I tried to make this point with Wakko67 and so I'll mention it to you. Of course those other attractions are biologically related. So what's the point? When did you choose to like girls with big butts? You didn't make that choice, that's just what you like. This isn't about who you have sex with, it's about who you're sexually attracted to. That is something you don't have much choice about. And you should get the same rights to a consensual relationship whether you're attracted to someone of the same sex or someone with a big butt. You have to have a good reason to force people to make a choice about who to have sex with that goes against what they were biologically hard-wired to be attracted to.
Unless that "hard-wiring" is harmful. Just so we understand each other, I personally don't think homo/hetro is determined by genetics. I also agree that what you are attracted to is not a choice. I think that using the genetic argument with so little evidence to support it is harmful to gay rights. Especially when similar evidence can tie that argument to arguments that are obviously harmful. My family was relatively normal, my friends were into girls, the girl that I was least disgusted by when I was 8 looked good in her jeans to me. I've been a fan of girls in Levis ever since. I'm sure most people could look back on some point in their life when they said "hey, what do ya know, I like X". They may not want to, but they could, and if they honestly analyzed the situation they could explain it. Does that mean they could change? Probably not.
And that's the problem with the anti-gay folks who are always throwing out bestiality whenver gay marriage is thrown around. They only equate marrying another human being of the same sex to marrying a dog, while marrying another human being of the opposite sex is not the same as marrying a dog. There's no real justification for why the slippery slope only goes in one direction. There are plenty of practices that we allow people to do that are not expended to animals. I'm sure quite frequently when female sufferage or freeing the slaves was first discussed, the contrarians then said "well why not just extend these rights to animals!" - after all at various points in history, people were considered to be chattels. We were able, however, to allow people to exercise these rights without traveling down a slippery slope to allowing dogs to vote. In fact all manner of rights have been legally recognized - without going down all sorts of slipperly slope. it's impossible to allow gay marriage without allowing child rape or bestiality at the same time, according to its opponents. What is the logical basis for this argument? They both involve sexual behavior - so what? Why can't one form of sexual behavior be legal and another not be? That's the system we have lived under for thousands of years.
Note that there are two separate questions. Is it in the genes? And is it biological and determined by the time you're born? My best guess is that there isn't a single gay gene. Instead there are some genes and some other biological processes, possibly occurring when the fetus is in the mother's womb, that cause physiological differences. And those differences predispose someone to be attracted to one sex or the other. Now, that's an interesting conversation, but if you believe that it is not choice, it isn't all that relevant. (Well, actually, who cares if it is choice? I don't see how that's relevant either.) What is relevant is this statement: I'm still waiting to hear why homosexual relationships are harmful. The APA doesn't think it's harmful (see the link I posted earlier), so that's pretty strong evidence that the scientific community doesn't think it's harmful. So what are the reasons? I can't think of any. I can't even try to be a devil's advocate and think of any. The best I can come up with is if the religious dogma that you prescribe to says that it is bad, but that doesn't explain why it is harmful to you for others to engage in that behavior. So I'm stumped.
The quote about harmful hard-wiring was in reference to the pedophile/bestiality hard-wiring, those are more universally accepted as harmful.
Understood and agreed. I wasn't assuming that you were referring to homosexuality. I was just using that statement to lead to my point.
No doubt, I do not dispute that in the slightest. It is the logic and support of the opinion that is important though. Any idiot can have an opinion. Opinions are like assholes....etc
Yes I did: "Bailey and Pillard's results suggested that homosexuality has a high component of heritability." Am I missing something?
Wow, 250 tit for tat posts and counting. I thought we covered this in the polygamy thread. IMO, as long as it doesn't affect you or me directly (including by taxation), who cares what others do? Morality cannot be legislated, although I don't think anyone here so far has advocated that pedophilia is okay. I'm afraid I would have to walk back across the "who cares?" line. What I find interesting in the U.N. statement -- and about which not one word has yet been said -- is the enslavement and abuse of women in the Muslim and African spheres. I realize they insist that their women like being property, but those same women are probably too terrified to say what they are really thinking. Will the U.N. do anything about that? Will any of us? Nope. Hopefully, this wasn't just about the homosexual community.
"Bailey and Pillard's results suggested that homosexuality has a high component of heritability. Many smaller studies of the sexual orientation of twins have also been reported, which, while not widely generalizable, often give insights of differences in the rearing environment experienced by members of a twin pair which can lead to divergent orientation in adulthood. Eckert et al. (1986) studied sexual orientation in identical twins reared apart, and found concordance in a male pair, but discordance in three female pairs. However, many methodological problems are associated with such investigations" "From the data reviewed in this report, it seems reasonable to conclude that male homosexuality, or, at least, some 'types' of male homosexuality, are under some degree of genetic control, although various problems with this data prevent more precise conclusions from being drawn. Little can be said of the origins of female homosexuality." Try not to read only the parts that you like, it reminds me of some Christians.
It's not an historic first but close. How's your Jack Russell doing? Rowdy Rocket of Texas is now a year-old 50-pounder and is really, really Rowdy.
Go read the bible for yourself, it will do you some good. I think you are the one with the flawed logic my friend. I bet you agreed with all the haters who attacked the pope for saying that abstinence is the only way to reduce the AIDS pandemic going on in Africa too. Opinions, beliefs and faith have EVERYTHING to do with it. If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything. Just say Nay Nay to being Gay!
I've read over the NT several times now looking for Jesus speak on homosexuality, and I can't find it. As a sister in Christ, I'm just asking you to help me out. I truly do want to understand more.
