May ruffle some feathers, but very funny!

[Moses]

Originally posted by BillyPilgrim
Many gay people won’t like the fact that this could lead to homosexuality being classified as a “defect.” Like it or not, this is the direction research is pointing.

Probably more like a "natural variation", like left handedness and a million other congenital variations that our species represents. A "defect" implies an alteration that reduces viability of the affected individual. No such claim can be made of homosexuality. Biologically, homosexuality is a normal variation.

All modern research supports your suggestion that most male gays are homosexual from birth, if not conception. The same models do not support that hypothesis with lesbians. Different story there. Most lesbians report an unfortunate history of an abusive relationship with men, either sexual or emotional.

[island911]

Yep, got to agree with moses a "natural variation" . . .naturally, unnatural.

Though I disagree that homosexuality is a condition. . .seems more of a choice.
yeah yeah, i'm ducking for all of the "do you really think anyone would choose this hell!? -types.
For those, people I'll ask, If you vote, and choose Bush or Kerry . .. are you making a good choice. . .or is either choice, rather hellish?

The point being, I know some men who would choose the problems associated with a homosexual lifestyle rather than "sell-out" their mother. . .. you know, that horrid thing that some men do, when they find a replacement woman/mother called a wife. (how could they? )

There are of course, many other tough choices. The opposite sex can be scary (venus/mars), for example.

At anyrate, whom (or what) people have sex with is kind of interesting. How people try to legitimize it is really something.

[304065]

Homosexuality exists. It doesn't matter WHY it exists as far as is relevant to the intersection of homosexuality and politics.

The following is not intended as a "bait," just an open invitation to be enlightened: Consider what we know about natural selection. If an individual expresses a genetic trait that for whatever reason ends up diminishing the likelihood that that individual will reproduce sexually, then you have the basis for the elimination of that trait over time.

Imagine for a moment the gazelle herds in the African veldt. The "selecting environment" is the presence of predators. Suppose that along the evolutionary path, a gazelle develops a mutation that allows her to run faster than the other gazelles. Barring her catastrophic death by other factors, it's more likely that her genes, including the mutation for speed, will work their way into the next generation, perpetuating the characteristic.

Now consider another mutation that occurs, except this time, the mutation diminishes the reproductive drive of the gazelle. She doesn't reproduce. The trait dies out.

Can someone explain to me how, if homosexuality is a genetically passed on characteristic, it can continue to exist?

And don't start calling me a homophobe, narrow-minded or whatever: I am genuinely interested to know how it can continue to exist in the context of accepted theories of natural selection.

[Moses]

Originally posted by john_cramer
I am genuinely interested to know how it can continue to exist in the context of accepted theories of natural selection.

The answer is not simple. First, congenital conditions are not all genetic in origin. They may be due to hormonal influence or due to a multitude of factors, all biological. Second, deleterious genetic traits are rarely eliminated from the gene pool. We still have Cystic Fibrosis, Tay Sachs, Sickle Cell Anemia and a million other genetic disorders.

What I have gathered from modern research is that male homosexuality is probably multifactorial. A combination of factors interplay with a defined result. Male homosexuals are probably predetermined to be homosexual. It is completely normal for them. The primary point I think is that it does not appear to be a choice any more than my heterosexuality. And it's certainly not a disorder.

[island911]

"does not appear to be a choice" eh moses? So what about pedophiles? . .. adult who are sexually attracted to children; is this a genetic condition from birth?

What about foot fetishes? Bestiality? . . .. Some get turned-on by latex. . . is there a latex attraction gene? What did the latex-genetics do for fun before latex was invented.

Point being, I dont think you can just say; "it does not appear to be a choice" without considering it just may be a choice.

[304065]

I agree that it's not simple. I agree also that conditions like CF, Tay-Sachs and Sickle-Cell anemia do continue to exist: natural selection would imply that to the extent those things have a morbidity effect which would tend to diminish the population over time. E.g. a child stricken with Tay-Sachs disease before sexual maturity won't reproduce and that particular trait ends there. The point about homosexuality is that no morbidity effect is necessary to get you to the endpoint of not reproducing: favoring the same sex IS the endpoint.

Science will probably never know.

Choice is something of a loaded term. I can understand why people would want to suggest that homosexuality is genetic: if you can CHOOSE your sexuality then you are RESPONSIBLE for your sexuality, whereas if you were "born that way" you are divested of having made a volitional choice. Semantics aside I'm more persuaded by the hormonal and environmental explanation.

Again, not that the origin is relevant to the policy discussion (but I said that above.)

[Tishabet]

By the same token, do you consider your heterosexuality to be a choice Island?

[304065]

All right Island, we were having a reasonable discussion there for a minute and you bring up the foot-fetish! Moses' point is that other factors besides genetic ones may contribute to sexuality as being beyond the conscious control of the individual, whether s(he) acts on it or not! The fact that a man may CHOOSE to engage in homosexual activity does not necessarily mean that he prefers the same gender (post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy)

As punishment for bringing up latex I prescribe you the following homework for the weekend: Lawrence v. Texas

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html

[Moses]

Originally posted by island911
"does not appear to be a choice" eh moses? So what about pedophiles? . .. adult who are sexually attracted to children; is this a genetic condition from birth?

What about foot fetishes? Bestiality? . . .. Some get turned-on by latex. . . is there a latex attraction gene? What did the latex-genetics do for fun before latex was invented.

Point being, I dont think you can just say; "it does not appear to be a choice" without considering it just may be a choice.

Interesting point about pedophilia. I don't know. No research done that I'm aware of.

There have even been suggestions that sociopathy is congenital. Hard to know. Not much research. Remember the XYY "supermale" story? XYY males have a higher rate of violent crime commission, but not all XYY males are violent. It's a complex world.

[island911]

Tshabet - what took so long for that question?

Yes, absolutly. . . wouldn't I have to?

Early on, somewhere around the time of "girl-germs" (and all) we all start entertaining ideas of of this thing called sex.
I saw some guys decided "girl-germs" were just too scary, and the strong understandings they had, were established with other guys . . .. just too much to dismiss. (the 'stick to what you know' idea) While others decided they would look in to what seemed at the time, a very strange norm.

Tell me you don't remember the first time you thought, 'you're suppossed to put what, where!? . . . on purpose!?. . . for fun!?'

[nostatic]

Originally posted by BillyPilgrim
So are lesbians ok then?

everyone knows that god loves lesbians

[island911]

are you guys getting cold feet on this topic?
or are ya still pondering? . . driving home?. . .driving to a gay bar?

Originally posted by john_cramer
. . . The fact that a man may CHOOSE to engage in homosexual activity does not necessarily mean that he prefers the same gender (post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy). . .[/url]

hmmm. . .homosexual activity vs homosexual being. You wouldn't be trying to pull a little equivocation out of a hat, would ya?

'Sexual activity with another of the same sex' is certainly not the same as 'Sexual activity with another exclusively of the same sex.'

We have a word for those whom are not too particular about where they get some; bisexual.

I find it interesting, that when it comes to sexual preference, how strongly some demand that they were "born that way."

Many hetero's cling to the "born that way" in a latent homophobic knee-jerk reaction.
Many homo's cling to the "born that way" in a "you must accept me" knee-jerk reaction.

whaddaya gunna do?

[Moses]

I really don't know why this issue gets people so unsettled. I have lots of gay colleagues. Some are good friends. I'm married with three kids. Never had a guy at work hit on me or make me feel uncomfortable. (Could be I'm not very good looking!) Anyway, in my life it's just a great big so what? Why is it a big issue for heterosexuals? Maybe my experience isn't typical.

[lendaddy]

I don't think the majority "choose" though I am posative many do, I couldn't care less. Why is it a big deal to so many? I think it must be a religion thing. I have personally posatively impacted several homophobes with my reasoning, they just don't know. Time will continue to make this less of a "deal". To stir the pot a little, I think they could better their own cause by turning down the flames a little It's the scared little bunny theory.

[island911]

Maybe because the whole "marriage/commitment usurping status" thing. per JC "intersection of homosexuality and politics."

We know that polygamy (or just plain hoarding the women) leads to fighting and wars.
Having gangs of guys going around raping wasn't so peaceful either.

So, way back, society (stemming from "the church" since it was the power at the time) decided to help those, man/woman (venus/mars) type commitments. The church and society gave an elevated social status to those brave enough to commit to pairing . .. .pairing with the intent of choosing one to share sex, and it's results. (offspring)

The guys out in the fields loving their sheep, or other field workers, where seen as not too, eh-em. . . productive.

Now, at this time in history, we have homosexuals Demanding for the same elevated social status, as the brave venus/mars couples struggling to transform their snot-nosed off-spring into a happy, balanced, productive person. A tough job when you have homosexuals justifying there choice, thru recruitment saying "see, even the law says it's okay." (talk about long sentances - sorry)

So, those of you with kids; do you want you children potentially lobbied by homosexuals? It really is the same question as; do you want your kids to have no offspirng of their own?

Sure its no big deal for those other people.

[lendaddy]

Island, I see your point and I should clarify. I think homosexuals should just accept that they are different, hence life will be a little less easy. Hell, there are all kinds of traits people have that stack the cards against them in one way or another, thats life. I am speaking legally here not person to person civilness.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

So what really IS the role of marrage in contemporary society then? My wife and I got married because we happened to love each other and it seemed like the sensible place for our relationship to go. We have no kids and are not planning on any either - so under the system described should we also be "excluded" from the "normal" group and from joining in this institution just because we don't feel like having children? Ridiculous IMO.

Upon reflection, the reasons for our decision seem more societal (epigenetic), not purely genetic (i.e. we don't want to deal with the expense, inconvenience, being kept up all night, etc.) There is also a little bit of the "why the heck would I bring a child into this screwed-up world" as well, but these are all social, rather than genetic factors. Might the same thing be said about a homosexual lifestyle (at least in some cases)?

[304065]

OK thinkers, let's get thinkin!

Here's the issue from a constitutional perspective.

One of the predecessor cases leading up to Roe v. Wade involved whether or not it was constitutional to prohibit the USE of birth control. Prohibition on sale, etc., was a much more black-and-white issue, but it came down to the question of whether or not the court wanted to encourage enforcement of a law that by its very nature would require enforcement activity that extended into THE BEDROOM. Basically, the court said, "The bedroom is a zone of personal privacy, what you do there is entirely your business.

Now, let's roll forward to Island's homework assignment, Lawrence. The majority struck down the Texas anti-sodomy law and overturned its own ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick saying:

Although the laws involved in Bowers and here purport to do not more than prohibit a particular sexual act, their penalties and purposes have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. They seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons.

Justice Scalia, in a dissenting opinion (with Justice Thomas and Chief Justice Rehnquist), said:

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.

So there you have it: the court has thrown the door open. What will be next?

The law was never intended to represent the ceiling for moral behavior, only the floor, below which if an individual sunk s(he) would be subject to penalties to get back in line. The question now becomes, what do YOU choose for yourself?

[island911]

Originally posted by john_cramer
. . .
So there you have it: the court has thrown the door open. What will be next?

The law was never intended to represent the ceiling for moral behavior, only the floor, below which if an individual sunk s(he) would be subject to penalties to get back in line. .. .

Well, IMO, you're almost had it there.

The way I see it; good law is never intended to represent the morals for anything other than community benifit. (not individual level morals, other than when they impact social balance).

That is. . .
Community level: Actions such as bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, and adultery, all undermine society, as we know it.
Where as laws regarding; masturbation, fornication, and bestiality, are not likely to have profound effects on society, as we know it. (Individual level)

Looking at those social underminers:

bigamy: just look at the middle east; a few wealthy take all the desirable women, stranding a large population of men with nothing better to do than pursue the "after-life virgins" (thats sad for all society)

adult incest: pollutes the gene-pool with mutation.

same-sex marriage, prostitution, adultery: all pollute the intitution of marriage.

Civil society is all about having rules (laws) that are "balancing" in nature. . . .that they lead to a balanced society.

Parimount, within that "balance," lay human reproduction and (more importantly) responsibility, for their offspring.

SO, what's next!? . . .I would say that that is tough, as judges and law-makers have cultural and religious (or anti-religious) bias.

geez, what a ramble.

Anyway; I'm just glad to hear that, The liberty protected by the Constitution allows persons the right to choose an ********* of their liking. (paraphrased) oh wait. . .that kinda makes it sound like the decision has to do with the right to find a good lawyer.

btw: shouldn't that have been "So there you have it: the court has thrown the backdoor open." (?)

[island911]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
So what really IS the role of marrage in contemporary society then?

Good question. . . .very few ask that question. Most just know that's the way it is, and Cinderella stories (married and lived happly ever-after).

Marriage is one very established effective way of supporting and prolonging commitment to a nuclear family.

In the absence of marraige we have some real bruttal laws regarding so-called "dead-beat dads."