedness interacts significantly with older brothers (see Fig. 1) but not with older sisters.

Table 2.

Logistic regression of sexual orientation on source, number of older brothers, number of older sisters, and hand preference, using all subjects
Predictor B SE Wald df P eB
Source 724.44 4 <0.0001
Older brothers 0.02 0.07 0.13 1 0.72 1.02
Older sisters 0.03 0.08 0.17 1 0.68 1.03
Handedness 0.07 0.08 0.84 1 0.36 1.08
Handedness by older brothers −0.19 0.06 8.47 1 0.004 0.83
Handedness by older sisters 0.12 0.08 2.42 1 0.12 1.13

Note. Contrasts for levels of the source variable are not presented because the differences in the proportion of homosexual subjects in the five samples are not “findings” and have no importance in themselves.

Table 2 shows that the main effects for older brothers and older sisters were not significant when the full group of subjects was used and the terms for the interactions of handedness with older brothers and older sisters were included in the model. The third and fourth analyses tested whether the relations between older brothers and sexual orientation (Fig. 1) would be statistically significant within groups who had the same hand preference.

The third analysis was carried out on the 2702 right-handers only. The predictors were source, older brothers, and older sisters. The results (Table 3) indicate a significant odds ratio of 1.24 for older brothers, which means that each older brother increased the odds of homosexuality by about 24%. The relation between older sisters and homosexuality was not statistically significant and was not even in the same direction. It must be stressed that this result cannot be considered a replication because the combined sample includes previously published data. The odds ratio for older brothers (1.24) was a little lower than usual. This may relate to the considerable heterogeneity of the subjects or to the fact that we did not fully control for family size (younger brothers and younger sisters were not available for all subjects and could not be included in the analysis). It does not appear to be related specifically to the inclusion of Blanchard’s sample (patients rather than community volunteers) because the same odds ratio computed on right-handed subjects from that sample alone was virtually identical: 1.25.

Table 3.

Logistic regression of sexual orientation on source, number of older brothers, and number of older sisters, using right-handed subjects
Predictor B SE Wald df P eB
Source 623.18 4 <0.0001
Older brothers 0.21 0.05 18.93 1 <0.0001 1.24
Older sisters −0.09 0.05 3.05 1 0.08 0.92

The fourth analysis was similar to the third one, except that it was carried out on the 444 non-right-handers only. The results are shown in Table 4. Both the relation between sexual orientation and older brothers and the relation between sexual orientation and older sisters were opposite in direction to those observed among the right-handers; in this group, older brothers lowered the odds of homosexuality and older sisters raised them. However, neither of these relations was statistically significant.

Table 4.

Logistic regression of sexual orientation on source, number of older brothers, and number of older sisters, using non-right-handed subjects
Predictor B SE Wald df P eB
Source 102.61 4 <0.0001
Older brothers −0.12 0.12 0.97 1 0.32 0.89
Older sisters 0.15 0.14 1.09 1 0.30 1.16

In summary, we could reject the hypothesis that the slope of the line relating older brothers to sexual orientation is zero for right-handed subjects, and we could reject the hypothesis that the slope is the same for right-handed and non-right-handed subjects. We could not reject the hypothesis that the slope is zero for the non-right-handed subjects, despite the negative-tending curve suggested by Fig. 1.

The foregoing findings (especially Fig. 1) prompted the hypothesis that the etiological factors associated with non-right-handedness and fraternal birth order might cancel each other out. This hypothesis generated the testable prediction that the odds of homosexuality among non-right-handed men with older brothers will be similar to the odds among right-handed men without older brothers. The data, re-cast in a form that corresponded to this question, are shown in Fig. 3. The raw data appeared consistent with the prediction.


Enlarge Image (56K)

Fig. 3. Percentage of homosexual subjects in each of four groups: right-handed and no older brothers (Right, 0), non-right-handed and no older brothers (Non-Right, 0), right-handed and one or more older brothers (Right, 1+), and non-right-handed and one or more older brothers (Non-Right, 1+).

The hypothesis was formally tested in the logistic regression analysis reported in Table 5. A new variable, handedness–brothers, was created for this analysis. This variable represented the subject’s assignment to one of four groups, according to his hand preference and his number of older brothers: (a) no older brothers and right-handed (n = 1630), (b) no older brothers and non-right-handed (n = 248), (c) one or more older brothers and right-handed (n = 1072), and (d) one or more older brothers and non-right-handed (n = 196). Handedness–brothers was indicator-coded, with the first group (no older brothers and right-handed) as the reference category.

Table 5.

Logistic regression of sexual orientation on subjects grouped by hand preference and existence of any older brothers (handedness–brothers), source, and number of older sisters, using all subjects
Predictor B SE Wald df P eB
Model 1
Group (handedness–brothers) 14.22 3 0.003
Right-handed, 0 older brothers vs.
Non-right-handed, 0 older brothers 0.33 0.14 5.43 1 0.02 1.39
Right-handed, ≥1 older brothers 0.26 0.08 9.79 1 0.002 1.29
Non-right-handed, ≥1 older brothers −0.09 0.16 0.30 1 0.59 0.91

Model 2
Group (handedness–brothers) 19.16 3 0.0003
Right-handed, 0 older brothers vs.
Non-right-handed, 0 older brothers 0.34 0.16 4.37 1 0.04 1.41
Right-handed, ≥1 older brothers 0.41 0.10 15.88 1 <0.0001 1.50
Non-right-handed, ≥1 older brothers −0.06 0.19 0.11 1 0.75 0.94
Source 725.24 4 <0.0001
Older sisters −0.04 0.05 0.62 1 0.43 0.96

The results were similar with and without source and number of older sisters added to the regression equation as control variables. We will therefore comment only on the results with the control variables (bottom panel of Table 5). The odds of homosexuality were 41% higher for men who had a non-right hand preference, and 50% higher for men who had older brothers, relative to men with neither of these features. As we predicted, however, the odds for men with both features were similar to the odds for men with neither.

Bronkster
06-27-06, 11:26 AM
Great news. Does this mean I can marry your little brother?

Lord Rick
06-27-06, 11:28 AM
Not Found
The requested URL /15xo5u0.jpg was not found on this server.

tinypic.com is misbehaving. I checked the pic on my hard drive. It's good. Uploaded to tinypic a second time. Tinypic says it is hosted, gives me a link. I paste that link into the browser and it gives me the error you got.

Any other pic hosting sites?

Lord Rick
06-27-06, 11:29 AM
http://www.challies.com/media/stupidchart.jpg

rotfl

Minor Threat
06-27-06, 11:32 AM
rotfl

Please, please........don't encourage him.....

NotThatGuy
06-27-06, 11:34 AM
*takes a seat and waits for the usual suspects to find the thread*

-p

Jadzia
06-27-06, 11:47 AM
At then end, they threw out the statistic that only 30% of gay men even have an older brother. So it is not conclusive in either direction.

Maybe it was the 30% that had a HOT older brother?

Lord Rick
06-27-06, 11:54 AM
Did you notice the article is "number free?"

You'd like to know:
1) If you have older brothers, how MUCH more likely are you to be gay, percent per brother, so to speak?
2) If you have no older brother, are you straight?

I don't have a link, but a news segment I heard on CBC covered this report. At then end, they threw out the statistic that only 30% of gay men even have an older brother. So it is not conclusive in either direction.

What this article suggests is that there is a biological cause of homosexuality. That mechanism could work by having a mother who had given birth to multiple boys. But if there is a mechanism, the mechanism could be activated by other factors, too, like gene expression, viral infection of the mother, etc.

Save Ferris
06-27-06, 12:08 PM
I dont see why you're so willing to try to heap guilt on gay men who have no older brothers.

EddieN
06-27-06, 12:16 PM
My younger brother is gay and left handed.

kinda reads like a lame joke but hey, it's true

digitalfreaknyc
06-27-06, 12:17 PM
Enh. These studies don't interest me much. So long as none of them are pointed towards "curing" homosexuality, I could care less what they say. I don't really care what made me gay. The fact is that there's nothing that can change it. I'm here and queer. If it makes some str8ie in a lab coat famous for attempting to figure it out, go right ahead. However, I believe that sexuality is so fluid and there are so many variables and personalities in the world that I don't think any study will accurately pinpoint anything about it.

If it matters, i'm right handed and have no brothers. Only an older sister.

wendersfan
06-27-06, 01:02 PM
tinypic.com is misbehaving. I checked the pic on my hard drive. It's good. Uploaded to tinypic a second time. Tinypic says it is hosted, gives me a link. I paste that link into the browser and it gives me the error you got.

Any other pic hosting sites?Email it to me and I'll host it.

wendersfan (at) yahoo (dot) com

RunBandoRun
06-27-06, 01:29 PM
If it matters, i'm right handed and have no brothers. Only an older sister.

I'm right handed and have four older brothers. But I also have been a prissy, girly girl from the moment my shoulders exited the birth canal. On the other hand, I have a best friend who grew up a total tomboy -- played softball, had a paper route, refused to wear dresses, and this was in the 1970s when the first two were unheard of and the third pretty unusual. Yet she has always been straight as an arrow.

I doubt I'll ever get involved with a woman again, but it's mostly because I have little patience for relationships in general. I can't deny, however, that I spent eighteen years of my life in relationships or romances with them. And if it's because I enjoyed wearing hand-me-down sweatshirts from my older brothers on Saturdays, where do I sign up to sue their asses? :D

wendersfan
06-27-06, 01:41 PM
http://users.ameritech.net/cinemastuff/3.jpg

Shoveler
06-27-06, 03:42 PM
So does that mean that if they're ambidextrous, they're more likely to be bisexual?

Save Ferris
06-27-06, 04:26 PM
So, based on that chart, we're talking about a range of -30% to 20% chance?

Numanoid
06-27-06, 05:13 PM
If it makes some str8ie in a lab coat famous for attempting to figure it out, go right ahead. I heard this guy on the radio this morning, and I've got money that says he's nowhere near being a "str8ie".

X
06-27-06, 05:22 PM
What this article suggests is that there is a biological cause of homosexuality. That mechanism could work by having a mother who had given birth to multiple boys. But if there is a mechanism, the mechanism could be activated by other factors, too, like gene expression, viral infection of the mother, etc.The deciding factor could simply be how a mother treats a later son born to her rather than an adopted one at a certain point in the son's development.

Save Ferris
06-27-06, 05:34 PM
I bet you it has to do with breast feeding!

"Ya dont breast feed 'im, he'll hate you the rest of his life. Thats why we ended up this way Mrs. McDounnagh"--Gail Evelle

NCMojo
06-27-06, 05:57 PM
So if sexual orientation is determined before birth... doesn't that mean that God essentially preordains certain people to live a life of sin?

digitalfreaknyc
06-27-06, 06:45 PM
So if sexual orientation is determined before birth... doesn't that mean that God essentially preordains certain people to live a life of sin?

Christ, here we go.

And we were doing so well... *sigh*

Breakfast with Girls
06-27-06, 06:46 PM
So if sexual orientation is determined before birth... doesn't that mean that God essentially preordains certain people to live a life of sin?That's basically what it would have to mean.

NCMojo
06-27-06, 06:49 PM
Christ, here we go.

And we were doing so well... *sigh*
Well, I was reading a book that states that as the reason many fervently religious people are especially against the idea of homosexuality as anything but a "choice" -- if it's something you're born with, then it means that, essentially, your sexual orientation is part of God's plan.

And considering the OP...

Bacon
06-27-06, 07:07 PM
I think a mod should change the Op's name to MrGayroll just for shits and giggles :D

Save Ferris
06-27-06, 07:29 PM
So if sexual orientation is determined before birth... doesn't that mean that God essentially preordains certain people to live a life of sin?

Well what would you have to say about babies born addicted to crack cocaine? Or a disposition for alcoholism coded into their very genes?

Save Ferris
06-27-06, 07:30 PM
I think a mod should change the Op's name to MrGayroll just for shits and giggles :D

hmm he *IS* an unmarried older single gentleman. What does THAT tell you? ;)

mrpayroll
06-27-06, 07:33 PM
So if sexual orientation is determined before birth... doesn't that mean that God essentially preordains certain people to live a life of sin?

I tried to keep the Christian 'card' out of this, but here goes.

Five years ago my response would probably have been different, but we ALL fall short of who God wants us to be. We fall short in our lifestyles, the way we treat others, etc. We are all sinners!

So, I don't know why people are straight or gay or bisexual or whatever. Straight people commit sins when they lust after others or have sex before marriage, etc. It is all 'sin' in Gods eyes.

Thankfully, all of us have been given a Great Gift from God. The gift of reconciliation and forgivenss thru his Son Jesus Christ. It is up to each individual person regardless of sexual orientation, whether they accept that gift or not.

Our pastor is really pushing 'acceptance' of all people. Then, when God gets a hold of that person, he will work in their lives to make them more in His 'Image', which is how we were created in Genesis. Remember, Adam and Eve didn't sin for a period of time and then that damn apple tree had to come into our lives! :(

Chris

mrpayroll
06-27-06, 07:35 PM
And considering the OP...

I think a mod should change the Op's name to MrGayroll just for shits and giggles :D

It really should be MrPayPerv!

Chris

mrpayroll
06-27-06, 07:36 PM
hmm he *IS* an unmarried older single gentleman. What does THAT tell you? ;)

That the 'hand' is mightier than the 'vagina'? :confused:

Chris

Save Ferris
06-27-06, 07:41 PM
oooh, bad move my friend.

Well im sorry but its religious nuts like him that try to take away our freedom to choose a gay lifestyle. The religious people are always trying to take away our choices JUST LIKE THIS! First it was abortion now they want to take away our freedom to choose a lifestyle sexuality. They even come up with some screwwed up 'genetic' BS to try to keep us out--basically saying we could never choose for ourselves or be 'righteous'. If he believes his god wants to damn us all without giving us a fair choice then thats pretty screwed up.

Save Ferris
06-27-06, 07:46 PM
Hes playing 'god' and saying I have no choice in the kind of life I lead. Its another example of religious nuts misusing science--saying my lifestyle choices are doomed at birth. I thought relics like that died out in the middle ages.

mrpayroll
06-27-06, 07:47 PM
Religious nuts like who? NCMojo? :confused:
All I was saying is that some may not like homosexuality being compared with crack addiction lol.

Like me?

Chris

Save Ferris
06-27-06, 07:49 PM
Trade the 'homosexual gene' with the 'alcoholism gene' both are sins to religious people. Am helpless to choose not to be an alcoholic?

NCMojo
06-27-06, 08:01 PM
I tried to keep the Christian 'card' out of this, but here goes.

Five years ago my response would probably have been different, but we ALL fall short of who God wants us to be. We fall short in our lifestyles, the way we treat others, etc. We are all sinners!

So, I don't know why people are straight or gay or bisexual or whatever. Straight people commit sins when they lust after others or have sex before marriage, etc. It is all 'sin' in Gods eyes.

Here's the difference: if a straight man follows his "lusts" through the covenant of marriage, it's not a sin. If a gay man attempts to do the same in any context, it's a sin. Or to put it another way: a straight man is not required to lead a celibate life in order to go to Heaven.

Thankfully, all of us have been given a Great Gift from God. The gift of reconciliation and forgivenss thru his Son Jesus Christ. It is up to each individual person regardless of sexual orientation, whether they accept that gift or not.

Our pastor is really pushing 'acceptance' of all people. Then, when God gets a hold of that person, he will work in their lives to make them more in His 'Image', which is how we were created in Genesis. Remember, Adam and Eve didn't sin for a period of time and then that damn apple tree had to come into our lives! :(

Chris
Didn't that "damn apple tree" represent choice?

Save Ferris
06-27-06, 08:02 PM
What. do you have me on ignore mojo?

NCMojo
06-27-06, 08:03 PM
Religious nuts like who? NCMojo? :confused:
I've got yer religious nuts, baby... right here.

Lord Rick
06-27-06, 08:06 PM
The deciding factor could simply be how a mother treats a later son born to her rather than an adopted one at a certain point in the son's development.


Could be, but I doubt it, given the consistency of the data.

NCMojo
06-27-06, 08:07 PM
Well what would you have to say about babies born addicted to crack cocaine? Or a disposition for alcoholism coded into their very genes?
I'd say that it says the same thing as the original article: that you cannot have sin without choice, and that gay people don't "choose" to be gay. Therefore, homsexuality cannot be a sin.

And that the entire Christian position on homosexuality is rooted in hate, bigotry and fear.

Bacon
06-27-06, 08:07 PM
ignored
for the one member here who doesn't have Ferris on ignore, what did he say?

Save Ferris
06-27-06, 08:07 PM
lol but honestly--Based on your 'genetic excuse' a god would condemn a man with an alcoholic gene to hell for being an alcoholic. What about crack babies and a host of other 'sins' people might be born with?

Its a one dimensional religious view that is being propagated. We are more than our genes. The spiritual human is a life of choices made.

NCMojo
06-27-06, 08:10 PM
for the one member here who doesn't have Ferris on ignore, what did he say?
Oh yeah, that reminds me.

* runs off to put Canadian Bacon on ignore *

Bacon
06-27-06, 08:13 PM
Oh yeah, that reminds me.

* runs off to put Canadian Bacon on ignore *
at least you won't be able to see what I say here :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: Mojo!

Save Ferris
06-27-06, 08:16 PM
I actually agree with that. Most cite Leviticus as an easy way to defend themselves. But, I don't believe Christianity is in the 'middle ages' for being that way. Society itself is only a few years in front of the church in terms of acceptance. Perhaps that's due to the influence of the church over people's lives in previous years but I think slowly it will come around. There have already been at least 1 openly gay episcopalian bishop in the US and the episcopalian church was somewhat historically conservative until recent years.

I dont know why anyone would sign up for a religion based on popularity or politics or similar societal norms.

Well actually I do but I dont recommend it.

Save Ferris
06-27-06, 08:22 PM
sorry, I thought you implied that the episcopalian church would change its position based on social pressure.

Save Ferris
06-27-06, 08:29 PM
Noo..not giving into pressure, just will get with the times. A newer generation of churchgoers will have control and will make the necessary changes.

So, the majority deciding to change the rules: Politics? ;)

I guess im saying either something was always right or always wrong. 'Truth' shouldnt change with the weather. If the Bible is crock today, then it always was. If the Bible 'lies' to us then it never told the truth.

Save Ferris
06-27-06, 08:39 PM
All organizations, whether government, religious, or business go through some sort of reform at some point in their existence. ;)

sure. All I said was its no basis for a religion. If im going to believe something it had better be true. That has nothing to do with superficial things like the location of a building or the cushon on a pew. or hell, if i sit on a pew at all for that matter.

It just pisses me off when people use science or some nonsense to say I have no choice in how to live my life--like sexuality. Dont you dare try take away my freedom of choice.

Save Ferris
06-27-06, 08:48 PM
well when they bring up the genetic argument, they say SOME people cant HELP but be whatever they were destined to be---sinners in hell, by their perception. For some reason they want to believe this.

There IS a gene for alcoholism we know this. There MAY be a gene for homosexuality, thats more debatable. Either way its a fatalistic attitude. Are these people making this kind of judgement perfect? Are their genes spotless? Will they make it to heaven because they have no 'tendency to sin'? Yes I have the choice to be gay or straight and screw them if they dont think I do. Hypocrites.

Save Ferris
06-27-06, 09:04 PM
Its a double standard--its a typical tatic with religious people. I know Mojo isnt a 'religious nut' but there are people out there who actually believe it. They want 'free choice' when it comes to one thing, then take it away when it comes to something else. If they dont believe in a religion, fine, I dont see why 'unbelievers' even care. I suspect its a guilty conscience but I guess thats a risk you take when you're free to make your own choice and not chalk everything up to fate.

NCMojo
06-27-06, 09:20 PM
You know, there are times where I really think I understand what Save Ferris is talking about, and then... nope, turns out I was wrong.

What exactly is your central point, SF?
Maybe some bullet points would help

Save Ferris
06-27-06, 09:22 PM
I'd say that it says the same thing as the original article: that you cannot have sin without choice, and that gay people don't "choose" to be gay. Therefore, homsexuality cannot be a sin.

And that the entire Christian position on homosexuality is rooted in hate, bigotry and fear.

So, if I came to you saying I was addicted to alcohol and it was dominating my life because it was in my genes. Would you pat me on the back and say there was no hope for me?

NCMojo
06-27-06, 09:40 PM
So, if I came to you saying I was addicted to alcohol and it was dominating my life because it was in my genes. Would you pat me on the back and say there was no hope for me?
Once again... does this question have any connection to the point I made?

OK, I'll try and address your points sincerely. If you had a predisposition toward alcoholism, you would certainly have my sympathy. I'd encourage you not to drink, maybe point you to a good treatment program. But, see, you would still be making a choice to drink, even at that point. You may be more likely to become an alcoholic, but that doesn't mean that you can't recognize that and choose not to drink.

(And if you were born a crack addict, your probably will have some neurological disorders, and you'll be prone to all sort of childhood diseases... but those can be addressed, and really, there isn't any sin mucking up the equation.)

Whereas if you were gay, and you were born gay, see, there's no real choice. I don't think that celibacy is a realistic option, and you can't just "close your eyes and think of England". So according to the teachings of the Christian church, you are going to live a life of sin, and you are going to go to hell. And that is seriously fucked up.


So, see, there's a crucial, irrefutable difference between alchoholics, crack babies, and homosexuals. You'd think that difference would be pretty obvious, but there you are.

Save Ferris
06-27-06, 10:08 PM
If you choose to believe fate or God or whatever MAKES a person irrefutably gay by way of genes, then its no different than alcoholism. That has just as much 'genetic weight' as homosexuality. If theres more or less weight one way or another I dont think there is any proof.

If you need to be convinced: Depression is also a genetic disease. Do you KNOW how much depression can be a part of someones identity?

Now the point is, Im not as willing as you are to write off someones disposition just because of their genetic makeup. I believe people can choose a lifestyle that may be against their natural tendency. I believe its possible. I believe its necessary in the case of alcoholism and depression. We have medicines, support groups and a hundred other resources to help people live a better life. A life they may even find difficult to want. But the philosophy that want=good should be thrown out the window.

Have you ever had an addiction? (rhetorical question) Do you know that sometimes addictions never go away? Sometimes addicts NEVER feel normal. Does this mean want=good? Does this mean we should condemn anyone wanting to live a life outside their fate? If I was overcoming an addiction I would punch you in the face if you told me I was doomed to stay addicted. An acceptable religion should be the same. If there is sin, then everyone is guilty. If there is a way out, then everyone has a way out.

Heres a funny idea-- I believe people can overcome any disposition they choose. Against all odds even. Even in the face of suffering internally or externally.

Why care what religious people think about sin? Screw them. If it really bugs some people, maybe its a sense of guilt--that sin might be real--that bothers them. I dont know. I do know that making excuses for people, saying that FATE made them just fine with the world dosent fit every situation, nor should it be forced to. Essentially it is taking freedom away from people in order to make them feel better about themselves. Its the same source as alcoholism and depression (genes) and it does nobody any good to say you never had a choice in the matter.

NCMojo
06-27-06, 10:12 PM
So are you saying that homosexuals should choose not to be homosexuals? Assuming that they believe in the same Bible that the fundamentalist Christians do?

Save Ferris
06-27-06, 10:20 PM
If someone wants to change their homosexuality then let them do it.

I suspect the heat on this issue is because it makes the rest of them look bad. Kind of like all the black people in the white house are "house N***ers" to some. Someone deciding to change their spots is in itself a judgement call. It means 'if I can change, so can you'. Anyone who doesnt want to change feels bad for whatever reason.

Save Ferris
06-27-06, 10:23 PM
It pisses me off when any one group persecutes a member who wants to break off and follow their own beliefs that go against the grain.

They are always a phoney. Theyre always 'in denial'. They are always called traitors and every name in the book waiting for them to fail. I tell you if they follow through on their beliefs then theyre better people for it.

Save Ferris
06-27-06, 10:45 PM
So are you saying that homosexuals should choose not to be homosexuals?

Yes choose. You italicize like its impossible. Are there no examples of men or women CHOOSING to change more than once in their sexual orientation? Are there no bisexuals? Im sure they're all in denial. ;)

NCMojo
06-27-06, 10:53 PM
Yes choose. You italicize like its impossible. Are there no examples of men or women CHOOSING to change more than once in their sexual orientation? Are there no bisexuals? Im sure they're all in denial. ;)
So at some point you chose to be heterosexual?

Or to put it another way -- you could at any point decide that you'd really like to have sex with men?

dave-o
06-27-06, 10:55 PM
Just want to add that there is a difference between nuture/environmental influences and 'choice'. People always seem to overlook the grey are that lies between genetics and conscious choice. In other words, just because something is not entirely hereditary (and most things are not), does not mean that things are completely left up to "choice" either. There are some grey areas in between there too.

Besides, saying that there is an alcoholism 'gene' far simplifes the connection between alcoholism and genes...

mrpayroll
06-27-06, 10:56 PM
Didn't that "damn apple tree" represent choice?

And choice (which causes sin) is what did us in. :(

Chris

Save Ferris
06-27-06, 11:00 PM
Or to put it another way -- you could at any point decide that you'd really like to have sex with men?

YES. I fully reserve that right. I dont want you or anyone saying I have no say in the matter. AND I take full responsibility with my sexual proclivities--You cant have one without the other. Sexual freedom and responsibility is a groovy thing baby. ;)

If you have problems with the Bible telling people what to do then so be it. Dont blame 'genes' saying people have no say in the matter of their 'sins'.

People choosing to overcome strong feelings or inner drives--no matter how strong--are not phoney or in denial for that reason.

Save Ferris
06-27-06, 11:02 PM
Just want to add that there is a difference between nuture/environmental influences and 'choice'. People always seem to overlook the grey are that lies between genetics and conscious choice. In other words, just because something is not entirely hereditary (and most things are not), does not mean that things are completely left up to "choice" either. There are some grey areas in between there too.

Besides, saying that there is an alcoholism 'gene' far simplifes the connection between alcoholism and genes...

Alcoholism genetics and environment are not any more isolated than homosexual genetics and environment. Or depression for that matter

Meaning: Yes there are a mix of things that make someone an alcoholic. Genes seem to be considered the strongest deciding factor that 'makes us who we are'. Environment will play just as big a role in either disposition. Nobody becomes gay on an isolated island. Nor consistantly drunk.

NCMojo
06-27-06, 11:07 PM
Uh, well, I frankly see it like this: you are either sexually attracted to the sight of naked men, or you're not.

See, I like butterscotch. I don't like coconut. I could taste coconut today, tomorrow, whenever... I am never going to like it. I like butterscotch. That's just the way that God made me.

Now, if you like coconut... that's okay. Lots of people like coconut. And if you don't like butterscotch... well, I can't say I totally understand you, because butterscotch is completely awesome... but I guess that's okay, too.

Save Ferris
06-27-06, 11:11 PM
But would you give up butterscotch for your wife? Say her father drowned in a vat of butterscotch and could never be with someone who consumed it. Could you promise to never have it? Yes? No? It doesnt matter to me. Thats between you and her.

And yes, its not fair. Everyone demands that life be fair. But if she's a good wife, maybe its a small price. Maybe you'll miss butterscotch maybe you wont miss it so much. Maybe you only think you'll miss it because you dont have it and then if you had it you would wish you had her more than butterscotch. I never promised you an easy answer but nothing comes easy worth having. And life is not fair.

Maybe your life is better than mine. It may be. Thats not fair either ;)

mrpayroll
06-27-06, 11:19 PM
And that the entire Christian position on homosexuality is rooted in hate, bigotry and fear.

And I agree mostly, to an extent.

Jesus said 'He who is within sin, cast the first stone' and
'Take a look at the log in your own eye, before you point out the stick in your brothers eye'

Both are paraphrased.

But, we all have sin in our lives that causes our relationship with God to suffer. It's unfortunate that these holier than thou people think that they are better than everyone else and like to point out other people's sins without acknowledging their own.

And for the record, I'm addicted to pornography! :(

Chris

mrpayroll
06-27-06, 11:21 PM
Canadian Bacon
Gay Talk Moderator :lol:

or is this real? :eek:

Chris

Bushdog
06-27-06, 11:33 PM
Is anyone else wondering what the fuck went on in your Mother's womb, Chris? ;)

Save Ferris
06-27-06, 11:37 PM
Is anyone else wondering what the fuck went on in your Mother's womb, Chris? ;)

Im guessing he was immacuately conceived when she viewed porn. ;)


please forgive me Chris--I dont want to go to hell for that comment!

dave-o
06-27-06, 11:40 PM
Alcoholism genetics and environment are not any more isolated than homosexual genetics and environment. Or depression for that matter

Meaning: Yes there are a mix of things that make someone an alcoholic. Genes seem to be considered the strongest deciding factor that 'makes us who we are'. Environment will play just as big a role in either disposition. Nobody becomes gay on an isolated island. Nor consistantly drunk.

Yes, that was my point. I was just worried since you kept referring to the 'alcohol gene', which I now understand that you were just using this as a quick way of referring to what you stated above.

But the main point of my post is that it seems that all too often people equate environment with choice, when things are not that simple. You may be able to "choose" your actions and behaviors. But it oversimplifies things and does a diservice to the nurture vs nature debate to equate envorinmental influences with conscious choice.

When it comes to the complex psyche of humans and the many things that we are attracted to, believe, feel, etc., direct conscious choice is the major determining factor in very rare instances. Environmental influences (all of them) typically account for a larger portion of the variance in most of these types of things that get studied then genetic influences.

But none of this means that in most cases someone consciously chooses to enjoy the flavor of chocolate or consciously chooses to decide who they are attracted to, etc. That was the main point that I was bringing up.

Save Ferris
06-27-06, 11:52 PM
But none of this means that in most cases someone consciously chooses to enjoy the flavor of chocolate or consciously chooses to decide who they are attracted to, etc. That was the main point that I was bringing up.

I can believe this. And there is no simple answer. My referring to 'addictions' and the choices we make to give in or fight for our lives may be a comparison to our natural leanings. I do know a little about addicts not feeling 'normal' anymore without their fix. I know that natural things like food and basic human interaction and everything else we take for granted is skewed in the life of someone with this kind of problem. Why bring it up? Well simply because we know we cant accept it. Strong wants and desires dont mean that what we desire is good. Its not a given. There can be value in forsaking a strong desire, a desire stronger than death. This separates us from animals. Its in overcoming mountains like this that we hold people in high esteem. My point is--its POSSIBLE and that it can be GOOD. I personally dont care if people are gay but I wont condemn someone for choosing something different.

movielib
06-28-06, 12:01 AM
Uh, well, I frankly see it like this: you are either sexually attracted to the sight of naked men, or you're not.

See, I like butterscotch. I don't like coconut. I could taste coconut today, tomorrow, whenever... I am never going to like it. I like butterscotch. That's just the way that God made me.

Now, if you like coconut... that's okay. Lots of people like coconut. And if you don't like butterscotch... well, I can't say I totally understand you, because butterscotch is completely awesome... but I guess that's okay, too.
I thought it was snails and oysters. :hscratch:

Save Ferris
06-28-06, 12:07 AM
Uh, well, I frankly see it like this: you are either sexually attracted to the sight of naked men, or you're not.
I dont think its this simple either. I seem to recall a thread where some 'very gay' guys on our board confessed to finding some women hot and even showing excitement over lesbian porn.

mrpayroll
06-28-06, 01:00 AM
Im guessing he was immacuately conceived when she viewed porn. ;)


please forgive me Chris--I dont want to go to hell for that comment!

I have only myself to blame for my addiction. Though I've always wondered why I've loved women (girls) since the age of 5. Since that age I've felt that my life would never be complete without a woman (girl) in my life. Sometimes the things we want most ((women) (girls)) is not the best thing for us and God lets it stay that way.

And my son, you are forgiven. I also don't think my mom has ever seen any pornography and would probably be repulsed by it.

Chris

mrpayroll
06-28-06, 01:01 AM
At your age? -eek-

I've been addicted since age 12 (early 1974). I can still remember the pictures that I saw. :(

Chris

edited to correct year to 1974

adamblast
06-28-06, 02:48 AM
I try hard not to knock anybody who's so embittered to religion, SaveFerris; they're my kind of fellas. :) That said, I guess I'm confused that you associate those who favor biological explanations of homosexuality with religious repression... When politically the pattern seems just the reverse...

More typically, it's those who are invested in seeing homosexuality as a sin who harp on it as a "lifestyle choice"--while the PC stance within the gay community is that orientation is something innate and driven mostly by biology or other factors beyond most people's conscious control. Which is not to say that people don't have a right to make any choice about it they wish.

Certainly, I can say that conscious choice had nothing to do with *my* being gay--that I fought it with detirmination, faith and a lot of grief for 10 or 15 years before I stopped torturing myself over it.

Didn't the OP's study actually surface some time ago? Seems we've discussed this same data before--I remember it, being left-handed, and so I'm surprised that it's resurfaced in the press as current news...

Save Ferris
06-28-06, 07:30 AM
while the PC stance within the gay community is that orientation is something innate and driven mostly by biology or other factors beyond most people's conscious control. Which is not to say that people don't have a right to make any choice about it they wish.

People may say this but I dont know if they believe it. I dont know if its any different than saying if I dont have your lucky gay gene I have no right to experiment with my sexuality. I'll never be 'the real thing'. But of course in this PC climate, people will adhere to a double standard and let me join the masses as long as I toe the line.

The opposite stance is taken most often: Anyone who tries to not be gay is fake, phoney, a liar, etc. and treated with complete disrespect. Its as bad as the religious nutjobs who bash people with their own self righteous attitudes: "If you leave our god then you were never saved to begin with" --how screwed up is that?

The notion that your genes control every little thing about your sexuality sounds like the wacky psuedoscience that says the universe was created in six 24 hour periods. If I have the 'genetic traits' for alcoholism, depression or anything else then its impossible to decide my own fate? To live as I choose? Fuck you mr. genetic scientist. OH well then lets be politically correct, these OTHER genetic traits can be overcome just not the ones I dont want to change?

Seeing gene patterns is nifty and all but lets not try to use that data to manipulate people for our own political purposes. Not that YOU do that but it happens.

Grimfarrow
06-28-06, 08:11 AM
I can believe this. And there is no simple answer. My referring to 'addictions' and the choices we make to give in or fight for our lives may be a comparison to our natural leanings. I do know a little about addicts not feeling 'normal' anymore without their fix. I know that natural things like food and basic human interaction and everything else we take for granted is skewed in the life of someone with this kind of problem. Why bring it up? Well simply because we know we cant accept it. Strong wants and desires dont mean that what we desire is good. Its not a given. There can be value in forsaking a strong desire, a desire stronger than death. This separates us from animals. Its in overcoming mountains like this that we hold people in high esteem. My point is--its POSSIBLE and that it can be GOOD. I personally dont care if people are gay but I wont condemn someone for choosing something different.

Your whole argument is based upon your assumption that homosexuality is a "negative" trait equatable to alcoholism and depression. You can't win when you already assume the worst about something. Sorry, but your whole argument is a circular debate in which you try to justify for yourself.

LiquidSky
06-28-06, 09:09 AM
I dont think its this simple either. I seem to recall a thread where some 'very gay' guys on our board confessed to finding some women hot and even showing excitement over lesbian porn.

There are women who I find very attracitve but not in a sexual way. While all-gal porn does not bother me, it does NOTHING for me "below the belt" :)

Grimfarrow
06-28-06, 09:18 AM
Save Ferris is quoting Digitalfreak, who then I asked if he had an erection looking at those exact lesbian porn. He said no. Case closed.

People need to get this idea out of their head that homosexuality = the ACT of having sex with men. NO. Homosexuality is being ATTRACTED by men. That means you look at a good-looking guy and you're physically aroused (ig. you have an erection). It is PURELY psychological. If you're NOT aroused by the sight of a naked man, then you can have sex with guys but you're still not gay, because all you're doing is imagining that you're having sex with a girl rather than the reality.

I wish people would really get this straight sometimes. Sigh.

Save Ferris
06-28-06, 09:26 AM
There are women who I find very attracitve but not in a sexual way. While all-gal porn does not bother me, it does NOTHING for me "below the belt"
Honestly I dont remember who said it, but Im pretty sure I remember my surprise when someone confessed a reaction 'below the belt' for lesbian porn. Its not that important.

Your whole argument is based upon your assumption that homosexuality is a "negative" trait equatable to alcoholism and depression. You can't win when you already assume the worst about something.

Thats not what I believe. Im against the people who preach judgement on me and my sexuality based on something I cant change. If I want to be gay then let me be gay. If I want to change then let me change--without the judgement calls. Genetics has nothing to do with being able to change--thats the whole reason I compared sexuality to 'negative' traits--to show the absurdity of the argument.

Is nothing in life stronger than sexuality? The negative traits Ive mentioned (and others, some are even non-genetic AFAIK) serve as an example that yes, some things in peoples lives are harder to change than sexuality and yet we honor people when they overcome them. Its purely for personal reasons that the same people doom those who wish to change their sexual preference. I have no stomach for people who preach 'God made a mistake, you'll be forever what your genes say you are'. If some people need an excuse for what they are, fine, but dont treat me different because you feel guilty.

Save Ferris
06-28-06, 09:29 AM
People need to get this idea out of their head that homosexuality = the ACT of women having sex with women. NO. Homosexuality is women being ATTRACTED by women. That means you look at a good-looking woman and you're physically aroused (ig. you um are aroused). It is PURELY psychological. If you're NOT aroused by the sight of a naked woman, then you can have sex with women but you're still not gay, because all you're doing is imagining that you're having sex with a man rather than the reality.

Im not sure this is true.

I know women that are aroused by other women yet arent gay.

Grimfarrow
06-28-06, 09:40 AM
Im not sure this is true.

I know women that are aroused by other women yet arent gay.

They are bi. What's not true about it?

Save Ferris
06-28-06, 09:44 AM
I dont really care how you categorize other peoples sexuality. I just think its hypocritcal and judgmental (right up there with the self righteous fundamentalists) to say if a man wants to change his sexual lifestyle, he was never 'really gay' to begin with, or he never had that 'gay gene' that makes it impossible to change.

These are things people say to themselves when they feel guilty.

Grimfarrow
06-28-06, 09:52 AM
I still don't really understand what you're trying to say. People aren't born or even raised with the words stamped "gay" straight" "bi", etc. The reality is that people are in between - some are 80% straight, 20% gay, or other variations of percentages. Now, whether they CHOOSE to act upon the minority of the percentage is really up to them. But no one is 100% straight or 100% gay (which means that, if you're straight, you find every man on earth utterly repulsive (and can't even admit that, say, Brad Pitt is a good-looking guy), and if you're gay, every woman is disgusting.) Maybe 95% at most, but there is no such thing as absolute (ie. 100%).

Bi's just tend to be much more equal in their attractive to sexes. I think all of these are perfectly normal.

RunBandoRun
06-28-06, 10:03 AM
I still don't really understand what you're trying to say. People aren't born or even raised with the words stamped "gay" straight" "bi", etc. The reality is that people are in between - some are 80% straight, 20% gay, or other variations of percentages. Now, whether they CHOOSE to act upon the minority of the percentage is really up to them. But no one is 100% straight or 100% gay (which means that, if you're straight, you find every man on earth utterly repulsive (and can't even admit that, say, Brad Pitt is a good-looking guy), and if you're gay, every woman is disgusting.) Maybe 95% at most, but there is no such thing as absolute (ie. 100%).

Bi's just tend to be much more equal in their attractive to sexes. I think all of these are perfectly normal.

At last, someone who understands us tweeners. My hat's off to you -- or would be, if I was wearing one. Only dykes wear hats. :D

I spent about eighteen years of my adult life almost exclusively involved with women. I haven't been involved with a woman now for almost five years. While men have been a lesser phenomenon in my romantic spectrum, I'm not completely innocent of the clutch of love/lust with them. :lol:

To the rank-and-file queer, I'm a heretic. To the rank-and-file straight person, I'm weird. Well, as Loretta Lynn once said, I'm'a go home and can some string beans and the heck with all of 'em.

I don't know if I was born to be "flexible" or not. In my case, personally, I do think some early heartbreaks may have inspired me to turn to women as lovers. But I know plenty of rank-and-file queers who've never felt the slightest pang of heterosexual longing, and plenty of rank-and-file straights who ... etc., etc., etc. So go figure.

I don't need anybody telling me what God thinks of me and mine, or that I'm in denial, or whatever silly and arrogant thing they've teased up out of their brains. Just let me live my life, and you live your own. And wipe your mouth, the drool is MOST unattractive. :D

Save Ferris
06-28-06, 10:08 AM
People may say this but I dont know if they believe it. I dont know if its any different than saying if I dont have your lucky gay gene I have no right to experiment with my sexuality. I'll never be 'the real thing'. But of course in this PC climate, people will adhere to a double standard and let me join the masses as long as I toe the line.

The opposite stance is taken most often: Anyone who tries to not be gay is fake, phoney, a liar, etc. and treated with complete disrespect. Its as bad as the religious nutjobs who bash people with their own self righteous attitudes: "If you leave our god then you were never saved to begin with" --how screwed up is that?

The notion that your genes control every little thing about your sexuality sounds like the wacky psuedoscience that says the universe was created in six 24 hour periods. If I have the 'genetic traits' for alcoholism, depression or anything else then its impossible to decide my own fate? To live as I choose? Fuck you mr. genetic scientist. OH well then lets be politically correct, these OTHER genetic traits can be overcome just not the ones I dont want to change?

Seeing gene patterns is nifty and all but lets not try to use that data to manipulate people for our own political purposes. Not that YOU do that but it happens.

This is what im trying to say. Keep your politics off my genes. Dont judge me based on my genes. Dont judge my friends based on their genes. And an appeal to become a better person by not dooming people and calling them 'gods mistake'. Dont coddle people and make excuses for their sexuality by taking away their freedom of choice. If you want a blameless excuse for YOUR sexuality, fine but dont project it on other gay people.

Ive seen it: People shaking their heads wisely saying "Well *I* tried to be straight and I was just in denial so YOU must be in denial too for trying to be straight". If someone wants to be gay, fine. Why say they'll never be anything else?

NCMojo
06-28-06, 10:12 AM
Thats not what I believe. Im against the people who preach judgement on me and my sexuality based on something I cant change. If I want to be gay then let me be gay. If I want to change then let me change--without the judgement calls. Genetics has nothing to do with being able to change--thats the whole reason I compared sexuality to 'negative' traits--to show the absurdity of the argument.
Hallelujiah! Bolded text! Now I think I see what your point is.

I agree 100% that genetics has nothing to do with choice. But your genetic coding has everything to do with your predispositions. I like butterscotch, sure. And I dislike coconut. You could very well say that I am predisposed to like butterscotch and hate coconut. But I could still choose to wolf down a Mounds bar, if I wanted to.

You may be predisposed to alcoholism... but you choose to drink. You may be predisposed to like big, hairy men... but you choose whether or not you have sex with them.

I'd argue that homosexuality is indeed something you're born with, since (as Grimfarrow noted) it's not about having sex with men -- it's about wanting to have sex with men. You can stay in the closet and get married and have kids, but if you really only desire sex with men, then you're still gay. (Or bisexual, if you are honestly attracted to both men and women.) Your brain is wired a certain way -- you can't choose what you're attracted to.

Save Ferris
06-28-06, 10:16 AM
Hallelujiah! Bolded text! Now I think I see what your point is.

I agree 100% that genetics has nothing to do with choice. But your genetic coding has everything to do with your predispositions. I like butterscotch, sure. And I dislike coconut. You could very well say that I am predisposed to like butterscotch and hate coconut. But I could still choose to wolf down a Mounds bar, if I wanted to.

You may be predisposed to alcoholism... but you choose to drink. You may be predisposed to like big, hairy men... but you choose whether or not you have sex with them.

I'd argue that homosexuality is indeed something you're born with, since (as Grimfarrow noted) it's not about having sex with men -- it's about wanting to have sex with men. You can stay in the closet and get married and have kids, but if you really only desire sex with men, then you're still gay. (Or bisexual, if you are honestly attracted to both men and women.) Your brain is wired a certain way -- you can't choose what you're attracted to.


Then YOU had to ruin this thread ;) and speculate that God must be making mistakes because of what genes people have. Dont you think thats a bit unfair? Especially in the case of alcoholism or depression? Youre making excuses for people to be gay. They dont need excuses.

You cant choose your desires, but I believe you should be able to decide to live whatever lifestyle you choose without being judged as a 'fake' or 'in denial'. Overcoming our base desires can sometimes even be considered bettering ourselves.

adamblast
06-28-06, 11:22 AM
Then YOU had to ruin this thread ;) and speculate that God must be making mistakes because of what genes people have. Dont you think thats a bit unfair? Especially in the case of alcoholism or depression? Youre making excuses for people to be gay. They dont need excuses.That's not what he was doing at all. He was pointing out the *flaw* in the *sin* argument--that a sensical God wouldn't or shouldn't be *making* people that way and then saying it's an abomination.

You cant choose your desires, but I believe you should be able to decide to live whatever lifestyle you choose without being judged as a 'fake' or 'in denial'. Overcoming our base desires can sometimes even be considered bettering ourselves.Base desires? You're starting to sound more and more like an apologist for the "ex-gay movement." Frankly, most of the people involved there *have* been fake and/or "in denial." For men, at least--(women's sexuality appears to be at least somewhat more fluid, complicating the genetic explanation)--the objects of one's desire is hard-coded so much that "deciding to live whatever lifestyle you choose" doesn't have a damn thing to do with it, and desperately trying to be something you're *not* is a recipe for self-torture and mental problems.

Tracer Bullet
06-28-06, 11:31 AM
This thread has made me want butterscotch. :(

Save Ferris
06-28-06, 11:48 AM
That's not what he was doing at all. He was pointing out the *flaw* in the *sin* argument--that a sensical God wouldn't or shouldn't be *making* people that way and then saying it's an abomination.

Base desires? You're starting to sound more and more like an apologist for the "ex-gay movement." Frankly, most of the people involved there *have* been fake and/or "in denial." For men, at least--(women's sexuality appears to be at least somewhat more fluid, complicating the genetic explanation)--the objects of one's desire is hard-coded so much that "deciding to live whatever lifestyle you choose" doesn't have a damn thing to do with it, and desperately trying to be something you're *not* is a recipe for self-torture and mental problems.

I stated in this thread that I have no problem with people not buying into the 'sin argument' but to say people CANT choose because of GENES? I brought up lots of genetic things that people CAN choose to change. There are even some things stronger than sexuality that people change or attempt to change without attacking them personally. Why attack someone for changing sexuality?

Your magic wand must come in handy--you wave it and sexual desires are immutable. You wave it again and It IS 'fluid' for women. You wave it again and OTHER genetic traits can be changed. But if anyone attempts to change a mans sexuality (away from your preference that is), then its impossible?

Can you not see how biased this is? Are you really advocating that people have no say in the matter?

This is just like right wing religious nuts. They pick and choose truth to suit their own politics and for what--to control other people. What gives you the right to hold one man up as a standard: 'He couldnt change his sexuality so nobody can'.

I threw out the 'base desires' comment about the other genetic-tainted desires that are considered good to change.

adamblast
06-28-06, 12:36 PM
Why attack someone for changing sexuality?

Your magic wand must come in handy--you wave it and sexual desires are immutable. You wave it again and It IS 'fluid' for women. You wave it again and OTHER genetic traits can be changed. But if anyone attempts to change a mans sexuality (away from your preference that is), then its impossible?

Can you not see how biased this is? Are you really advocating that people have no say in the matter? You sound personally involved--or am I reading too much into this? No one has attacked anyone here, and no one has claimed that such change is impossible. I've stated the common consensus in both the hard and soft sciences, which has to do with difficulty and unlikely nature of such "change"--you're the only one making any completely blanket statements about anything.

Is someone trying desperately to *not* be gay in your life? Someone you think you're supporting by counter-attacking those who would shake their heads over it and trying to compare *them* to religious bigots?

The ex-gay movement is a fraud perpetrated by Christian extremists who fly in the face of everything we've learned about orientation for the past 40 years. Those who buy into it have a perfect *right* attempt to alter their orientation, a perfect right to enjoy whatever self-torture they put themselves through--but they're unlikely to succeed in the long run. Even its most ardent supporters admit that its success rate is very low.

Grimfarrow
06-28-06, 12:58 PM
I think Save Ferris definitely has an ulterior motive. He hasn't responded to any of my points about how humans aren't so easily stamped into the "gay" and "straight" corners, so he ignores them, even when he's not really arguing with ANYONE (seriously, why is he responding to his own post??).

The answer, anyway, is that people should NOT be forced to CHOOSE their sexuality - they should be able to determine it on their own as much as they like. I know guys who dated guys and ended up marrying a woman. I also know the opposite case too. But in none of these cases do I see these individuals go through the same agonising lengths as Save Ferris to justify who they like or not. Jeez, it's not friggin' rocket science! You like someone, PERIOD. End. Next.

mrpayroll
06-28-06, 01:03 PM
The ex-gay movement is a fraud perpetrated by Christian extremists who fly in the face of everything we've learned about orientation for the past 40 years. Those who buy into it have a perfect *right* attempt to alter their orientation, a perfect right to enjoy whatever self-torture they put themselves through--but they're unlikely to succeed in the long run. Even its most ardent supporters admit that its success rate is very low.

And I mostly agree with this. But if God, the Creator of everything, wants to change someones 'lifestyle', it's going to happen.

Just look at Saul (Paul) in the New Testament. He went from a Christian hating, persecuting & murdering Jew, to the greatest Apostle of Christ. When he met Jesus on the road to Damascus, he was powerless to do anything but Gods will.

His writings have done more to spread the true message of Christ's teachings (Love God with all of your mind, heart & soul and also your neighbor. Plus don't judge others), than anyone else in history.

And Saul wasn't looking for a 'lifestyle' change in his life.

If a person wants 'true' reconciliation with God, then God will honor that and work in their lives. Change will not happen overnight (see my plight), but by the time Jesus comes back, hopefully that person will have been transformed into the image of Christ, in their lives.


Chris

Save Ferris
06-28-06, 01:08 PM
Ive never heard of an ex-gay organization lol it doesnt surprise me though.

Maybe I do have a personal interest. Maybe I want freedom to live my life without bigotry damning me from one side or the other. Maybe Ive seen lives destroyed by hate speech and zealots who only see their own interests under a guise of 'science'. I hate hypocrasy no matter who preaches it. There is no value in placating people with lies--even if your intentions are good.

'Feeling good' isnt the answer to life. If I 'feel better' taking heroin does that mean im in denial for not taking it? I know a man who has been drug free for 12 years. To this day he FEELS like he needs it deep down. What do i tell him? Hes a fake? Hes in denial? Pat answers about 'genes' and feeling 'right' dont fix everything.

adamblast
06-28-06, 01:11 PM
Obviously, mrpayroll, I won't try to counsel you against your ongoing "faith" that you're in the midst of change.

I steadfastly deny that it's possible to be any more sincere and faithful in *trying* to change than I was -- and all I got out of it was a lifetime of mental illness, and scars on my retinas and wrists.

Save Ferris
06-28-06, 01:17 PM
I steadfastly deny that it's possible to be any more sincere and faithful in *trying* to change than I was -- and all I got out of it was a lifetime of mental illness, and scars on my retinas and wrists.

What do I tell this man I mentioned? I love ya adam, I do but you cant cookie cut everyone in the same (or worse) situation.

Grimfarrow
06-28-06, 01:21 PM
Ive never heard of an ex-gay organization lol it doesnt surprise me though.

Maybe I do have a personal interest. Maybe I want freedom to live my life without bigotry damning me from one side or the other. Maybe Ive seen lives destroyed by hate speech and zealots who only see their own interests under a guise of 'science'. I hate hypocrasy no matter who preaches it. There is no value in placating people with lies--even if your intentions are good.

'Feeling good' isnt the answer to life. If I 'feel better' taking heroin does that mean im in denial for not taking it? I know a man who has been drug free for 12 years. To this day he FEELS like he needs it deep down. What do i tell him? Hes a fake? Hes in denial? Pat answers about 'genes' and feeling 'right' dont fix everything.

I give up. You're STILL equating being gay to drug addiction, alcoholism, etc. - ALL negative traits. I seriously don't believe in the slightest that you are sincere about what you're saying - otherwise you wouldn't be putting down gays with these constant negative attributions.

It's not about feeling good - it's about loving yourself and having the courage to be who you are without fear - especially from those who may think of homosexuality as a disease or mental disorder (like all the drug addiction, alcoholism, etc you mentioned).

Save Ferris
06-28-06, 01:25 PM
I give up. You're STILL equating being gay to drug addiction, alcoholism, etc. - ALL negative traits. I seriously don't believe in the slightest that you are sincere about what you're saying - otherwise you wouldn't be putting down gays with these constant negative attributions.

It's not about feeling good - it's about loving yourself and having the courage to be who you are without fear - especially from those who may think of homosexuality as a disease or mental disorder (like all the drug addiction, alcoholism, etc you mentioned).


To what do I compare someone changing a deep seated/genetic desire?

Grimfarrow
06-28-06, 01:26 PM
Maybe being left handed or right handed? you know, things that aren't loaded with the negative connotations you're trying to attach it to? In fact, I think that's a MUCH better analogy.

adamblast
06-28-06, 01:29 PM
Ive never heard of an ex-gay organization lol it doesnt surprise me though.I wish I could laugh about it. It's a pyramid industry at this point, and being so well-funded by the religious right as an important strategic tool, it doesn't seem to matter that nearly no one comes out whole the other side or that nearly all of its ex-gay leaders have "backslid" themselves eventually.

http://www.lovewonout.com/

This sounds like open child abuse and an invitation to suicide to me, and I sincerely wonder about the "consent" issues of most of the teenagers who wind up in it.

As far as I know there are no counter-organizations set up to fight it, although Wayne Besen is probably the biggest activist in what is sometimes whimsically called the *ex*-ex-gay movement...

http://www.waynebesen.com/

Save Ferris
06-28-06, 01:33 PM
Maybe being left handed or right handed? you know, things that aren't loaded with the negative connotations you're trying to attach it to? In fact, I think that's a MUCH better analogy.

Right or left handed seems so 'easy' compared to stronger desires. But believe me, I dont hate or look down on people with chemical dependencies or gay people. I have even said I reserve the right to experiment with my own sexuality in this thread lol ;)

Grimfarrow
06-28-06, 01:39 PM
Right or left handed seems so 'easy' compared to stronger desires. But believe me, I dont hate or look down on people with chemical dependencies or gay people. I have even said I reserve the right to experiment with my own sexuality in this thread lol ;)

This exactly why I said it before - you don't get it. The fact that you pretty say it's so 'easy' being gay means you know NOTHING about what it means to be gay at all. You make it seem like craving ice cream, for crying out loud! "Desire"? I find that really insulting.

Really, the left/right hand analogy is perfect, because alcoholism, depression, etc. has hereditary traits, but as far as it's been known being gay and being left/right handed is something that is NOT inherited. And you know, people who are left-handed can, with enough practice, write with their right hand (albeit probably not very well). But it will forever feel unnatural, alien and completely not right to them. They are, after all, already oriented one way by nature. And they will never feel like themselves if they're forced to unnaturally use only their right.

And there are people who are proficient with BOTH hands - yes, I know some - and they can be seen as an equivalent to being bi. Lastly, right-hander can write with their left to a number of degrees - some do it better than others. That fits my analogy of the percentage completely.

Being gay is as deeply rooted as being left-handed to people, and those who deny it just don't understand it

Save Ferris
06-28-06, 01:45 PM
calm down. I said changing your right or left hand is EASY in comparison to changing your sexuality--which in my opinion would be harder to do. Give me a week and Ill change hands (for a price) and Ill never look back.

DRG
06-28-06, 01:46 PM
Save Ferris, the thing about your reasoning that I have a hard time with.... can anyone truly *choose* a preference of any kind? I would have to imagine that all preferences, whether they be sexual, food, colors, hobbies, etc. are either inherent or based on upbringing or environmental conditioning. If I taste a food for the first time, an opinion is automatically formed. If it makes me gag, I can't just *choose* to find it delicious.

That's not to say certain preferences can't be changed, but I'd have a hard time calling such a change a choice. Tastes for instance can change over time... I learned to love the taste of beer even though I disliked it at first. But it still wasn't a "choice" to change in that you can't just will it to happen. You get used to things, you evolve as a person.

But it's still not your call, even if you have consciously made choices that steered you in that direction. You can *choose* to attempt to recondition yourself (brainwashing yourself, if you will). This is sort of what most alcoholism programs do. But it's still not truly choice.

Save Ferris
06-28-06, 01:57 PM
Save Ferris, the thing about your reasoning that I have a hard time with.... can anyone truly *choose* a preference of any kind? I would have to imagine that all preferences, whether they be sexual, food, colors, hobbies, etc. are either inherent or based on upbringing or environmental conditioning. If I taste a food for the first time, an opinion is automatically formed. If it makes me gag, I can't just *choose* to find it delicious.

Probably not. Unlike right or left handedness I think there is a strong emotional and personal attachment to our sexuality. Please allow me to continue comparing it to a chemical addiction--the only thing I can think of as being an equally strong drive (love by the way, being a chemical addiction in our brains).

The person I know (was addicted, clean for 12 years, still feels cravings) may never 'feel normal' without the drugs that he got hooked on early in life. It sucks to be him, and his choice to be clean may be a daily choice or sometimes a weekly choice but I dont consider him to be 'faking it' simply because he has desires that he is controlling. Maybe gay people who for whatever reason want to live 'in the closet' feel this way? If it were me, it would have to be a damn good reason. If someone is convinced they have a damn good reason (and time will tell) who am I to say they're wasting their time? I dont feel judged by anyones freedom. Im not going to hound someone and berate them for not being 'true'.

adamblast
06-28-06, 02:03 PM
A man who has successfully fought his drug-addict tendancies (whatever causes them) for 12 years deserves heaps of praise.

A man who has successfully fought his gay tendancies (whatever causes them) for 12 years certainly doesn't deserve scorn for it--but hardly heaps of praise either, if you consider being gay value-neutral.

It's also quite likely he is either a lonely celibate like myself or in the midst of an empty and passionless marriage, and would have been better off if he'd have just accepted himself.

RunBandoRun
06-28-06, 02:06 PM
*Vibiana considers posting again, then decides to follow this old bit of folk wisdom:*

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d57/Vibiana/stfu.jpg

Save Ferris
06-28-06, 02:14 PM
A man who has successfully fought his drug-addict tendancies (whatever causes them) for 12 years deserves heaps of praise.

A man who has successfully fought his gay tendancies (whatever causes them) for 12 years certainly doesn't deserve scorn for it--but hardly heaps of praise either, if you consider being gay value-neutral.

It's also quite likely he is either a lonely celibate like myself or in the midst of an empty and passionless marriage, and would have been better off if he'd have just accepted himself.

I pass no judgement on a gay people for being gay. Yet, I think I would be tempted to disrespect a gay person whos 'in the closet' unless he could convince me it was for a good reason. But honestly, even if I didnt accept his reason, if he was really set on it I wouldnt bug him about it.

LiquidSky
06-28-06, 02:37 PM
I pass no judgement on a gay people for being gay. Yet, I think I would be tempted to disrespect a gay person whos 'in the closet' unless he could convince me it was for a good reason. But honestly, even if I didnt accept his reason, if he was really set on it I wouldnt bug him about it.

I have a problem with this. Unless you know what it is like to be gay, the emotional turmoil it can cause, etc. I really do not think you should be tempted to disrespect someone who is closeted.

I am completely open about my sexuality but at age 22, when I finally came out, it was a very scary time. There are many unknowns: will my family still love me? Will my friends still want to hang out with me? And so on.....

Now, if a gay man is closeted and gets married, etc. then I have problems as he is involving an innocent person in his secret.

mrpayroll
06-28-06, 02:44 PM
I am completely open about my sexuality but at age 22, when I finally came out, it was a very scary time. There are many unknowns: will my family still love me? Will my friends still want to hang out with me? And so on.....



Well, come on. Don't keep us in suspense. -popcorn-

Chris

Save Ferris
06-28-06, 02:49 PM
I have a problem with this. Unless you know what it is like to be gay, the emotional turmoil it can cause, etc. I really do not think you should be tempted to disrespect someone who is closeted.

I am completely open about my sexuality but at age 22, when I finally came out, it was a very scary time. There are many unknowns: will my family still love me? Will my friends still want to hang out with me? And so on.....

Now, if a gay man is closeted and gets married, etc. then I have problems as he is involving an innocent person in his secret.

yea it was kind of a confession--I wasnt saying it to be proud of it. The only gay people Ive worked with, hung out with have all pretty much been 'out' and if anyone has a deep dark sexual secret, I dont usually catch on. Heck, Im usually the last one to know when Im being hit on by a guy.

Anyway, the whole thing got me upset because 'God' was mentioned and used as a foolproof example that people cant ever be expected to live outside their genetic tendencies. I dont like to be judged. I dont like my friends to be judged either.

LiquidSky
06-28-06, 03:02 PM
Well, come on. Don't keep us in suspense. -popcorn-

Chris

Thankfully, all went well. My heart goes out to those who have been disowned.

DRG
06-28-06, 03:58 PM
It sucks to be him, and his choice to be clean may be a daily choice or sometimes a weekly choice but I dont consider him to be 'faking it' simply because he has desires that he is controlling. Maybe gay people who for whatever reason want to live 'in the closet' feel this way?

I think the confusion here is that you seem (or at least seemed in your earlier posts) to be defining these things (sexuality and alcoholism) in terms of action vs inaction. You seemed to be say someone was choosing their sexuality by simply not acting on their desires, or by acting on non-desires.

The "faking it" terminology doesn't quite work in your analogy. I agree both situations involve denying natural impulses. And in both cases this is done largely for societal acceptance, familial expectations, or religion. But in one, denying that impulse is almost universally beneficial, whereas in the other denying the impulse often leads to serious emotional damage, not just in the person but for their wife, children, etc. Think Michelle Williams in Brokeback Mountain.

adamblast
06-28-06, 04:07 PM
...and I hope I'm being alarmist, but I'm getting the gradual impression this year that the Family Research Council (and religious right generally) is in the process of beginning a big "ex-gay" push aimed particularly at the schools...

...that it's seen as one of the best ways they can fight gay rights politically while seeming to act "compassionate" as opposed to openly bigoted. I expect it to be the next big "religious junk science" push--with these anti-gay/"ex-gay" groups fighting hard for supposed "equal time" in every social studies/civics class whenever there's a discussion of anti-gay bullying or homophobia in society.

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/262006b.asp

digitalfreaknyc
06-28-06, 04:17 PM
Thankfully, all went well. My heart goes out to those who have been disowned.

And at the same time, one has to learn to say "fuck you" to those who don't accept them, whether they be family or otherwise. I guess the people I feel the most for are the kids who are disowned and thrown out at a young age. I know there's a place for them to go in NYC but I can't imagine what would happen in the square states.

Groucho
06-28-06, 04:23 PM
Obviously, there is a real resistence to even the suggestion that sexual orientation may be genetic. There are quite a few folks who insist that isn't, motivated by the fact it's much easier to discriminate against a "lifestyle choice" and a "behavior" than it is to discriminate against a human being.

Now, if you attempt to discriminate against THEIR lifestyle choices and behaviors, there would be hell to pay. Imagine the uproar if somebody suggested that we ban same-religion marriages (everybody must marry somebody from a different religion), or some other such nonsense. Oddly enough, however, religion is a protected status...sexual orientation is not.

Save Ferris
06-28-06, 04:34 PM
I think the confusion here is that you seem (or at least seemed in your earlier posts) to be defining these things (sexuality and alcoholism) in terms of action vs inaction. You seemed to be say someone was choosing their sexuality by simply not acting on their desires, or by acting on non-desires.

The "faking it" terminology doesn't quite work in your analogy. I agree both situations involve denying natural impulses. And in both cases this is done largely for societal acceptance, familial expectations, or religion. But in one, denying that impulse is almost universally beneficial, whereas in the other denying the impulse often leads to serious emotional damage, not just in the person but for their wife, children, etc. Think Michelle Williams in Brokeback Mountain.

I mused that perhaps living in the closet is like suffering 'cravings' you cant live out. I think I was getting into the chemical similarities of 'addiction' and 'love'--Not to belittle love, of course just trying to understand the correlation.

Say a gay person chooses to live in the closet, call himself reformed, perhaps even satiate his desires--who knows for sure, it may be impossible to measure. I dont think it matters what we label them or whats going on in their heart but by effictively living either lifestyle, shouldnt the observer take that at face value? Should anyone be encouraged to harass them?

Also, can we be sure every case of self-denial (denying impulses) is 'bad for you'? Think of an athlete pushing himself physically and mentally. That can be abusive--and its not for everyone, but its his choice. Are you rushing to shelter everyone from possible harm due to pain or self denial? Even if its self inflicted?

I'll agree there can be cases of spousal abuse (lying, deceit) and any number of potential problems--but surely not in every situation.

Save Ferris
06-28-06, 04:36 PM
Obviously, there is a real resistence to even the suggestion that sexual orientation may be genetic. There are quite a few folks who insist that isn't, motivated by the fact it's much easier to discriminate against a "lifestyle choice" and a "behavior" than it is to discriminate against a human being.

Thats hilarious. If depression, obesity, alcoholism and autism has a genetic source why would it be 'easier' if there were no gay gene??

NOTE: I picked 'negative' genetic traits to beg the question: 'WHY would a gay gene be worse'

Breakfast with Girls
06-28-06, 05:02 PM
Because, <b>Save Ferris</b>, fundamentalists have made gay marriage their central platform, along with abortion. They rant long and often about the evils of two men or two women getting married, and both Republicans and Democrats are so eager for their favor that they pass things like the DOMA or propose amending the Constitution to prevent it. There is no similar effort by them to ban alcohol or fast food.

Save Ferris
06-28-06, 05:10 PM
Because, <b>Save Ferris</b>, fundamentalists have made gay marriage their central platform, along with abortion. They rant long and often about the evils of two men or two women getting married, and both Republicans and Democrats are so eager for their favor that they pass things like the DOMA or propose amending the Constitution to prevent it. There is no similar effort by them to ban alcohol or fast food.

hypocrites.

Ill leave it at that and stop my political rant lol

movielib
06-28-06, 05:36 PM
Because, <b>Save Ferris</b>, fundamentalists have made gay marriage their central platform, along with abortion. They rant long and often about the evils of two men or two women getting married, and both Republicans and Democrats are so eager for their favor that they pass things like the DOMA or propose amending the Constitution to prevent it. There is no similar effort by them to ban alcohol
There was.

or fast food.
Yet.



;)

mrpayroll
06-28-06, 06:05 PM
...and I hope I'm being alarmist, but I'm getting the gradual impression this year that the Family Research Council (and religious right generally) is in the process of beginning a big "ex-gay" push aimed particularly at the schools...

...that it's seen as one of the best ways they can fight gay rights politically while seeming to act "compassionate" as opposed to openly bigoted. I expect it to be the next big "religious junk science" push--with these anti-gay/"ex-gay" groups fighting hard for supposed "equal time" in every social studies/civics class whenever there's a discussion of anti-gay bullying or homophobia in society.

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/6/262006b.asp

And on the other end we are seeing mainstream churches (Anglican & now even my Presbyterian), seriously talking about letting openly gay members become leaders of the church.

And my response to that is what I told my church (and my pastor) when I sent an e-mail to everyone at church containing the Presbyterian story. Anyone that wants to have a leadership role in the Presbyterian church (elders or deacons) must lead a lifestyle that is acceptable to God. And that is why I have turned them down numerous times over the last 10 years about being picked for any leadership role. Because I have not led a lifestyle that is acceptable to God. :(

Chris

mrpayroll
06-28-06, 06:06 PM
Imagine the uproar if somebody suggested that we ban same-religion marriages (everybody must marry somebody from a different religion), or some other such nonsense. Oddly enough, however, religion is a protected status...sexual orientation is not.


I'm all for this.

I loves me the Latina's and we all know the Catholic Church is full of beautiful young Latina lady's. So even though I don't agree with a lot of their practices, count me as a supporter of this new ban! :thumbsup:

Chris

mrpayroll
06-28-06, 06:09 PM
Thats hilarious.

No, he's being serious Groucho!

Chris

movielib
06-28-06, 07:43 PM
Anyone that wants to have a leadership role in the Presbyterian church (elders or deacons) must lead a lifestyle that is acceptable to God. And that is why I have turned them down numerous times over the last 10 years about being picked for any leadership role. Because I have not led a lifestyle that is acceptable to God. :(

Chris
You always think you are so damn guilty. Are you sure you're not Catholic or Jewish?

mrpayroll
06-28-06, 07:48 PM
You always think you are so damn guilty. Are you sure you're not Catholic or Jewish?

Well, I was baptized Catholic as an infant. That's probably where that comes from! ;)

Chris

PopcornTreeCt
06-28-06, 11:52 PM
And on the other end we are seeing mainstream churches (Anglican & now even my Presbyterian), seriously talking about letting openly gay members become leaders of the church.

And my response to that is what I told my church (and my pastor) when I sent an e-mail to everyone at church containing the Presbyterian story. Anyone that wants to have a leadership role in the Presbyterian church (elders or deacons) must lead a lifestyle that is acceptable to God. And that is why I have turned them down numerous times over the last 10 years about being picked for any leadership role. Because I have not led a lifestyle that is acceptable to God. :(

Chris

Wow. I think you deserve it moreso than anyone else because of those words.

adamblast
06-29-06, 12:17 PM
Apparently the LA Times and I were thinking almost exactly alike yesterday.'Ex-Gays' Seek a Say in Schools
In response to campus programs supporting homosexuality, critics call for offering an alternative view: that people can go straight.

By Stephanie Simon, Times Staff Writer
May 28, 2006

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — Over the last decade, gay-rights activists have pushed programs to support gay and lesbian students in public schools. Their success is striking:

More than 3,000 Gay-Straight Alliance clubs meet across the country. Nearly half a million students take a vow of silence one day each spring in an annual event to support gay rights. California may soon require textbooks to feature the contributions of gays and lesbians throughout history.

Critics, mostly on the religious right, view all this as promoting the "homosexual lifestyle." Unable to stop it, they have turned to a new strategy: demanding equal time for their view in public schools and on college campuses.

Conservative Christians and Jews have teamed up with men and women who call themselves "ex-gay" to lobby — and even sue — for the right to tell teenagers that they can "heal" themselves of unwanted same-sex attractions.

They argue that schools have an obligation to balance gay-pride themes with the message that gay and lesbian students can go straight through "reparative therapy." In this view, homosexuality is not a fixed or inborn trait but a symptom of emotional distress — a disorder that can be cured.

Alan Chambers, a leading ex-gay activist, recalls how scared and depressed he felt when a high-school counselor advised him to deal with his attraction to other boys by accepting his homosexuality. He had no choice, she told him: He was gay. "It was very damaging," Chambers said. "I didn't want that. I hadn't chosen it."

His senior year, Chambers found his way to Exodus International, a network of groups that support ex-gays. He is now married to a woman, a father of two — and the president of Exodus.

Mental-health professionals overwhelmingly warn against therapy to change sexual orientation, calling it ineffective and potentially harmful to patients' self-esteem. But ex-gays say they have managed to eliminate or reduce their pull to the same sex, though it often takes years of struggle.

"That's an important perspective," Chambers said. "If you're going to allow one side into the schools, you need to allow the other side, too. People want alternatives."

That rhetoric echoes the creationist campaigns of the 1980s and '90s: Just as conservative Christians demanded equal time for Genesis whenever Darwin got a mention, ex-gays and their allies are insisting on equal time for their views whenever homosexuality is discussed. Several ex-gay websites offer equal-time policies that parents can urge their local school boards to adopt.

Teachers, too, are beginning to raise the subject with their principals and in the classroom. "It's been our hottest issue over the last two years. Without a doubt," said Finn Laursen, executive director of the Christian Educators Assn. International, which represents 7,000 teachers, mostly from public schools.

Though the equal-time argument didn't work for creationists, ex-gays have begun to notch some successes.

A high school in New Hampshire invited ex-gay activist Aaron Shorey to present his story on Civil Rights Day last year. He told several standing-room-only classes that he refused to let his attraction to men define him as gay. "I have experienced change," he told them. "Change is possible." He's working with several other New England schools to get permission for similar presentations.

The ex-gay group Inqueery, based in Des Moines, has also sent speakers to public high schools, including one in Chicago this spring.

In Boulder, Colo., educators are considering including an ex-gay pamphlet in a resource guide to help teachers handle questions about sexuality. The pamphlet states that sexual identity is fluid and that conversion therapy can help some gays and lesbians overcome depression. The district — in one of the most liberal cities in the country — does not endorse that philosophy, but "we're a big believer in providing all viewpoints," spokeswoman Maela Moore said. "It would be negligent to omit."

The ex-gay movement's biggest victory came last year, when a federal judge sided with Parents and Friends of ExGays and Gays, or PFOX, in a lawsuit against a Maryland school district.

PFOX, a national advocacy group based in Alexandria, Va., had sued to block the district's new sex-education curriculum, arguing that its treatment of homosexuality was one-sided. The judge agreed that students should hear other perspectives, and PFOX took a seat on the committee charged with drafting new lesson plans.

Similar lawsuits may be filed soon. New Jersey-based JONAH — Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality — is seeking parents and students willing to sue to get the ex-gay view into schools. So is Liberty Counsel, a Christian law firm in Orlando, Fla. The firm joined PFOX last month in urging teens to form Gay to Straight Clubs and hang "Choose to Change" posters in their schools. If an administrator tries to censor that message, Liberty Counsel promises to provide legal backup.

Already this spring, the firm has threatened to take a Wisconsin high school to court for inviting a gay speaker — but not an ex-gay — to Diversity Day. (The school responded by canceling the program.) Liberty Counsel is also weighing action against colleges in Ohio and Connecticut after students said they were barred from putting ex-gay literature in the campus gay and lesbian centers.

The ex-gay movement considers same-sex attraction to be a gender-identity disorder, brought on by inadequate parenting, unmet emotional needs and, often, childhood sexual abuse.

VinVega
06-29-06, 12:47 PM
And on the other end we are seeing mainstream churches (Anglican & now even my Presbyterian), seriously talking about letting openly gay members become leaders of the church.

And my response to that is what I told my church (and my pastor) when I sent an e-mail to everyone at church containing the Presbyterian story. Anyone that wants to have a leadership role in the Presbyterian church (elders or deacons) must lead a lifestyle that is acceptable to God. And that is why I have turned them down numerous times over the last 10 years about being picked for any leadership role. Because I have not led a lifestyle that is acceptable to God. :(

Chris
Geez payroll, no more guilt man. You're acceptable to me. :up:

adamblast
06-29-06, 12:54 PM
You're acceptable to me. :up:Yeah, but you're probably an evil porn-lover too! :grunt:

(Personally, I think it's the healthiest outlet around for people stuck in celibacy for whatever reason...)

Tracer Bullet
06-29-06, 01:19 PM
Alan Chambers, a leading ex-gay activist, recalls how scared and depressed he felt when a high-school counselor advised him to deal with his attraction to other boys by accepting his homosexuality. He had no choice, she told him: He was gay. "It was very damaging," Chambers said. "I didn't want that. I hadn't chosen it."

I know this is supposed to be serious and heartbreaking and shit, but... rotfl

He hadn't chosen it! Oh, the poor, poor man.

mrpayroll
06-29-06, 01:25 PM
I know this is supposed to be serious and heartbreaking and shit, but... rotfl

He hadn't chosen it! Oh, the poor, poor man.

Of course, God spun the wheel and it landed on black! :(

Chris

Duh Vuh Duh
08-31-06, 01:23 PM
Saw this story on 60 minutes this week and thought it was interesting and wanted to get the Otters take on it. I thought the "older brother effect" (bolded) was especially interesting.

Seemed like a pretty weird theory when I first heard it, but then I checked with the SO and her gay uncle has 2 older brothers and I also have a gay uncle who has 2 older brothers. So thought that theory may have some merit.

So wanted to check and see if this was more widespread and see if some of the gay otters or otters with gay friends/family had this "older brother effect" hold true.

Discuss. Sorry for the long article, just read bolded for cliff notes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/09/60minutes/main1385230.shtml

The Science Of Sexual Orientation

Aug. 27, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS) This story originally aired on March 12, 2006.


There are few issues as hotly contested — and as poorly understood — as the question of what makes a person gay or straight. It's not only a political, social, and religious question but also a scientific question, one that might someday have an actual, provable answer.

The handful of scientists who work in this under-funded and politically charged field will tell you: That answer is a long way off. But as Lesley Stahl reports, their efforts are already yielding tantalizing clues. One focus of their research is twins.


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

The bedrooms of 9-year-old twins Adam and Jared couldn't be more different. Jared's room is decked out with camouflage, airplanes, and military toys, while Adam's room sports a pastel canopy, stuffed animals, and white horses.

When Stahl came for a visit, Jared was eager to show her his G.I. Joe collection. "I have ones that say like Marine and SWAT. And then that's where I keep all the guns for 'em," he explained.

Adam was also proud to show off his toys. "This is one of my dolls. Bratz baby," he said.

Adam wears pinkish-purple nail polish, adorned with stars and diamonds.

Asked if he went to school like that, Adam says, "Uh-huh. I just showed them my nails, and they were like, 'Why did you do that?'"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out Public Eye's coverage of the reaction to the story, which includes producer Shari Finkelstein's response to critics, here and here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adam's behavior is called childhood gender nonconformity, meaning a child whose interests and behaviors are more typical of the opposite sex. Research shows that kids with extreme gender nonconformity usually grow up to be gay.

Danielle, Adam and Jared's mom, says she began to notice this difference in Adam when he was about 18 months old and began asking for a Barbie doll. Jared, meanwhile, was asking for fire trucks.

Not that much has changed. Jared’s favorite game now is Battlefield 2, Special Forces. As for Adam, he says, "It's called Neopets: The Darkest Faerie."

Asked how he would describe himself to a stranger, Jared says, "I'm a kid who likes G.I. Joes and games and TV."

"I would say like a girl," Adam replied to the same question. When asked why he thinks that is, Adam shrugged.

"To me, cases like that really scream out, 'Hey, it's not out there. It's in here.' There's no indication that this mother is prone to raise very feminine boys because his twin is not that way," says Michael Bailey, a psychology professor at Northwestern University and a leading researcher in the field of sexual orientation.

Bailey says he doesn't think nurture is a plausible explanation.

Psychologists used to believe homosexuality was caused by nurture — namely overbearing mothers and distant fathers — but that theory has been disproved. Today, scientists are looking at genes, environment, brain structure and hormones. There is one area of consensus: that homosexuality involves more than just sexual behavior; it’s physiological.



Bailey and his colleagues set up a series of experiments in his lab at Northwestern University. In one study, researcher Gerulf Rieger videotaped gay and straight people sitting in a chair, talking. He then reduced them visually to silent black and white outlined figures and asked volunteers to see if they could tell gay from straight. The idea was to find out if certain stereotypes were real and observable.

Based on physical movement and gestures of the figures, more often than not, the volunteers in the study could tell a difference.

"So, is the conclusion that gay people do in fact move differently?" Stahl asked Rieger.

"Yeah, absolutely," he replied.

It's not true 100 percent of the time; it is true on average. The researchers also studied the way gay and straight people talk, and they found differences on average there too.

This research is controversial. Some say it is reinforcing stereotypes. But to Bailey, the stereotypes suggest there's a feminizing of the brain in gay men, and masculinizing in lesbians. Ironically though, when it comes to their sex lives, he says gay and straight men actually have a lot in common.

"Straight men tend to be shallow in terms of focusing on looks. Gay men are shallow, too. Straight men are more interested than straight women in having casual, uncommitted sex. Gay men are like that, too," says Bailey.

"One has the impression that gay men are much more inclined toward casual sex than straight men," Stahl said.

"They're just more successful at it, because the people they're trying to have sex with are also interested in it," Bailey explained.

"But don't you find this interesting that the one big area where gay men are more like straight men is in sex? I mean, that is…both amusing and odd," Stahl said.

"It suggests that whatever causes a man to be gay doesn't make him feminine in every respect. There must be different parts of the brain that can be feminized independently from each other," Bailey replied.

But how and when does this feminizing occur? If the differences were already apparent in childhood, that would point to an early, perhaps even genetic origin — and that's what Bailey and Rieger are testing in a new study using childhood home movies.

In the study, volunteers were asked to rate each child's femininity or masculinity. Stahl took the test and rated two girls highly feminine.

When shown video of a toddler girl running a truck off of a table, Stahl observed, "She's really not girly. Isn't that interesting? She’s not girly."

She also observed differences in two boys, one of whom would grow up to be straight, while the other is now gay.



If you can spot a child's future sexual orientation before the child even knows he or she has one, doesn't that prove it's genetic? Studies have shown that homosexuality runs in families. So genes must be the answer. But then the researchers tell you identical twins can have different sexual orientations.

60 Minutes found identical twins Steve and Greg Lofts in New York. They had the same upbringing, have the same DNA — and yet Greg is gay and Steve is straight.

When people meet the twins and find out one of them is gay, Greg says people have asked if he's sure, and how it can be. "Everyone is curious about that," he says.

There were signs, even when they were little kids. Their mother told Stahl that Steve loved sports and the outdoors while Greg liked helping out in the kitchen. But it wasn't until high school that Steve became convinced Greg was gay.

Asked if he said anything to his brother, Steve says, "I did actually. And I think the way I worded it was something like, 'You know, Greg, if you're gay, it's OK with me. And I'll still love you the same.' And he gave a very philosophical answer. He said something like, 'Well, I love the soul of a person and not the physical being.' And in my mind, I was like, 'Yep, he's gay.'"

"I wasn't ready just yet," Greg added.

Does this prove that it's not genetic?

"What it proves is it's not completely genetic. They have the same genes," says Bailey.

Asked if that brings us back to the mother and the father, Bailey says no.

"But that's environment," Stahl said.

"That's environment. But that's not the only environment. There's also the environment that happens to us while we’re in the womb. And scientists are realizing that environment is much more important than we ever thought it was," Bailey explained.

A newborn rat pup in the lab of Dr. Marc Breedlove at Michigan State University, may, oddly enough, hold important clues to what happens in the womb.


Dr. Breedlove says he can take a male rat and make it behave like a female for the rest of its life, and vice versa for a female, just by altering the hormones it's exposed to at birth. Because rats are born underdeveloped, that's roughly the same as altering a third-trimester human fetus in the womb. But first, he said, Stahl would need a crash course in rat sex.

Dr. Breedlove explained that male rats, including one he showed Stahl called "Romeo," will mount any rat that comes their way. In the mating process, the female performs something called lordosis, where she lifts her head and rump.

If Romeo goes after a male, Dr. Breedlove says the male will seem profoundly indifferent.

But Breedlove says he can change all that. He gave a female rat a single shot of the male sex hormone testosterone at birth. Now grown up, she will never perform lordosis.

But a male rat did. He was castrated at birth, depriving him of testosterone.

"So you created a gay rat?" Stahl asked.

"I wouldn't say that these are gay rats. But I will say that these are genetic male rats who are showing much more feminine behavior," he explained.

So the answer may be that it's not genes but hormones.

"That's exactly the question that we're all wondering. This business of testosterone having such a profound influence. Does that have some relevance to humans?" Breedlove said.

While biologists look at hormones for answers about human sexuality, other scientists are looking for patterns in statistics. And hard as this is to believe, they have found something they call "the older brother effect."

"The more older brothers a man has, the greater that man's chance of being gay," says Bailey.

Asked if that's true, Bailey says, "That is absolutely true."

If this comes as a shock to you, you’re not alone. But it turns out, it’s one of the most solid findings in this field, demonstrated in study after study.

And the numbers are significant: for every older brother a man has, his chances of being gay increase by one third. Older sisters make no difference, and there's no corresponding effect for lesbians. A first-born son has about a 2 percent chance of being gay, and the numbers rise from there. The theory is it happens in the womb.

"Somehow, the mother's body is remembering how many boys she's carried before," says Breedlove. "The favorite hypothesis is that the mother may be making antibodies when she sees a boy the first time, and then affect subsequent boys when she carries them in utero."

"You mean, like she's carrying a foreign substance?" Stahl asked.

"And if you think about it, a woman who's carrying a son for the first time, she is carrying a foreign substance," Breedlove replied. "There are some proteins encoded on his Y chromosome that her body has never seen before and that her immune system would be expected to regard as 'invaders,'" he added.

It’s still not a proven theory and it gets even stranger.


"One of the things we've only found out lately is that older brothers affect a boy only if the boy is right-handed," Breedlove said. "If the boy is left-handed, if his brain is organized in a left-handed fashion, it doesn't matter how many older brothers he has, his probability of being gay is just like the rest of the population."

You can give yourself a headache trying to apply all the theories to real people. Greg and Steve Lofts both are right-handed, and they do have an older brother, so maybe that's why Greg is gay. But they also have several gay relatives, which suggests it could be in the genes, except where does that leave Steve?

Adam and Jared, fraternal twins, have older brothers, but they're ambidextrous.

Then there's the question of how something in the womb could affect one twin but not the other. There are many more questions at this point than answers, but the scientists 60 Minutes spoke to are increasingly convinced that genes, hormones, or both — that something is happening to determine sexual orientation before birth. Adam has come up with his own theory.

"I was supposed to be a girl in my mom's stomach. But my mom wished for all boys. So, I turned into a boy," Adam explained.

Asked if he wished he was a girl, Adam nodded.

"Do you think there was anything that you could have done that would have changed Adam?" Stahl asked Adam and Jared's mom Danielle.

"I could have changed Adam on the outside to where he would have showed me the macho boy that I would want as a boy. But that would not change who he is inside. And I think that would have damaged him a lot more," she said.

Stahl asked both boys if they are proud of the way they are, and both boys gave her big nods.

"Yup," Adam replied.



By Shari Finkelstein ©MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Tracer Bullet
08-31-06, 01:40 PM
"Ass pirate" is the preferred PC term nowadays. Thank you for showing more sensitivity than most of the clowns around here. :rolleyes:

Draven
08-31-06, 03:09 PM
Very interesting. Every day it seems evidence is found that sexual orientation is not a choice. Hopefully one day that will be common knowledge.

Lord Rick
08-31-06, 03:24 PM
we had a whole thread about this study a couple of weeks ago.

kvrdave
08-31-06, 03:38 PM
Very interesting. Every day it seems evidence is found that sexual orientation is not a choice. Hopefully one day that will be common knowledge.

I will agree. But I will also say that for most people, no matter which side they fall on, it won't mean anything.

RunBandoRun
08-31-06, 03:48 PM
Wow! I have a gay uncle who has two older brothers too! But his sister (my mother) was the oldest in that family, so does that shoot the theory?

I have FOUR older brothers and I'm a bisexual female. Does that shoot the theory?

I have gay friends who come from family configurations of every kind, from only children to one of a houseful, in all kinds of birth order. I think trying to figure out WHY someone turns out to be gay is less important than ensuring that they don't get discriminated against because of it.

kvrdave
08-31-06, 03:49 PM
My cousin is gay, and he is the oldest of 7 or 8 kids. Who keeps count after 4 kids?

bhk
08-31-06, 03:58 PM
"Ass pirate" is the preferred PC term nowadays. Thank you for showing more sensitivity than most of the clowns around here.
I like that term better than "gay" anyways. To me gay means festive, happy; not men liking other men in a sexual way and women liking women in a sexual way. ( ;) for you the clowns here that don't have a sense of humor)


It’s still not a proven theory and it gets even stranger.


Most important line in that whole story.
Every day it seems evidence is found that sexual orientation is not a choice. Hopefully one day that will be common knowledge.

And unfortunately while people may or may not be able to control their desires, they can still control their actions doesn't seem to be common knowledge anymore. It it doesn't seem likely to be in the future either with the victimology industry we have nowadays.

Duh Vuh Duh
08-31-06, 05:07 PM
Wow! I have a gay uncle who has two older brothers too! But his sister (my mother) was the oldest in that family, so does that shoot the theory?

I have FOUR older brothers and I'm a bisexual female. Does that shoot the theory?


No, I think I remember them saying the number of female siblings doesn't matter.

No, they said the theory only applies to gay males.


p.s. sorry for the repost, thanks for merging.

Howiefan
08-31-06, 06:08 PM
And unfortunately while people may or may not be able to control their desires, they can still control their actions doesn't seem to be common knowledge anymore. It it doesn't seem likely to be in the future either with the victimology industry we have nowadays.

... So the gays are playing the victim role when they claim they are being discriminated? Why do you care so much about what other people do anyways?

movielib
08-31-06, 07:18 PM
And unfortunately while people may or may not be able to control their desires, they can still control their actions doesn't seem to be common knowledge anymore. It it doesn't seem likely to be in the future either with the victimology industry we have nowadays.
But why should gay people control such actions? They are not doing anything wrong by engaging in adult, consensual sex. It's quite different from pedophiles, for example, who should control their actions because they would be doing something wrong.

Red Dog
08-31-06, 07:23 PM
And unfortunately while people may or may not be able to control their desires, they can still control their actions doesn't seem to be common knowledge anymore. It it doesn't seem likely to be in the future either with the victimology industry we have nowadays.


Considering that up until recently, consensual homosexual sex was considered a crime in many jurisdictions, I can certainly understand such 'victimology.' The question is why do you attach such a term to consensual activities that have absolutely no effect on your life.

Draven
09-01-06, 09:37 AM
And unfortunately while people may or may not be able to control their desires, they can still control their actions doesn't seem to be common knowledge anymore. It it doesn't seem likely to be in the future either with the victimology industry we have nowadays.

Let me guess, "controlling your actions" won't keep you out of a consensual relationship, will it?

Tracer Bullet
09-01-06, 09:53 AM
And unfortunately while people may or may not be able to control their desires, they can still control their actions doesn't seem to be common knowledge anymore. It it doesn't seem likely to be in the future either with the victimology industry we have nowadays.

:lol:

You're hilarious. I sleep better at night knowing there are people like you in the world to bring teh funny.

Nick Danger
09-01-06, 10:21 PM
Serious question: How do Hindus in general feel about homosexuals?

Howiefan
09-01-06, 11:14 PM
Serious question: How do Hindus in general feel about homosexuals?

According to Wikipedia:

Sexuality is rarely discussed openly in contemporary Hindu society, and in modern India, sex between men is illegal. Homosexuality is largely a taboo subject — especially among the strongly religious. Professor of women's studies and world religions Paola Bacchetta argues that "queerphobia is one of the pillars of Hindu nationalism".[1] Deepa Mehta's 1996 film Fire, which depicts a romantic relationship between two Hindu women, was banned for "religious insensitivity"[2] after Hindu fundamentalists attacked cinemas where it was being screened. Similar protests occurred in 2004 against the lesbian-themed film Girlfriend — even though the portayal of lesbianism was this time distinctly unsympathetic.[3]

In a 2004 survey, most — though not all — swamis said they opposed the concept of a Hindu-sanctified gay marriage.[4] Some liberal Hindu reform movements, especially those in the West, publicly support social acceptance of lesbians and gays.

Hijras, who are usually seen as a third gender, mostly live on the margins of society.

Psychoanalyst Sudhir Kakar writes that Hindus are more accepting of "deviance or eccentricity" than are Westerners, who treat sexual variance as "anti-social or psychopathological, requiring 'correction' or 'cure'".[5] Hindus, he argues, believe instead that each individual must fulfil their personal destiny as they travel the path towards moksha (transcendence).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Hinduism

Tracer Bullet
09-02-06, 12:58 PM
Nice to know what other religions besides fundamentalist Christianity hate me. :thumbsup:

bhk
09-02-06, 03:40 PM
Considering that up until recently, consensual homosexual sex was considered a crime in many jurisdictions, I can certainly understand such 'victimology.' The question is why do you attach such a term to consensual activities that have absolutely no effect on your life.

I think you guys misunderstood me. Personally I don't care what anyone does(really).
But to say that people have no choice in their personal actions and that they are compelled to act on thier desires is an insult to everyone's intelligence.

I used the word "victimology" as a general condition in the US. People, it seems, are taking less and less responsibility for their personal behavior. I wasn't using it specifically for homosexuals.

As far as Hindus go, most think it is deviancy and that it is a sin. But Hinduism is a live and let live religion(for the most part). Part of travelling towards moksha is not acting on personal desires that are deemed sinful(for example, adultery).

Breakfast with Girls
09-02-06, 04:01 PM
I think <b>bhk</b> wins the prize for most replies in a row to the same quote.

Howiefan
09-02-06, 04:06 PM
I think you guys misunderstood me. Personally I don't care what anyone does(really). But to say that people have no choice in their personal actions and that they are compelled to act on thier desires is an insult to everyone's intelligence.).

But why shouldn't they act on their desires? If it's between 2 consenting adults, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Gay people aren't compelled to be gay, they just live their lives the way they are. Do you feel that everyday you NEED to live an heterosexual life?

thismeansyou
09-02-06, 11:39 PM
I stated in this thread that I have no problem with people not buying into the 'sin argument' but to say people CANT choose because of GENES? I brought up lots of genetic things that people CAN choose to change. There are even some things stronger than sexuality that people change or attempt to change without attacking them personally. Why attack someone for changing sexuality?

I'll go with you on your analogy of homosexuality to alcoholism and drug addiction as I don't personally find it insulting:

You haven't really brought up any "genetic things that people CAN choose to change." In fact, you did the opposite by mentioning alcoholics and drug addicts who never again feel normal without their fix. The desire you can't change, the action you can, with enough effort and willpower.

Homosexuality is the desire. Grimfarrow mentioned this before, but I don't think it was fully acknowledged. It goes to the core of your argument because these 'pseudoscientists' with their 'genetic politics' are only looking for determinants of desire. Looking for reasons why some men would never have sexual desire for another man, and other men would never have that desire for another women, and those in between.

If this was a study about alcoholism, the authors wouldn't 'pat you on the back and say you're screwed' if you were an alcoholic, they would say that you are very likely to become addicted to alcohol, because of your genetic setup. They'd also likely tell you to stay away from it, because alcoholism tends to detract from one's quality of life.

From here, then, it's only a matter of whether homosexuality is detrimental. By the way you consistenly use "overcome," instead of merely "change" when referring to the mutability of sexual actions makes me infer that you view it negatively, as something that is a burden and detriment to someone's life (although you say otherwise). If that is the case, then yes, change your actions. All that the science is saying is that, like a recovered addict, you may never feel completely normal.

Those who don't feel it is a burden and detriment to life, they are just finding out through science why they like butterscotch so much, and will go on eating it...

bhk
09-03-06, 12:35 PM
But why shouldn't they act on their desires? If it's between 2 consenting adults, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Gay people aren't compelled to be gay, they just live their lives the way they are. Do you feel that everyday you NEED to live an heterosexual life?
I never said they can't act on it. I just said they have a choice on whether to act on it. But I can also opine that I believe it is wrong. That's all.

Tracer Bullet
09-03-06, 12:43 PM
I never said they can't act on it. I just said they have a choice on whether to act on it. But I can also opine that I believe it is wrong. That's all.

And you have a choice on whether to act on your heterosexual desires. Why do you?

bhk
09-03-06, 01:01 PM
And you have a choice on whether to act on your heterosexual desires.
Yes.
Why do you?
Because I was married during a ceremony proscribed by my religion. And do so within the confines of the codes of my religion.
But, I won't call you a heterophobe or a bigot or a hater or intolerant if you say it is wrong.

Tracer Bullet
09-03-06, 01:39 PM
Yes.

Because I was married during a ceremony proscribed by my religion. And do so within the confines of the codes of my religion.
But, I won't call you a heterophobe or a bigot or a hater or intolerant if you say it is wrong.

If you believe that any sexual contact outside of marriage is immoral, then that's your right. However, are you as equally outspoken about extramarital heterosexual sex? If the answer is no, as I suspect from your previous baiting comments about "deviants", then I believe I'm within my rights to call you a homophobe.

bhk
09-03-06, 01:48 PM
However, are you as equally outspoken about extramarital heterosexual sex? If the answer is no, as I suspect from your previous baiting comments about "deviants", then I believe I'm within my rights to call you a homophobe.

How many threads do we have on adultery here? Not that many. And of course, it goes without saying that it is wrong. Why would you think that it is OK? You can call me whatever you like, that doesn't bother me. But, saying a particular desire is wrong isn't intolerance.

Tracer Bullet
09-03-06, 01:55 PM
How many threads do we have on adultery here? Not that many. And of course, it goes without saying that it is wrong. Why would you think that it is OK?

Well, for one, nice dodge. I'm not referring to adultery, I'm referring to premarital sex, where neither party is married.

But, I'm an atheist, so I don't have these bizarre hangups about premarital sex being immoral. Sex is life-affirming, and I don't see anything wrong with wanting to enjoy life.

You can call me whatever you like, that doesn't bother me. But, saying a particular desire is wrong isn't intolerance.

Yes, it is, as long as that desire is one that doesn't harm another person and is engaged in with consent. Besides, being gay isn't just about sex, which I know you know. However, admitting this fact would really make your intolerance obvious.

thismeansyou
09-03-06, 02:01 PM
How many threads do we have on adultery here? Not that many. And of course, it goes without saying that it is wrong. Why would you think that it is OK? You can call me whatever you like, that doesn't bother me. But, saying a particular desire is wrong isn't intolerance.

I think that saying any particular desire is wrong is intolerance. Particular actions based on those desires can be wrong, yeah, but how can you say that a desire is wrong when a person can't necessarily control it? Even pedophiles, I feel bad for them because it must be real tough to live a life where the object of your sexual desire is forever out of your reach. But I still find it disgusting and repugnant if they ever act out those desires.

bhk
09-03-06, 02:09 PM
Well, for one, nice dodge. I'm not referring to adultery, I'm referring to premarital sex, where neither party is married.


I believe it is wrong too.

Besides, being gay isn't just about sex, which I know you know. However, admitting this fact would really make your intolerance obvious.

That's why I used the word "desire" and not "gay sex" in the part of my post that you yourself quoted.
I think that saying any particular desire is wrong is intolerance. Particular actions based on those desires can be wrong, yeah, but how can you say that a desire is wrong when a person can't necessarily control it?
That is your opinion. If I have a desire to murder someone(again, I'm not equating homosexuality with murder at all, we are talking about desire), then having that desire is wrong. I may not be able to control it but that doesn't make any difference.
Yes, it is, as long as that desire is one that doesn't harm another person and is engaged in with consent.
Ah, that is your opinion. Mine's different.

Tracer Bullet
09-03-06, 02:34 PM
Ah, that is your opinion. Mine's different.

Obviously :lol:

I'm just glad that people like you become rarer every year.

bhk
09-03-06, 03:00 PM
I'm just glad that people like you become rarer every year.

Don't think so. Last election, even the most liberal states voted against gay marriage.

Tracer Bullet
09-03-06, 03:04 PM
Don't think so. Last election, even the most liberal states voted against gay marriage.

:hscratch: Did I say anything about gay marriage?

bhk
09-03-06, 04:33 PM
Did I say anything about gay marriage?
No, but if societies values have changed so much, it should have been a shoo-in when voted on in the most liberal states in the US.

joeblow69
09-03-06, 05:19 PM
No, but if societies values have changed so much, it should have been a shoo-in when voted on in the most liberal states in the US.
i think he was more referring to the number of people who are so uptight about homosexuality that they think that "gay people should live the rest of their lives alone, unloved, and miserable" are getting smaller and smaller.

Tracer Bullet
09-03-06, 06:18 PM
i think he was more referring to the number of people who are so uptight about homosexuality that they think that "gay people should live the rest of their lives alone, unloved, and miserable" are getting smaller and smaller.

Right. I know that bhk is a master at dodging the question and bring up things that weren't even mentioned, but that was a particularly lame "challenge". Gay marriage has been discussed as a serious possibility for only about ten years, while acceptance of homosexuality has been rising for nearly four decades. There's no comparison.

bhk
09-03-06, 06:54 PM
i think he was more referring to the number of people who are so uptight about homosexuality that they think that "gay people should live the rest of their lives alone, unloved, and miserable" are getting smaller and smaller.

Yes, because that's exactly what I said. :rolleyes: Again, you are mistaking saying something is wrong with being uptight.

I know that bhk is a master at dodging the question and bring up things that weren't even mentioned, but that was a particularly lame "challenge". Gay marriage has been discussed as a serious possibility for only about ten years, while acceptance of homosexuality has been rising for nearly four decades. There's no comparison.

If as you say acceptance of homosexuality is rising(btw what do you mean by "acceptance"? Does it mean being considered "normal"?) then it should have been easy to get bills allowing homosexual marriages to get passed in the most liberal states that it was voted on. That didn't happen.

Howiefan
09-03-06, 07:00 PM
*yawns*

joeblow69
09-03-06, 07:05 PM
Yes, because that's exactly what I said. :rolleyes:
It's not what you said, but it's the only logical outcome of your position. You say homosexuality is wrong, and gay and lesbians shouldn't act on their desires. What would you have us do? Marry straight people? I don't think that's the right answer. I think enough lives have been ruined by gay people trying to be straight already.

bhk
09-03-06, 07:14 PM
You say homosexuality is wrong, and gay and lesbians shouldn't act on their desires.
Once again.... I don't care if they act on their desires. My only point is that they have a choice in doing so.
What would you have us do? Marry straight people?
Don't really care what you do.
But don't expect others nod approvingly at that.

Howiefan
09-03-06, 07:43 PM
Once again.... I don't care if they act on their desires. My only point is that they have a choice in doing so.

Don't really care what you do.
But don't expect others nod approvingly at that.

You don't care what they do but you sure don't mind giving your opinion on the matter. It's the whole 'I don't care what you do as long as it's not in front of me and I don't hear anything about it, not to mention I'll make sure the law doesn't change so you won't have the same rights as me' attitude which is very hypocritical.

movielib
09-03-06, 08:02 PM
Yes.

Because I was married during a ceremony proscribed by my religion. And do so within the confines of the codes of my religion.
You should look up that word. ;)

Tracer Bullet
09-03-06, 08:07 PM
You don't care what they do but you sure don't mind giving your opinion on the matter. It's the whole 'I don't care what you do as long as it's not in front of me and I don't hear anything about it, not to mention I'll make sure the law doesn't change so you won't have the same rights as me' attitude which is very hypocritical.

It's okay. bhk has made many comments in the past which lead me to believe he'd be happier if it were 1952. Of course, he's a brown non-Christian, so I'm not sure what that says about his mental health.

bhk
09-03-06, 08:23 PM
You don't care what they do but you sure don't mind giving your opinion on the matter. It's the whole 'I don't care what you do as long as it's not in front of me and I don't hear anything about it, not to mention I'll make sure the law doesn't change so you won't have the same rights as me' attitude which is very hypocritical.
Isn't that the function of this board: to give opinions? For example, I don't go to homosexual rallies to voice my disapproval. And it's more: 'I don't care what you do, stop trying to convince me that it's completely normal.'
It's okay. bhk has made many comments in the past which lead me to believe he'd be happier if it were 1952. Of course, he's a brown non-Christian, so I'm not sure what that says about his mental health.
:lol: I'm not the one becoming apoplectic over words posted by someone else on an internet forum.
You should look up that word.
:lol: Won't be the first time I made a mistake, won't be the last. Maybe I can claim that english isn't my first language.

Howiefan
09-03-06, 08:29 PM
Isn't that the function of this board: to give opinions? For example, I don't go to homosexual rallies to voice my disapproval. And it's more: 'I don't care what you do, stop trying to convince me that it's completely normal.'

But it is normal. Even in the animal world homosexuality exists and I highly doubt the animals chose to act on their desires ;) Perhaps it's not normal to you but it is part of nature. And while everyone is entitled to their own opinions, discrimination is not the way to go (sex, race, religion, orientation, etc).

Nick Danger
09-03-06, 09:20 PM
You should look up that word. ;)

It was the Hindu version of the Black Mass, with the inverted cross and desecrated host. And the naked chick on the altar.

bhk
09-03-06, 10:31 PM
But it is normal. Even in the animal world homosexuality exists and I highly doubt the animals chose to act on their desires. And while everyone is entitled to their own opinions, discrimination is not the way to go (sex, race, religion, orientation, etc).

Just because something occurs in nature doesn't meant that it is normal human behaviour. For example, Chimpanzees kill and sometimes eat other young chimpanzees, or for a male lion to kill cubs that were sired by another male.

How is saying that something is wrong discrimination?

It was the Hindu version of the Black Mass, with the inverted cross and desecrated host. And the naked chick on the altar.

:lol: Perhaps, but a cross has no religious significance to Hindus. Maybe an inverted Swastik.

Howiefan
09-03-06, 10:42 PM
How is saying that something is wrong discrimination?

Well just because you think something is wrong doesn't mean it really is and that the whole world should follow your rules and defitions of what is normal. In any case, it is obviously pointless to discuss this issue with you as your mind is already made up on the issue. 'Forgive them father for they know not what they do' ;)

Tracer Bullet
09-04-06, 12:02 AM
:lol: I'm not the one becoming apoplectic over words posted by someone else on an internet forum.

Apoplectic? Please. It's just so rare that I get to converse with a actual real-life bigot. I find you fascinating, in an anthropological sense.

Bacon
09-04-06, 12:11 AM
Apoplectic? Please. It's just so rare that I get to converse with a actual real-life bigot. I find you fascinating, in an anthropological sense.
I wouldn't go as far as to call BHK a bigot, just someone whose world view is narrow and who hides behind religion to justify that narrow world view