Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > 3 Down, 47 Left To Go

3 Down, 47 Left To Go
Thread Tools
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2009, 02:31 PM
 
I thought I would post this article just to stir up the waters some more on the issue of gay marriage.
Iowa Court Voids Gay Marriage Ban

Needless to say, I am pleased by this decision by the Iowa Supreme Court and envision the day when the US Supreme Court comes to a similar decision based on the precedent that "equal protection before the law" truly applies to everyone*. I think the SCOTUS will address this issue and come to a similar conclusion in about 30 or 40 years. (It took decades for the court to decide Separate But Equal was in fact not equal in regards to equality of racial identity so I envision a couple more decades before the SCOTUS decides Separate But Equal is not equal in regards to equality of sexual identity.)


*Before anyone starts in with the arguments about whether or not "equal protection before the law" should apply to pedophiles or animal-lovers, tell me whether or not you think young children and/or animals, especially animals, can provide consent to adult-child or human-animal relations. If you think young children or animals have the mental capacity to consent to sexual relationships with adults you've got bigger problems than your concern for pedophiles and beastialists.




Of course, I would prefer that long-term all references to marriage be removed from our laws and all aspects of marriage be determined exclusively by the rightful guardian of such practices, religious organisations. But this move in Iowa is a step in the right direction. I figure that eventually a large number of states will allow gay marriages resulting in religious institutions finally realising it is to their advantage to promote marriage as the religious-only institution it always has been by asking government to get out of the "marriage" business altogether and issue only civil licenses. This way the term marriage could retain its sacred connotations and those who oppose gay marriage can be assured that only a small number of actual gay marriages will be performed by religious institutions while civil unions will be performed for all couples, gay and straight, by secular institutions.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2009, 02:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
Of course, I would prefer that long-term all references to marriage be removed from our laws and all aspects of marriage be determined exclusively by the rightful guardian of such practices, religious organisations.

This is exactly where I'm coming from, but am reaching the conclusion that making our laws recognize it more won't help achieve that goal.

To put it another way, we've been doing it wrong all along, why pile on?
( Last edited by subego; Apr 3, 2009 at 02:53 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2009, 02:49 PM
 
Here's my complete argument from the other thread.

I eagerly await someone to challenge it, especially if I'm wrong.
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2009, 03:18 PM
 
Geez, my state lifted the ban in 03, what the hell is taking the rest of the country so long?
     
dcmacdaddy  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2009, 04:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Here's my complete argument from the other thread.

I eagerly await someone to challenge it, especially if I'm wrong.
To be honest I didn't reply to that post because I found your arguments convoluted and confusing. Sorry!


As for my take on the matter, I don't think the government should be concerned at all with the "sexual behaviors" (stupendousman's term for the choices we make in how we act on our fundamental, sexual identities) human engage in.* This is not to say that the government shouldn't be concerned about the welfare of children, I just don't think the government needs to concern itself with the sexual behavioral aspects of how children are conceived and produced. If the government's concern is for the children, it needs to focus on the children and not on how the children are brought into the world.**
(In other words, the government should be concerned about the welfare of a child whether it was conceived by a married opposite-sex couple, un-married opposite-sex couple, married or un-married opposite-sex couple using a surrogate, or married or un-married same-sex couple using a surrogate. How the child was brought into the world should be irrelevant to the government. Once it is brought into the world and cared for, or not cared for as the case may be, is when I think the government has a concern for the child's welfare.)


*Before anyone decides to suggest that I don't think the government should be concerned about rape or other sex crimes, let me state unequivocally that I think rape *is* a crime and *is* an act of violence. Where I might disagree is whether or not we need separate categories of crimes in the penal code for rape. As far as I am concerned the act of rape is an act of assault and should be treated as such (i.e.: attempted but unsuccessful rape is a misdemeanor assault charge with jail time and/or fines where as successful rape is a felonious assault charge with minimum mandatory jail time and fines) and probably could, and should, be included under the penal code for general assault charges as opposes to a separate category of the penal code.


**Of course, my whole argument rests on the supposition that same-sex couples are just as capable of being parents (either good or bad parents) to children as opposite-sex couples. I know many who opposes same-sex marriage will argue that this assumption is fundamentally flawed due to the belief that opposite-sex parents are the best type of parents to have and same-sex parents are less desirable as a parental unit. But I think a loving two-parent family is best for raising children regardless of the sexual identity of those two parents. And since we disagree on fundamental premises, the debate breaks down at this point as you can't debate the conclusions of an argument with someone who questions the validity of your fundamental assumptions. Then you have to have a whole, separate, preliminary debate to come to some sort of agreement on fundamental principles (if possible) before moving on to debate the specific parameters of those principles.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2009, 04:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
I found your arguments convoluted and confusing. Sorry!

I'm reading the rest of your post now, I just wanted to say up front that this is an entirely fair assessment, and no apologies are necessary.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2009, 05:37 PM
 
The mental traits of those who engage in same sex relationships are what I question. How do you square that with 'normal' instead of deviant behavior? Moral relativism?
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2009, 05:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Moral relativism?
Why is any kind of sexual relationship between two consenting adults a "moral" issue in the first place?

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2009, 05:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
The mental traits of those who engage in same sex relationships are what I question. How do you square that with 'normal' instead of deviant behavior? Moral relativism?

I can square it with a difference in semantics.

I can't square bringing moral relativism into it with semantics though. With so little to go on, I come to darker conclusions.
     
dcmacdaddy  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2009, 08:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
The mental traits of those who engage in same sex relationships are what I question. How do you square that with 'normal' instead of deviant behavior? Moral relativism?
Do you consider homosexual activity to be biologically abnormal and psychologically deviant?
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2009, 08:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
The mental traits of those who engage in same sex relationships are what I question. How do you square that with 'normal' instead of deviant behavior? Moral relativism?
Try genetics. Most homosexuals are born gay. It happens with nearly every advanced organism on our planet. Some organisms stopped differentiating between gender and readily switch between the two. There isn't anything wrong mentally, it has to do with your chromosomes. It also isn't a disease.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2009, 03:02 PM
 
@dcmacdaddy (and others).

As I try to make the argument in the other thread more presentable, I'll fall back to my original (more direct) question from this thread: if you believe the concept of marriage should be stricken from law, how does expanding where the law applies help achieve that goal?
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2009, 04:40 PM
 
Marriage is a concept that preceded Christianity, it also wasn't relegated to only a man and a woman. In some cultures, if a man was caught cheating on his wife, he was forced to marry an animal (dog, goat, chicken, etc.) to shame him. The Greeks and Romans had same sex marriages as well; a culture where age was a more important factor than gender.

Marriage doesn't need to be stricken from the law, it just needs to be separated from religion. You know, how it's supposed to be. As a legal definition of a union between two people, it's fine. People should be allowed to marry. If a religious institution doesn't want to marry them, then don't.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2009, 06:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
The mental traits of those who engage in same sex relationships are what I question. How do you square that with 'normal' instead of deviant behavior? Moral relativism?
What about a hetero relationship where the man and women engage in S&M for sexual pleasure, you going to keep them from raising children too?

You have no right to decide whether or no something is 'normal' we are about as far away from normal as can be achieved at this point.

Also Dolphins and Monkeys engage in homosexual acts, so saying 'it isn't natural' is complete BS.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2009, 09:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Also Dolphins and Monkeys engage in homosexual acts, so saying 'it isn't natural' is complete BS.

Dolphins are predators, who commit gang rape and infanticide.

I see homosexuality as markedly different from gang rape and infanticide, and thus find your argument highly objectionable.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2009, 09:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Marriage is a concept that preceded Christianity, it also wasn't relegated to only a man and a woman. In some cultures, if a man was caught cheating on his wife, he was forced to marry an animal (dog, goat, chicken, etc.) to shame him. The Greeks and Romans had same sex marriages as well; a culture where age was a more important factor than gender.

Marriage doesn't need to be stricken from the law, it just needs to be separated from religion. You know, how it's supposed to be. As a legal definition of a union between two people, it's fine. People should be allowed to marry. If a religious institution doesn't want to marry them, then don't.

Forcing the word to mean something it hasn't meant for more then a millennium seems like a tougher row to hoe than changing the name.

I want homosexuals to have equal rights, and I don't want it to take more time than necessary (unless timeliness means f'ing with the constitution). Do you think it would be faster to (unconstitutionally IMO) force the country to recognize gay marriage, or just start calling marriage a civil union?

Unless you can show how gay marriage is constitutionally sound, and would be quicker than changing the name to civil union, AFAICT, you're making things worse.
( Last edited by subego; Apr 4, 2009 at 09:55 PM. )
     
dcmacdaddy  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2009, 10:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Dolphins are predators, who commit gang rape and infanticide.
And this has f*ck-all to do with anything?!?


Some dolphins "commit gang rape and infanticide" and so do some humans: What does any of this have to do with homosexual behavior in dolphins or humans? You can state that dolphins are another species that engage in same-sex behavior, similar to humans, without it having anything to do with the fact they also "commit gang rape and infanticide". Comparing one aspect of species behavior does NOT means you have to compare other aspects of species behavior. But if you did, you would find that humans (homosexual and heterosexual) are just as capable of committing "gang rape and infanticide" as dolphins.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
dcmacdaddy  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2009, 10:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I want homosexuals to have equal rights, and I don't want it to take more time than necessary (unless timeliness means f'ing with the constitution). Do you think it would be faster to (unconstitutionally IMO) force the country to recognize gay marriage, or just start calling marriage a civil union?

Unless you can show how gay marriage is constitutionally sound, and would be quicker than changing the name to civil union, AFAICT, you're making things worse.
Right now, gay marriage is not Constitutionally sound in terms of specific amendments designed to provide equally of treatment before the law for same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples. The advantage of working to change the Constitution to include sexual identity along with racial identity and sex identity (male or female) is that once it happens at the national level it becomes much easier to "force" reluctant states to allow gay marriages.

I know for many people they don't care whether the government recognises marriages or civil unions but I personally would prefer a chance in terminology. I think the government should recognise civil unions for couples and allow religious organisations to recognise marriages as they see fit. The way I see it, the government would provide civil unions to same-sex and opposite-sex couples for purposes of legal benefits (death benefits, inheritance benefits, medical decision-making, child-care, etc.) and the religious groups would provide a second separate spiritual recognition of the couple's union via a marriage ceremony. But IN NO WAY would I advocate for religious organisations to be forced to perform same-sex marriages if doing so would contravene their religious precepts. Religious organisations must be allowed to decide for themselves how they treat same-sex couples within the context of their religious precepts and doctrines.

In my way of thinking, government recognition comes from civil union. No civil union = no government recognition. Religious recognition would be secondary and optional for the couple but would not be a requirement for government recognition. Couples who wanted to get married in a religious manner without getting a civil union could do so but they would NOT get government recognition of their marriage until they got the civil union. The civil union is what the government needs to care about NOT the marriage.
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2009, 10:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
And this has f*ck-all to do with anything?!?

It has to do with people using semantically ill defined words to make their argument.

This abused by both sides, and isn't helping.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2009, 10:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Marriage is a concept that preceded Christianity...
... by another religion. Besides, so then did polygamy. Who said anything about Christianity?

You'd rather a moral mandate come from the Federal government? Why is it necessary to design Federal policy as a "force" against reluctant States?

Marriage doesn't need to be stricken from the law, it just needs to be separated from religion. You know, how it's supposed to be. As a legal definition of a union between two people, it's fine. People should be allowed to marry. If a religious institution doesn't want to marry them, then don't.
If the only reason government acknowledges "marriage" at all is to bolster some kind of societal health (unless someone's got better ideas why they'd regard it) and it's not working, why not strike it from the record? Just call all unions between two consenting adults a civil union.
ebuddy
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2009, 10:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
The advantage of working to change the Constitution to include sexual identity along with racial identity and sex identity (male or female) is that once it happens at the national level it becomes much easier to "force" reluctant states to allow gay marriages.

I know for many people they don't care whether the government recognises marriages or civil unions but I personally would prefer a chance in terminology. I think the government should recognise civil unions for couples and allow religious organisations to recognise marriages as they see fit.

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I was confused by this from the last thread.

We should (by legal means) "force" states to perform gay marriages, but we should also change the name so that there's no government involvement with marriage?

Further, we should "force" this at a point when 3/4 of Congress and 3/4 of the states are behind it?
     
Captain Obvious
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2009, 11:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Try genetics. Most homosexuals are born gay. It happens with nearly every advanced organism on our planet.--- There isn't anything wrong mentally, it has to do with your chromosomes. It also isn't a disease.
Most? Try all.

Its all a random genetic anomaly. And as we progress scientifically into the arena of gene manipulation that anomaly will inevitably be one some parents will be able to circumvent if they so choose. There's going to be all sorts of genetic screening in the near future and you can bet your ass that will be one of the options at some point.
I think its going to be interesting to see the results of that first batch of IVF parents who get to have a say in their children's sexuality like they did in their sex or hair color. We'll see how much of this PC rhetoric holds up to a reality where being gay is the choice of a parent.

Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2009, 11:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Captain Obvious View Post
Most? Try all.

Its all a random genetic anomaly. And as we progress scientifically into the arena of gene manipulation that anomaly will inevitably be one some parents will be able to circumvent if they so choose. There's going to be all sorts of genetic screening in the near future and you can bet your ass that will be one of the options at some point.
I think its going to be interesting to see the results of that first batch of IVF parents who get to have a say in their children's sexuality like they did in their sex or hair color. We'll see how much of this PC rhetoric holds up to a reality where being gay is the choice of a parent.
I'd say for probably 98% it's genetic, though I couldn't say for sure what the percentage is. Culture can have an effect on someone's sexual identity, we know this from classical Greek and Roman cultures as well as some Native American cultures from northern and central America. One particular meme that seemed to be shared amongst both Greeks and Mayans was that you were considered more of a man if you had sex with other men (pitching, not catching.)

But yes, for the large majority of homosexuals it is pure genetics. It may not be by accident, though, nor an anomaly. It is entirely possible that it is a genetic safeguard. If there are too many of one particular gender, some offspring will be born gay to increase the population of the opposite gender. This has been observed in several species of animals.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2009, 03:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
It is entirely possible that it is a genetic safeguard. If there are too many of one particular gender, some offspring will be born gay to increase the population of the opposite gender. This has been observed in several species of animals.

I'm curious how that would that would increase the population of the opposite gender rather than reduce the overall population.

FWIW, if one were to argue a genetic purpose behind homosexuality, what makes (and has made) the most sense to me is that it's a check on overpopulation.

I think any population of humans more expansive than a hamlet would be overpopulated by nature's standards WRT non-herd mammals.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2009, 03:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
I'd say for probably 98% it's genetic, though I couldn't say for sure what the percentage is. Culture can have an effect on someone's sexual identity, we know this from classical Greek and Roman cultures as well as some Native American cultures from northern and central America. One particular meme that seemed to be shared amongst both Greeks and Mayans was that you were considered more of a man if you had sex with other men (pitching, not catching.)

Would you say there is a definitional difference between the terms "cultural" and "environmental" in this context?

To me, I'd place a lower percentage to be genetic. One could even argue that I place it at 0%, because I think this is more properly described as a "predisposition", while what color your hair is would be "genetic".

As for what role culture plays in how that predisposition manifests itself... I'd say it's low (like maybe 2% ), because the main effect culture is going to have is on how one expresses their sexuality, rather than what their sexuality is.

Note: sexuality should probably be a quote word, like "genetic", "predisposition", "cultural", and "environmental", but I didn't want to go overboard with how important I think semantics is to this discussion.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2009, 08:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
To me, I'd place a lower percentage to be genetic. One could even argue that I place it at 0%, because I think this is more properly described as a "predisposition", while what color your hair is would be "genetic".

As for what role culture plays in how that predisposition manifests itself... I'd say it's low (like maybe 2% ), because the main effect culture is going to have is on how one expresses their sexuality, rather than what their sexuality is.

Note: sexuality should probably be a quote word, like "genetic", "predisposition", "cultural", and "environmental", but I didn't want to go overboard with how important I think semantics is to this discussion.
So, in your opinion, what makes it a "predisposition?" Something triggers that feeling, or action, or whatever you want to call it. IMO, and from what we're learning (although we still have a long way to go), it's a genetic predisposition. People don't just wake up one day and say, "Oh, I think I'll be gay from now on."
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2009, 09:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Try genetics. Most homosexuals are born gay. It happens with nearly every advanced organism on our planet. Some organisms stopped differentiating between gender and readily switch between the two. There isn't anything wrong mentally, it has to do with your chromosomes. It also isn't a disease.
While numerous studies suggest the genetic argument renders a more favorable attitude toward homosexuals, there is very little suggesting that homosexuality actually is genetic. Most experts state that homosexuality is likely a combination of psychosocial/environmental and biological factors, the biological indicators remain mostly undetermined. Your statements; "for probably 98% it's genetic" and "for the large majority of homosexuals it is pure genetics" are entirely contrived.
ebuddy
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2009, 09:58 AM
 
These "most experts" are?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2009, 10:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
These "most experts" are?
Well... Hamer among others. The fact of the matter is that there is no consensus on the definition of homosexuality itself, let alone anything to substantiate how one is gay. To say it is mostly purely genetic and/or 98% genetic is wholly disingenuous if not entirely meaningless. Even staunch advocates of the genetic component to sexual orientation do not deny the strength of psychosocial and environmental factors in its determinants.
ebuddy
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2009, 03:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
So, in your opinion, what makes it a "predisposition?" Something triggers that feeling, or action, or whatever you want to call it. IMO, and from what we're learning (although we still have a long way to go), it's a genetic predisposition. People don't just wake up one day and say, "Oh, I think I'll be gay from now on."

I think it's a genetic predisposition, but that doesn't close the question of how much is predisposition, and how much is due to environment.

The most important difficulty is that since it's a predisposition, the answer to the above question probably varies from individual to individual.
( Last edited by subego; Apr 5, 2009 at 04:13 PM. )
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2009, 05:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think it's a genetic predisposition, but that doesn't close the question of how much is predisposition, and how much is due to environment.

The most important difficulty is that since it's a predisposition, the answer to the above question probably varies from individual to individual.
I agree with you.

I haven't had a lot of time to research ebuddy's statement that Dean Hamer questions whether it's genetic, but a cursory glance shows that his study was done in 1993, and one would think that we've learned a little more about the subject in 16 years.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2009, 05:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Well... Hamer among others. The fact of the matter is that there is no consensus on the definition of homosexuality itself, let alone anything to substantiate how one is gay. To say it is mostly purely genetic and/or 98% genetic is wholly disingenuous if not entirely meaningless. Even staunch advocates of the genetic component to sexual orientation do not deny the strength of psychosocial and environmental factors in its determinants.
From a quick search, Hamer studied the subject in 1993. I think by now we've figured out what homosexuality is, even if we're not sure how one becomes a homosexual or a heterosexual. Everyone that I know, gay or straight, is pretty sure they know which one they are.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2009, 08:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Well... Hamer among others. The fact of the matter is that there is no consensus on the definition of homosexuality itself, let alone anything to substantiate how one is gay. To say it is mostly purely genetic and/or 98% genetic is wholly disingenuous if not entirely meaningless. Even staunch advocates of the genetic component to sexual orientation do not deny the strength of psychosocial and environmental factors in its determinants.

Are we talking about the same Hamer? Didn't he find a mechanism by which homosexuality is inherited through the X-chromosome?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2009, 09:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Are we talking about the same Hamer? Didn't he find a mechanism by which homosexuality is inherited through the X-chromosome?
P. Copeland and D. Hamer (1994) The Science of Desire. New York: Simon and Schuster. "Genes are hardware...the data of life's experiences are processed through the sexual software into the circuits of identity. I suspect the sexual software is a mixture of both genes and environment, in much the same way the software of a computer is a mixture of what's installed at the factory and what's added by the user."

Hamer when asked if homosexuality is solely biological (1995);
"Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."

BTW, read Hamer's work, he never found a gay gene. He found some data suggesting a possible influence of one or more genes on one particular type of sexual preference in one group of people. Seven pairs of brothers did not have the Xq28 genetic marker, yet these brothers were all gay. Xq28 has since been found neither necessary nor a sufficient cause for homosexuality by itself and we've all, but laid eggs in chromosomes since 1993. (slang for we're pretty damned familiar with them at this point and no markers have been found) Period.

Any argument for gay marriage using genetics while readily gobbled up, simply falls flat in light of what is understood of sexuality currently.
ebuddy
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2009, 09:58 PM
 
And you think we've learned nothing about this subject since 1995? There's still a lot to learn, and studies are still being conducted, and will be for years. Hamer's is not the final answer, although you no doubt would like to use it as such, even though you claim to be a supporter of gay rights.

http://www.slate.com/id/2194232/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21309724/
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2009, 10:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
BTW, read Hamer's work, he never found a gay gene. He found some data suggesting a possible influence of one or more genes on one particular type of sexual preference in one group of people. Seven pairs of brothers did not have the Xq28 genetic marker, yet these brothers were all gay. Xq28 has since been found neither necessary nor a sufficient cause for homosexuality by itself and we've all...

Sorry. Semantic tangle. I thought you were saying Hamer claimed homosexuality was solely not biological. Likewise, my regurgitation of Hamer's study was poorly worded.

Judging by what I stated upthread, made before I was familiar with Hamer's work:

"To me, I'd place a lower percentage to be genetic. One could even argue that I place it at 0%, because I think this is more properly described as a 'predisposition', while what color your hair is would be 'genetic'."

Hamer and myself seem to more or less agree.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
...but laid eggs in chromosomes since 1993. (slang for we're pretty damned familiar with them at this point and no markers have been found) Period.

I'm not sure if I come to the same conclusion on this however. I think it's pretty hard to get grant money for research on a political football like this.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2009, 07:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
And you think we've learned nothing about this subject since 1995? There's still a lot to learn, and studies are still being conducted, and will be for years. Hamer's is not the final answer, although you no doubt would like to use it as such, even though you claim to be a supporter of gay rights.
I'm not trying to claim it is exclusively psychosocial or mostly psychosocial or 98% psychosocial/environmental as others are suggesting of genetics. Conversely, am I to assume that because of your vested interest in this issue that you find the potential psychosocial/environmental causes most reprehensible? This is silliness OldMan. With regard to "gay rights", the only thing I've advocated is equal civil rights for same-sex, two-person couples as for opposite-sex, two-person couples. I'm a supporter of civil unions for all as A) I don't see how anyone's marital preference affects me or my marriage and B) I don't see how anyone's marital preference affects society through the "definition" of marriage which has come to mean a life-long commitment you make to one person (formally) at least twice in one lifetime with prenups to protect assets and court orders for visitation rights for the kids produced by that marriage. What I find reprehensible is trying to trump up science to make a case it simply does not.

This study suggests the gene for male homosexuality persists because it promotes, and is passed down through high rates of procreation among gay men’s mothers, sisters, and aunts. It is trying to locate a gene that causes augmented degrees of attraction for males among females. (and subsequently, the recipient offspring males with augmented attraction to males) Considering the fact that the psychosocial findings for homosexuality also show large families, there is a bit of a causal/correlative problem here as usual and by the way... does not even address female homosexuality which has been generally found more psychosocial/environmental.

From the co-author of that study;
Darwin's Puzzle
Camperio-Ciani says the study, in fact, also highlights the importance of individual experiences. In their sample, just 21% of male homosexuals could be accounted for through the maternal immunity or excess homosexual relatives on the maternal side and 79% of the homosexuals remained unexplained. Researchers concede that cultural and social aspects of sexual orientation cannot be denied. For example, there seems to be a kind of male homosexuality mostly directed toward male teenagers that occurs in societies where unmarried men have little or no access to women says LeVay. Most researchers would agree that sexual orientation is more fluid and more responsive to social circumstances in women than in men.

Born gay? Not so much. Interesting "just-so story" at this point though.

Once again I seem to be the only one reading the links provided by others.
From Dr. Alan Sanders, the lead researcher in the study from this link;

No single 'gay gene'
Dr. Alan Sanders of Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Research Institute, the lead researcher of the new study, said he suspects there isn’t one so-called “gay gene.”
It is more likely there are several genes that interact with nongenetic factors, including psychological and social influences, to determine sexual orientation, said Sanders, a psychiatrist.


C'mon OldMan. At least put half as much time in your links as you know I will.
ebuddy
     
Atheist
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back in the Good Ole US of A
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2009, 09:14 AM
 
There is a difference between homosexual behavior and identifying oneself as a homosexual. Lot's of men will engage in homosexual behavior because they are placed in a situation where they don't have access to women. That doesn't make them gay. I think this is where the science gets very murky.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2009, 09:23 AM
 
What makes one (defines one as) gay, identifying oneself as such?

This can be just your opinion and is a serious question.



Like minded question: is bisexuality it's own thing, or is it straight and gay?
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2009, 04:28 PM
 
My take is that Iowa is trying to cover up the fact that we're boring and behind the times (see: South Park) by trying to appear progressive.

My dad thinks all seven judges should be impeached.

My friend is pissed that her Bible Camp co-workers' Facebook statuses show support for the lift.

Another friend had to "quit" Facebook for a while because there was too much intolerance responding to her status.

So much drama.
     
Dakar V
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The New Posts Button
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2009, 04:36 PM
 
Drama? On facebook? Never.
     
kmkkid
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Brantford, ON. Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2009, 07:13 PM
 
So, those of you trying to de-bunk the genetic argument:

How many of you are actually geneticists? Or actually understand anything about genetics other than what you have read on teh intarweb?
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2009, 07:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I

Once again I seem to be the only one reading the links provided by others.
From Dr. Alan Sanders, the lead researcher in the study from this link;

No single 'gay gene'
Dr. Alan Sanders of Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Research Institute, the lead researcher of the new study, said he suspects there isn’t one so-called “gay gene.”
It is more likely there are several genes that interact with nongenetic factors, including psychological and social influences, to determine sexual orientation, said Sanders, a psychiatrist.


C'mon OldMan. At least put half as much time in your links as you know I will.

Have you ever seen me claim there is one single gene that determines whether a person is gay? I didn't think so. Nor have you ever seen me say that it is strictly genetic, but that doesn't stop you from talking at me, to suit your purposes.

In the end, however, I'm not really all that concerned if it is caused by genetics. The facts are that there are several million gay people in the country, and I really don't care how their condition came about, when it comes to the rights I believe they should have. They exist, and they're not going away, and that's the issue we need to learn to deal with. Burying our collective heads in the sand and hoping they will go away, so that we don't have to deal with them, isn't going to work. Nor is screaming about how one's marriage is going to be cheapened if gays are allowed to marry, which is just another specious strawman, which seem to be in abundance when it comes to this issue.
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2009, 09:07 PM
 
how many of you anti gay marriage people know gay people?

and how much are they in your life?

i find it amusing that people are so passionate about keeping 2 people who are in love from getting married... who cares?

and, seriously, i have gay friends who cannot ever be straight no matter how much they try...

last one

to those who think being gay is a choice, that means you have to be vigil being straight all your life... that means you will alway be faced with the choice... that means if you decided to chose homosexual, you could enjoy it...really?
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2009, 09:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
i find it amusing that people are so passionate about keeping 2 people who are in love from getting married...
Unfortunately it is anything but amusing to people who are directly affected.

who cares?
Too many people who should worry about the glass houses they live in.
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2009, 10:29 PM
 
old man

i think you misread my post or i didn't make it clear

i think we should let people, whoever they are, get married.

if freud were here he would say those who have a problem with it have issues with their own sexuality
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2009, 11:34 PM
 
I'm agreeing with you, ironknee.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2009, 12:21 AM
 
People Against Gay Marriage is brought to you by: Confederate Family Insurance. Protecting your family and your property.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2009, 07:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by kmkkid View Post
So, those of you trying to de-bunk the genetic argument:

How many of you are actually geneticists? Or actually understand anything about genetics other than what you have read on teh intarweb?
No one is trying to "debunk the genetic argument" as much as put statements like "I'd say for probably 98% it's genetic" and "for the large majority of homosexuals it is pure genetics" into a more appropriate perspective. You're welcome to avail us non-geneticists of any relevant material you think affirms the above two statements. You're challenging those trying to put the debate into proper perspective while giving a complete pass to those non-geneticists and similarly unknowledgeable laypersons giving the genetic argument. Why, cuz you don't like those pesky facts?

BTW, "teh intarweb" is like... soooo 2002.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2009, 07:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by OldManMac View Post
Have you ever seen me claim there is one single gene that determines whether a person is gay? I didn't think so.
That wasn't the entirety of the statement. But you already knew that.

Nor have you ever seen me say that it is strictly genetic, but that doesn't stop you from talking at me, to suit your purposes.
So... when you said that we've come a long way since Hamer's research on a supposed "gay gene" and cited two links which indicate we've not really gone anywhere since Hamer you were really trying to make the point that ____________________________.

In the end, however, I'm not really all that concerned if it is caused by genetics. The facts are that there are several million gay people in the country, and I really don't care how their condition came about, when it comes to the rights I believe they should have. They exist, and they're not going away, and that's the issue we need to learn to deal with.
I have absolutely no issue whatsoever with this statement. For one, it's true. For another, it's not trying to trump up science to say something it does not. I believe homosexual couples should have the exact same civil rights as straight married couples too, regardless of where the state of any science studying sexuality happens to be today.

Burying our collective heads in the sand and hoping they will go away, so that we don't have to deal with them, isn't going to work. Nor is screaming about how one's marriage is going to be cheapened if gays are allowed to marry, which is just another specious strawman, which seem to be in abundance when it comes to this issue.
Well... see here you go again. I have no clue who you're talking to with this. Get a blog.
ebuddy
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:23 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,