Choices

Remove all ads!

Re. The biblical prohibitions:

I explained this in another thread, but I can't find it to link! Here goes again...

At least one branch of Judaism is re-thinking this approach. You see, in Judaism the ideal state of being is for a person to have a partner - no one should ever be alone. That's why the Bible has all those "rules" about who could or could not marry whom in all those different circumstances.

Well, back then homosexual encounters were brief, one-night stands, something the Bible is very much against. No one realized that a same-sex relationship could be every bit as deep and loving and lasting as a heterosexual marriage. With today's new knowledge of human emotions and psychology, Reform rabbis are starting to re-think the stance against homosexuality. Perhaps what was really meant was a prohibition against casual sex?

 

But genetics ARE absolute in some cases. My mom has blue eyes, and my dad has brown eyes. I did not, as a result, get to "chose" my eye color. I have brown eyes. My two siblings have blue eyes. You're making a nature vs. nurture argement, and while that works for a great many things, some genetic qualities are absolute.

You are just showing how little you know about genetics. If it's a recessive gene you can carry it and not display the trait. Assuming it works in simple Mendelian fashion - i.e., you get a gene from each parent and only recessive is exhibited if you have a recessive from both parents, you can have two straight parents give birth to a gay child.

To really get into the genetics suppose:

H = heterosexual
h = homosexual

So all people would be (depending on the genes of their parents):

HH, Hh, hH, or hh.

HH, Hh, hH are all heterosexual, while hh is homosexual.

There are literally HUNDREDS of deleterious genetic diseases that persist in the gene pool, because people that have one "good" gene and one "bad" gene exhibit the normal trait. It's only when two people who each have one good and one bad have a child that there is a chance, albeit rather small (1 in 4) for the child to be born with the disease.

Now, I'm not equating homosexualism to a disease, I'm just saying that recessive genes, no matter how deleterious, can survive in the population virtually forever. If recessive genes were always eliminated quickly, there would be hardly anyone left with blue eyes.

 

Thank you for all the nice posts. I wasn't sure what to expect when I started this thread but I think it has gone very well.

Just one little comment I choose the word "Choices" as the thread title but I didn't define what I mean by the word.

To me the word means a conscious, voluntary act. We are all influenced by early childhood experiences which we may or may not remember, may not even be aware of. However I did not choose these influences. Later in life as I gained more control over my own life I made choices including what influences I felt best suited me. I am being rather general here. There are always influences over which we have no control.

My point is I do not really care why someone's sexual orientation is homosexual. Having met and talked to many I am convinced that they have no choice as to their sexual orientation except perhaps in 1 or two cases where a traumatic experience was involved. I do care that my friends and relatives are made to feel like pariahs not because they have harmed anyone but because, yes, they chose to love someone of the same gender.

 

Pregnancy news

In a nutshell, "Gay" Genes are passed on by female siblings who have a higher fecundity than normal.
There are holes in the study, not least of which is the sample size BUT it offers a scientific explanation as to why homosexuality doesn't breed itself out.

 

Ok, I am utterly shocked by the studies that have been posted here. 100-200 participants? 10%-40% of them that fit theory X also fit the predictions of the theory? And you want to call this reliable scientific evidence? Find me a study that covers at least 1000 people, bare minimum. Find me a study that shows the predictions of these theories come true a vast majority of the time.

From a psychological perspective, sexuality is radically socialized, meaning how we are raised, taught, and exposed by society (not just our parents) is THE DRIVING FACTOR in our sexual desires. Why do so many girls want to be rib-showing skinny? Not because that is what men naturally find attractive, but because that is what modern society teaches men and women an atractive woman should look like. 80 years ago the standard of beauty was boyish looks, 200 years ago it was what we would call today 'chubby'.
The largest factor in this socialization is past experience. If you are frequently attracted to blonds, blonds will seem more attractive to you.

And lastly, the homosexual phenominon in the world today simply doesn't fit the pattern of a genetic pre-disposition. How do you explain the frequency of homosexuality in prison or other long-term gender-segrigated situations. If people were born gay, the percentages in prison would match the percentages before prison, which would match the percentages after prison, which would probably match the percentages in society as a whole (unless you associate the homosexual characteristics with criminal behavior). As it stands now, none of these statistics are even close.

At best these studies suggest that there may be a genetic factor, that genes may make people become gay more easily or, more likely, that they may attach generally male facets of personality to females and vice versa, and society's steriotypes of the genders then distort the person's view of themselves from the social norm.

Please note that I'm not making any kind of value association with this. I used the word distort simply because that works. There is no 'natural' or 'pure' human psyche in the psychological world. We are all a continuous process od distortion, or growth, of a psychological blank slate.

 

And I am utterly NOT shocked by your reaction. (If you remember, I pretty much predicted it at the top of the page.) So, are you going to take the next step and cite your own 'crap' studies (since they're ALL crap depending on which side you're on), or will you save yourself the indignity and stop this pointless cycle?

And finally, there is one thing I simply cannot resist saying...

Good. (Not to mention that it speaks unwell of your case if those unbiased by "teachings" from either side find nothing wrong with it. From the mouths of babes...)

 

Actually, there are more hypotheses currently being studied:

- prenatal androgen model; since gonadal steroidal androgens are responsible for sexual dimorphism in brain,

- maternal immunity (fraternal birth order effect); due to immunization of some mothers to male-linked antigens,

- differences in brain neurobiology (neural activity and anatomy).

Also, it might as well be that the genetical/developmental basis for homosexuality is different in women and men.

 

NOG,

I haven't read the study in detail (because the news story doesn't go into a detailed statistical analysis), but it seems many of the purported shortcomings you seem to feel the survey possess are more likely sound statistical analyses.

First of all, regarding only 199 participants in the survey, and you wanting 1000, there's no reason to go that high. For statistical purposes, the difference between 200 and 1000 is vanishingly small. Assuming a random selection of participants who meet the specified criteria, the minimum number you need for a reasonable statistical analysis is - wait for it - 30. With 30, you get a confidence measure of 95% that your group is representative of the population as a whole. Once you hit 200, your confidence level is 99.5%. At 1000, you confidence level is 99.7%. So your assumption that expanding the study from 199 participants to 1000 participants would increase the accuracy of the study is technically correct, but it only increases the accuracy by 0.2%. Now, if you want to argue that the people were not randomly selected, you may have a point. I have no idea what selection criteria were used, as that information isn't provided, so it is possible that the study was flawed, but it would be in how the participants were selected, not in their number.

Secondly, a 10% to 40% increase in a certain variable from one group to the other can hardly be written off as insignificant. While it falls well short off proving anything definitively, a 10% to 40% difference is certainly statistically significant and wouldn't be marginalized by any detailed statistical analyses.

That's not the purpose of statistical analysis. It's to prove that there is a difference between two groups that differ in one respect but are assumed identical in all other respects. The study does show that. Now, I am a little skeptical at just how "random" the selection process was, and if they botched that part the whole study is worth bupkis, but nearly 200 participants in a study with up to a 40% difference in the two groups is on the surface, a noteworthy variable.

 

Oh dear. You were the one who was trying to separate the 'being homosexual' to 'performing homosexual acts'. The guys in prison are doing the latter. Sure, they are sinning in your eyes, but they are mostly not homosexuals.

I agree with someone above who said that promiscuity was probably a bigger 'sin' or problem than homosexuality. Homosexuality causes far fewer problems in the world than rampant promiscuity would.

 

NOG, beside everything already said, the site I linked y'all to stated the genetic background is one of two factors determining sexual orientation. The other being environmental conditioning. In case of homosexuals that's an abusive father and a drunken mother for you, I suppose? For me it will be more subtle things, such as the number of older siblings (brothers in particular) etc. But that's the way of things.

An unreasonable demand, that. Really, our scientists are supposed to discover the formular to fully explain human nature already?
And here I thought they do nicely with their deliberate, careful progress. Not fast enough for the religious devout, though.
Perhaps you have something more to offer than what shocking stuff I brought up. Men in prison wont do. I would be interested in peeking at your sources.

 

@HB:
Actually, no I wasn't. That was my first post on this thread and I have never argued a distinction between being homosexual and performing homosexual acts. In my eyes that's a pointless distinction as the act is sinful whether it is done regularly or not.

@Aldeth:
I don't know about the medical field, but in psychology a statistical study with only 30 participants would get laughed out of any professional society, meeting, or discussion you could find. 200 is barely even worth concidering. 1000 starts to be really reliable, though there are a few who would be nervous about taking it.

And I forgot my last point in the other post. It was this: all these studies are corilation studies, they say that factor X and factor Y happen at the same time in Z% of the population. While these are by no means meaningless, they are nothing more than guidelines for further research and are not grounds for any kind of conclusion unless there is a significant (~80% or more) corelation of otherwise unusual trates, i.e. albinos and serial killers. If 80% of all serial killers were albinos then you would have solid grounds to say that there is a link between the two. A study that says 35% of the 199 homosexuals tested had chromosome 7 is not a significant corelation, only something for researchers in the future to concider.

As for the reason for my reaction, it isn't a bias by any means, just a general detesting of bad or mis-used science and statistics. I would attack choice-based studies that were this bad with the same logic and reasoning.

 

Sorry to throw biologism in a discussion again, but:

We cannot control who we find attractive, on a very basic level. It's the pheromones that determine if we simply like a person or want to sleep with him/her. Sure, there are other factors involved, but pheromones say to us: "This person is genetically compatible. Let's make children."
It's like Abomination said:

Gay people are just attracted to pheromones exuded by people of the same sex. That may be a biological aberration, but it happens frequently enough.


There are societal circumstances that can generate homosexual behaviour, though. But that has only something to do with the actual acts, not with sexual orientation.

 

The above quotes demonstrate what exactly a "choice" is. Being born with a genes that make one naturally attracted to the opposite sex is not a choice. Subtle influences in ones early childhood, influences that don't even register on a concious level, that make one gay do not count as choices. I have a strong affinity towards ancient myths and legends, an affinity I link to my father and mother reading me greek, egyptian, and norse myths as a child. Does that count as my having "chose" to like myths and legends? No. It was part of how I was brought up, and I have every right to enjoy myths and legends. Just as those who are gay have every right to enjoy what they are naturally attracted to. Even more of a right, because they are getting involved (as much as the heterosexual population) in relationships that center on love, something that should be denied no one.

Prison and other long-term gender-segrigated situations tend to produce sex between the people of the same gender, but that does not make those people homosexual, just desperate. They are commiting a homosexual act, but they are not homosexual.

I disagree. The difference is that those who simply commit a homosexual act (such as prison inmates) are doing so out of a lust that is powerful enough to override their regular inhibitions. Whereas gay men and women are attracted to their own gender in the same way as heterosexual men and women are: they desire not only the sex, but the emotions, the relationship, the love.

 

So you are suggesting that we all have varying degrees of temptation for each gender. Regardless of the degree of temptation, we (from the religious point of view) are still given limits on sexual activity, and are required to resist all such temptation.

But the Bible gives us a more noble view of humanity (divine sons and daughters of a loving heavenly father with the potential to become like Him) than some science seems to offer. The commandments about sexual purity reflect that, believing that sexual expression ought to be confined to marriage because it is the ultimate expression of love, and that children ought to be raised by both a man and a woman. Sexual relations are sacred, and any sexual sin desecrates them. This is why we call upon the faithful to abstain from pre or extra marital sexual relations, and will not recognize homosexual relations as anything other than a greivous sin.

On the contrary, morality is always the primary concern of Religion. Our core beliefs have not changed since the death of the last of the apostles. If anything, the concerns of Religion have increased.

Yes, it is a concern of religion, but is not directly part of the topic. The truth is that ALL sexual sin is a grevious sin. Sin is sin, and it must be avoided and for those who fall victim (we all do on some level) the need to repent is there.

That's why I stopped listening to the "Religion is crap" movement...

Actually, it isn't. If we religious people really are right, it's the same God that prohibited homosexuality thousands of years ago that we worship and serve today. Change is not necessarily progress...

When you were married, did you not make a sacred promise to forsake all others as committment to your wife? This means that you have covenented to refrain from sexual relations with other women, no matter how tempting they are. The same principle applies here. We are forbidden homosexual relations, and required to forsake these temptations and expected to find a spouse of the opposite sex to make suich covenent with.

So you're saying that homosexuality is a genetic disorder like down syndrome? I refuse to buy that. But I do suspect that the more you delve into genetics, it becomes more likely that you will find various things in genetics that make all forms of temptation more difficult to resist, be it sexual, substance abuse, aggression...

This part is not far from Christianity. In the book of Genesis states that during Creation, it was said that it is not good that man should be alone.

Actually, this is where we differ. When Adam and Eve were cast out of the Gerden of Eden, they were commanded to go forth be fruitful and multiply. This command has been in force to all their posterity. Since homosexual relations do not on their own produce this result, they are forbidden.

Our physical bodies are governed by our genetics, but genetics do not govern the decisions we make. It makes certain temptations more difficult to resist, but resistance IS possible. The temptation is not a choice, but acting on it is.

I understand that part, but it does not follow that the two recessive genes will cause people to have sex with those of the same gender...

That's what I mean by saying that homosexual behaviour is a choice.

That wasn't my point. It just means that people who don't think there's a problem with these things won't have any reason to resist. It's negligence on those who are required to teach them. But it does lend credence to the choice side of the arguement, Thanks Fel.

And reactions to a chemicals is unique to the individual. This varies with alcohol, tobacco, or pheeremones. Some find substances like alcohol or tobacco or drugs more addictive than others. just like the buzz is different. A person releases the same pheremones, just the responce is defferent in various people exposed to them...

So the differences are in wording. One person calls it a genetic circumstance, others call it temptation...

But doesn't that lust also override the socialization of people that are so strongly tempted? It all boils down to choice...

 

Yes, acting on your desire for someone is a choice. However, it is only a bad thing if you consider it a temptation, and the bulk of people who consider homosexuality a temptation are those whose religion teaches them that. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with homosexuality (aside from the bible's prohibition on it), so I believe that it is wrong to condemn those who are acting on their desires. Their desires just happen to be different from most, which does not, and should not, bother me.

 

Again, we come back to the fact that the ONLY tangible reason why you are crusading that homosexuality is an immoral sin is that you read about it in a book that was probably written thousands of years ago by some mysterious person or people. So you are trusting a statement in an old book over the actual experiences of real people like Nakia. Sorry, but that I'll take Nakia's real life experience and wisdom over that any day. At least she is talking about something real that I can understand. My mind is not clever enough to make the leap of faith required to take the words in the old book first. I envious that you are able to so easily see the sense in those old words.

 

So basically only the aethiests are the only ones who get the right to say anything without being ridiculed. Meanwhile, I keep hearing the people that say it is not a choice claim that it is a genetic defect. No wonder so many homosexuals don't like their lot--they are fiorced to choose between being called sinners or genetically flawed...

 

Actually, I think we are all being ridiculed equally and without prejudice.

No, I don't think they should be classed as either. I call them people. If one of them murders someone or rapes someone or robs someone, then they become a sinner in my eyes. Don't get me wrong - there is plenty of stuff in the Bible that makes perfect sense. For example, Thou Shalt Not Steal is a bloody good rule. It's the one about homosexuals being sinners that I find hard to understand.

 

Who said it's a flaw?

Can you really come up with any reason *not* Bible-related that makes it a flaw? Why should anyone besides the religious classify it as such?

 

Damn, but you guys from Oceania are right on the money today.