I like boys and don't know why.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
I guess I don't understand what we're arguing here. You say that Christianity forces gays to live lonely lives free from any real intimacy, but yet you point out a portion of Christianity where homosexuals can live under the welcoming arms of a God that doesn't see any sin in their behavior. If we're going to get into an argument over who's theology is "more correct", then I'm gonna back out of this argument, and we can have a discussion about this after we die (unless you don't believe in the afterlife, which opens up a whole new can of worms ).

I'm arguing the point - "Don't condemn gays" - on a few different fronts. If you are Christian, I'm saying the Bible may not support condemnation. Even if it does, you should recognize the effect that worldview has on gays and support toleration. If actually allows for homosexual relations (or at least doesn't condemn them), then Christians should fight for the right for gays to marry so that they can love without sin.

I'm also arguing that being gay/bi/straight is largely genetic so there seems to be reasons to believe that gays should be protected like other genetically determined minority groups (race, gender, etc.). On this point I've also always found it ironic that one of the chief opponents to gay rights has been Christians who harp on the point of "choice." Yet, religion much more than sexual preference is a "choice" that receives significantly more legal protection than being "gay." Religious discrimination = bad, even though it is a choice; Sexual orientation discrimination = okay, because it is a choice!?!?! That has never made sense to me.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by John Galt
I'm arguing the point - "Don't condemn gays" - on a few different fronts. If you are Christian, I'm saying the Bible may not support condemnation. Even if it does, you should recognize the effect that worldview has on gays and support toleration. If actually allows for homosexual relations (or at least doesn't condemn them), then Christians should fight for the right for gays to marry so that they can love without sin.

I'm also arguing that being gay/bi/straight is largely genetic so there seems to be reasons to believe that gays should be protected like other genetically determined minority groups (race, gender, etc.). On this point I've also always found it ironic that one of the chief opponents to gay rights has been Christians who harp on the point of "choice." Yet, religion much more than sexual preference is a "choice" that receives significantly more legal protection than being "gay." Religious discrimination = bad, even though it is a choice; Sexual orientation discrimination = okay, because it is a choice!?!?! That has never made sense to me.

Your first point again goes back to a theological debate for which there is no answer. I don't think most Christians "condemn" gays. I think most Christians "condemn" sinful acts. If you're going to condemn gays as people, you might as well condemn the rest of us too, because Christians believe we're all sinners.

As to your second point, I don't think it's been determined if homosexuality is genetic or not. In fact, it would be a pretty fair assumption that it would have to be one heck of a recessive gene for it to be a genetic trait that didn't die out long ago. We'll probably get definitive proof of where sexual orientation comes from about the same time we get definitive proof of when life begins.

I do like your "religious discrimination=bad, sexual orientation=good" argument, however. I'll have to ponder that for a bit.

[Bonegavel]

All this over mice?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Bonegavel
All this over mice?

LOL.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Your first point again goes back to a theological debate for which there is no answer. I don't think most Christians "condemn" gays. I think most Christians "condemn" sinful acts. If you're going to condemn gays as people, you might as well condemn the rest of us too, because Christians believe we're all sinners.

As to your second point, I don't think it's been determined if homosexuality is genetic or not. In fact, it would be a pretty fair assumption that it would have to be one heck of a recessive gene for it to be a genetic trait that didn't die out long ago. We'll probably get definitive proof of where sexual orientation comes from about the same time we get definitive proof of when life begins.

I do like your "religious discrimination=bad, sexual orientation=good" argument, however. I'll have to ponder that for a bit.

I agree the first point isn't going to be resolved in this thread (or in the real world). I just try to present opposing viewpoints so that it is not taken for granted that homosexuality is per se wrong.

For the second point, I think your genetic view is too simplistic. We are almost certainly not talking about a single gene and it can be related to other genes that have nothing to do with sexual orientation. Further, there is a great deal or repression and cultural shaping that still makes gays pro-creators (especially before the last few decades). There is also the possibility that there is a great number of bisexuals who end up only pursuing one of there preferences. In the end, I think there is a genetic link, but it is much too early to know all the ends and outs of it.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
As to your second point, I don't think it's been determined if homosexuality is genetic or not. In fact, it would be a pretty fair assumption that it would have to be one heck of a recessive gene for it to be a genetic trait that didn't die out long ago.

Hmmm... I don't know about this. There are plenty of traits that we know to be genetic in nature that continue to present themselves in a modest share of the population. Green eyes? Red hair? Left-handedness? It's not like anyone stands in awe at how 10% of the population has green eyes, and nobody suggests that it's on its way out of the gene pool.

I guess, though, the relatively low likelihood for people expressing some "homosexual" genetic trait to themselves propagate the species is the meaningful difference. I can see that, I suppose.

[Bonegavel]

I think left-handedness is a choice.

[Sloan]

I think genetics plays some role, but how much I'm not sure. The following paragraph is part of an article from Time from earlier this year. It is talking about a gene for anti-social behavior that seems to get switched on and off depending on the environment. I don't think that is unreasonable to think that a certain action may take place in homosexuals.


It has often been suggested that childhood maltreatment can create an antisocial adult. New research by Terrie Moffitt of London's Kings College on a group of 442 New Zealand men who have been followed since birth suggests that this is true only for a genetic minority. Again, the difference lies in a promoter that alters the activity of a gene. Those with high-active monoamine oxidase A genes were virtually immune to the effects of mistreatment. Those with low-active genes were much more antisocial if maltreated, yet—if anything—slightly less antisocial if not maltreated. The low-active, mistreated men were responsible for four times their share of rapes, robberies and assaults. In other words, maltreatment is not enough; you must also have the low-active gene. And it is not enough to have the low-active gene; you must also be maltreated.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by Bonegavel
I think left-handedness is a choice.

No, it's not. I feel left-handed. I also feel two left-footed, but that's another topic altogether.

[Bonegavel]

Why can't there be a gene for females wanting to have sex with guys who have let themselves go, post on forums all day at work, and eat Ho-Hos?

[Fonzie]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Hmmm... I don't know about this. There are plenty of traits that we know to be genetic in nature that continue to present themselves in a modest share of the population. Green eyes? Red hair? Left-handedness? It's not like anyone stands in awe at how 10% of the population has green eyes, and nobody suggests that it's on its way out of the gene pool.

I guess, though, the relatively low likelihood for people expressing some "homosexual" genetic trait to themselves propagate the species is the meaningful difference. I can see that, I suppose.

The "altruism" argument has been described as a reason why homosexuality hasn't weeded itself out of the gene pool. Specifically, the reproductive benefit a homosexual enjoys is not his or her own, but rather their siblings', with whom they share a great many genes (including those involved in sexual orientation, which is consistent with the observation that homosexuality runs in families). The homosexual sibling does not typically reproduce, and thus they become available to provide additional time and resources to their siblings' offspring, helping to improve that offsprings' survival and the propogation of the shared genes into the future.

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by clintl
A point I forgot to add, in rebuttal to Fritz and others. If homosexuality is genetic variation, that does not necessarily mean that it's a defect. It could just as easily be a natural evolutionary variation that serves as a population control mechanism. Which, considering how prolific humans have become at increasing their population, might be a very good thing biologically.

A very good point. I don't know if anyone else here took any sociobiology classes in school, but there are a lot of behaviors in the animal kingdom that at first glance don't appear to make much sense from a genetic standpoint, but given a closer look and a careful consideration, become easier to understand.

[QuikSand]

There is also ample evidence of homosexuality among lower-order animals...

[QuikSand]

On a completely separate note...

Am I the only one who unwittingly hears Sir Mix-a-Lot when he reads the title of this thread?

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by QuikSand
On a completely separate note...

Am I the only one who unwittingly hears Sir Mix-a-Lot when he reads the title of this thread?

It's missing the adjective before 'boys,' but otherwise, yes, I thought the same thing. The version in my head currently goes:

I like big boys and I don't know why
You other brothas must comply...

[sabotai]

Probably, but you don't see people who unapologetically practice premarital sex hold a parade to celebrate it.

Apparently you never heard of Mardi Gras.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by sabotai
Apparently you never heard of Mardi Gras.

And I counter with: apparently you've never been to Mardi Gras. It's far from a "straights only" event.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by John Galt


For the second point, I think your genetic view is too simplistic. We are almost certainly not talking about a single gene and it can be related to other genes that have nothing to do with sexual orientation. Further, there is a great deal or repression and cultural shaping that still makes gays pro-creators (especially before the last few decades). There is also the possibility that there is a great number of bisexuals who end up only pursuing one of there preferences. In the end, I think there is a genetic link, but it is much too early to know all the ends and outs of it.

A lawyer and a talk show host arguing genetics. Yeah, this one's gonna be resolved.

All I'm saying is as you are trying to show another side and help people have an open mind... I'm doing the same thing. You said it yourself, "it is much too early to know all the ins and outs of it". Well, that's what I said too, you big dork.

Even when we agree you make it sound like an argument!

[sabotai]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
And I counter with: apparently you've never been to Mardi Gras. It's far from a "straights only" event.

You said a parade about pre-marital sex, you didn't specifiy it had to be hetero only.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by sabotai
You said a parade about pre-marital sex, you didn't specifiy it had to be hetero only.

point taken.