Choices

Remove all ads!

Oceania rules!

 

There are many religions worldwide, with a variety of ideas on marriages, sexuality and morals. So no, just because you happen to be religious does not mean that other religious people would agree with you, and that it is a believers vs non-believers problem.

Unless you choose to ignore other religions, of course.

And atheists can be homophobic as well.

 

First of all Gnarff, if one day you get married you will find out that there is no need for God to tell you that you should foresake all other women. Your wife will make that more than abundantly clear.

Secondly, I think the disconnect here is I get to marry and spend my life with one person of my choice. The reason why your comparison doesn't work is that the person a homosexual wants to marry and spend their life with, they aren't allowed to. So I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison. They can't marry whomever they wish to.

Well, I did state that it was an extremely simplistic comparison, and was likely more to it than the example I gave. I'll give a little more detail, hopefully, it will make more sense.

Here are the problems with the example I gave. It assumes two things that may or may not be true: 1.) That homosexuality does have some basis in genetics. (I can buy that - it seems reasonable enough.) 2.) That homosexuality is controlled by a single gene - kind of like eye color. (I personally don't buy this at all.)

It is far more likely that homosexuality, even if it has its basis in genetics is controlled by the interaction of a great many genes. Let's use another example instead of eye color - like height. Science has identified 7 pairs of genes the determine human height. You get one from each parent so you basically have 14 "height genes". The dominant gives instructions to the body to "grow taller" while the recessive gives instructions to "don't grow taller". So there are, at base 196 "genetic heights" you can get. Then there are other influences on your final height. For example, abundant testosterone makes your "grow taller" genes work more effectively, so men are taller than women. Diet and proper nutrition is also a big factor regarding height which is why people of a couple hundred years ago were so much shorter than people of today.

So you're right in thinking that it isn't as simple as a 1 in 4 chance of two people who each have a recessive gene - it's much more complicated than that.

 

First off, I think the choice issue needs to be cleared up a little more. The original issue that spawned this thread was whether or not homosexuals can be 'justly' persecuted or have laws written against it. The logic was that if this is a genetic factor that they can't control, that they just are that way, we have no right to do anything, whereas if it is something they can control, something psychological, we have the right to concider it, though not neccessarily the right to make it illegal.
From that standing, I would lump psychological issues or things that were learned at early ages in with the 'choice' side, since the law clearly shows we have the right to pass laws against acts caused by such things.
Thus the issue becomes nature (DNA, organic difference, etc) versus nurture (upbringing, socialization, peer pressure, choice, personal preference, etc.).

As for the pheremone issue, most people are only effected by pherimones on a peripheral and temporary level. Pherimones don't cause you to be attracted to someone or to seek out people with certain characteristics, they cause you to be MORE attracted to someone you are already attracted to and reinforce the attraction to the qualities that originally attracted you to that person.
As for prison, the real point is that many of them continue to commit homosexual acts after they leave prison when they didn't beforehand, meaning while it may have been desperation that lead them to the act to begin with, they chose to continue with it, or at least it was more than a genetic factor that caused it to continue.

Sexual attraction is controlled by primarily psychological factors and it has never been conclusively linked to any genes. The fact is, anyone could become attracted to anything (yes, thing) through proper reinforcement. It then becomes a matter of choice as to whether or not they will commit the act.

 

Almost. Pheromones are the step that comes after a person finds someone visually attractive. You got that right.
But the comparabatlity of genes is the ultimate factor for engaging the drive to reproduce. You can find someone "attractive" but do not want to have sex him/her. This is called friendship. The pheromones work there, too.

Visual sexual(!) attraction to a person is triggered by psychological factors. But these are not learned by societal circumstances or by copying other adults.

I think it's biology again. When in puberty, the body starts to react to pheromones (again) exuded by persons of one (or both) sexe(s). In time, the mind learns which sexual orientation the body follows and starts to recognise what criteria are most sexually attractive.
This does not mean that you cannot find people attractive or handsome without getting aroused. That does only mean that they match your visual criteria, but lack something in their genes.

 

Actually, things that I, or anyone else, learned at an early age would fall under the "not a choice" catagory, IMO. I mean, no one chooses their parents or other early influences, so if these influences result in psychologically altering somone so that they become gay, its not something that could have been controlled by the gay person. And as for the law, NOG, could you give some examples of where the law acts against actions that were learned in someone's early youth?

 

The article that someone (I think it was Dendri) linked to said something about their being a difference in the genes, similar to how Down's Syndrome is transmitted.

Ultimately I can only speak for my own. Perhaps I should have claimed that Christain views on this subject were put down because of their source...

The point was that you choose to forsake all others. Similarly, I, as an unmarried person, can forsake sexual contact because I believe that it would be for the best that I not be sexualli active until marriage. Likewise, those tempted to have sex with those of the same gender can choose to forsake that desire if they believe it to be wrong. It will be stressful, but it can (and should) be done.

There are some countries that do allow that. If they don't like it, then can move to a country that does allow it. If they choose to remain, they would be subject to these laws.

A Genetic vulnerability to temptation is not a stretch.

That's why I back the Nature vs Nurture arguement that was introduced earlier. Sure we find that everyone is tempted as such (Someone sited a psychological study, I remember that one from college), and for some that temptation is stronger than in others, but if they are taught, one way or the other, about homosexuality, then that too influences the decision on the sexual partner that they choose.

I say yes. The question is not about desires, but about behaviour. If the government wants that behaviour curtailed, then they can deny rights for people who engage in it, or even criminalize the behaviour (what percentage of countries still criminalize the behaviour?).

The fredom to choose our actions means that having consentual sex with people, regardless of gender, is a choice you make.

You are taught things when you are young. If you follow them when you get older, then you do so because you choose to.

 

I don't think early influences that might influence homosexuality count as things that are "taught". They are more like how you learn how to speak-you don't remember learning the basic vocabulary and grammer of your languenge, but you learned how to speak nonetheless. Furthermore, you don't have a choice in learning to speak, you just absorb the influences of your mother and father speaking naturally.

I'm sorry Gnarf, but that is a ridiculous answer. Just because down's syndrom and homosexuality might both be inherited by a similar genetic phenomenon, doesn't mean that homosexuality is in any way linked to down's sydrom. Its a flawed comparison.

 

This topic has the strangest answers I've seen so far in these boards.
I'll repeat what they tell us in college (again) cause I feel it would help to clarify some things, even if it's not trully "my" opinion.
First thing is, sciences don't like other sciences messing on their affairs. To each his own. That's why we see so much contradictions between a psychological study and a genetic one. Still, if scientists are true to their discipline, they will never go as far as saying "this is the ultimate answer." That article that Dendri posted has a line in which it admits environmental factors to have an influence in homosexuality.
What I've also heard from teachers is that we learn most of our behaviours. We're born with arms and legs, and stuff, and that's all. So I'm pretty sure there must be tons and tons of essays and works on it. But since a definitive answer would never be acquired, why should we read them? Nevermind.
PS: hey, why the HELL do you always bring up god in every discussion we have??? God is a thread highjacker, that's why I don't like him.

 

Not only are they not linked, there really isn't anything similar about them. People with Down's Syndrome have 47 instead of the standard 46 chromosomes. Down's syndrome is a genetic mistake, and people who have it suffer through learning disabilities, and typically a much shorter life span than other people. Gay people still have the same normal compliment of 46 chromosomes, do not have learning disabilities (at least not any more than straight people) and otherwise live their lives the same as everyone else outside their bedrooms.

[ April 05, 2006, 16:25: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

@Fabius:
Where do these visual (and pesonality and other) criteria come from? They are learned, mainly from how society presents members of the opposite sex. If the women in all the commercials are fauning over the fat guy for the nex 50 years, the next generation will grow up concidering fat guys attractive. If the guys are all drooling over pink-haired women in every TV show, movie, magazine, etc for the next 50 years, pink hair will be the next standard of beauty. And by a simple study of the changes in a man's sexual preferences throughout his life, we can usually see vast changes in what he conciders attractive. And this doesn't cover love at all, only a raw physical attraction.

@Deepfae:
I would put it into choice mainly because the person can choose to change it. You can't change you're DNA, but you can choose to re-learn what you learned in childhood.
As for laws that attack learned behaviour, how about abuse? That is almost always a learned behaviour in childhood. How about rape? That is a learned behaviour, usually in later years. These things are illegal because they harm people, but the act is a learned behaviour and it is illegal.

@Liriodelagua:
The American Psychological Association (APA) officially recognizes that people are born with only two instincts beyond basic survival (food, water, avoid harm). These are a fear of falling and a fear of loud noises. How many people that you know jumped on the bed as children, or ride rollercoasters, or like loud music? Even these inforn instincts can be overcome by human choice. This is what truely seperates man from the beasts, not logic, not emotion, but the ability to defy natural instincts and drives, to choose our actions.

 

I would argue that the influences that would cause homoexuality are so ingrained in one's psyche that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to erradicate tp the point where one changes one's orientation to heterosexual. Rapists and abusive people are punishe for their behavior, and are sent to psychiatrists/psychologists in attempt to change their behavior because it is harmful. No one on this board has of yet, however, givien reasons for why homosexuality is harmful. And thats because there is no harm to it, at least as far as anyone can tell. Because this is the case, why should gay people go through the difficult process of attempting to change their orientation (assuming it can be done), if they are perfectly happy with who they are in the first place?

 

First off, the real problem with concidering the potential harm of homosexuality is that any harm it may cause will probably be long-term in development and vast in scope, meaning we may not see anything now, but what if 25 years from now, when children of homosexual couples are coming into the 'adult world', we find out 1/2 of them are sociopaths? I'm not trying to say it will happen, I really don't think homosexual parents create sociopaths, but the idea that the results may not be noticed for a while, and when they are they are large, is the real problem. We can't say if it has any harmful effects on a child to be raised in a homosexual family, in a society that accepts it, nor what the acceptance of such in society would do. As for psychological issues, well, there's still a lot of debate about that, too. All in all, science can't add much at this point, we really don't know enough, so it probably shouldn't be brought into the discussion about homosexual rights.

 

What should be brought into a discussion about homosexual rights? God Said??? In that case let us go back to stoning adulters.

Freud who many consider the founder of Psychotherapy stated as early as 1903 that Homosexuality was not an illness and he repeated it over the years.

Freud believed that people were born bisexual so based on that yes, our sexuality is learned. But so far as I have been able to find there is no any indication that growing up in homosexual family causes the children to be homosexual, quite the contrary so far the 'proof' indicates the percentages stay the same.

Homosexuality has been around for a long, long time. Sometimes accepted, sometimes not. What sticks in peoples craw is that in the 60's they got tired of being kicked, beaten, killed and persecuted in other ways. They got tired of being forced into closets and came out with vengeance. Just like the Blacks got sick of the way they were treated which was also based on something ambiguous in the Old Testament.

 

Meh, Freud. I'd use Jung's anima/animus theory, it seems to make more sense to me.

Man that must screw up the Oedipus complex

 

NOG, you last statement was blatent prejudice and homophobia coming out on the keyboard. It always seems the last resort of the uninformed is to use the "what if" arguments. What a crock. The whole "we don't KNOW" argument is and is extremely hypocritical when coming from the religious viewpoint (after all, you don't KNOW either -- that's why it's called faith).

Religion in general has caused far more harm throughout history than has homosexuality. I don't recall any time a group of homosexuals tortured and executed people because they wouldn't accept their feminine side.

 

Huh? You don't believe this is going to happen, but we should still seek to prevent this? You're making a "just in case" arguement? And you can apply that logic to anything you want to. It doesn't just have to be homosexuals. If we're saying we don't think it will happen, then your statement applies equally well to any given couple. What if, 25 years from now when children of _________ couples are coming into the 'adult world', we find out 1/2 of them are sociopaths? Even though we don't think this will happen we should act to stop it - just in case!

 

What if Christians start another crusade? We can all agree that the crusades were bad. Let's nip this in the bud and outlaw/destroy Christianity.

Sorry but this homophobic religious babble is just sickening.

 

There's an idea. Let's start a crusade to destroy a religion.

Wasn't that the point of the ORIGINAL CRUSADES?

And so we come full circle.

 

Religion is bad. We need to outlaw it in case it becomes a breeding ground for hatred and bigotry.