Mass. SJC ruling will open pandora's box

Philosoft said:

Grr. That's not how legitmate questions are normally answered.

Click to expand...

What can I say... I'm unconventional.

I don't know what our rather miniscule age difference has to do with this.

Click to expand...

Ah, yes... just noticed the age difference. I thought you were around 20. Anyway, age and memory retention...

What I remember, albeit vaguely, is realizing I wasn't attracted to boys. I don't know if there was a single defining moment or not; I doubt it. I know, however, it wasn't a binary choice of whom I wished to be attracted.

Now you, please.

Click to expand...

There wasn't a single revealing moment for me either, but I do remember questioning the 'natural order of things' when I was a very young child. Perhaps that was prompted when an older boy in the neighborhood made advances towards me and used to tell us younger children how homosexuality was natural (though, as far as I know, he didn't sexually abuse any of the children). Though it wasn't appealing to me, I remember questioning and exploring my sexual identity then. Though I'd always been attracted to the opposite sex I remember that occasion being the one time when I was exposed to a different idea. I wonder how many people that are gay went through that experience and 'found' something appealing about the same sex.

Example. Have you ever found a girl unappealing to you? Were you completely unattracted to her? Did you ever have her grow on you though, perhaps even reconsider the way she looks and suddenly find her quite appealing? Not sure if you're following me, but I know I've done that.

One other thing since, from what I've gathered, you believe homosexuality is not a choice and therefore shouldn't be a sin since the urging is a natural one..... What about straight men, like you and I, finding a married woman completely attractive....let's say we even fall in love with them. Does that mean it is perfectly okay for us to pursue them? As a Christian I find that a very bad sin, though it doesn't change the fact that I've been attracted to married women before. It is, after all, not by my own choice but simply because I've been programmed to like women. So why should I consider my attraction to a married woman a 'wrong' one?

jameseb said:

There wasn't a single revealing moment for me either, but I do remember questioning the 'natural order of things' when I was a very young child. Perhaps that was prompted when an older boy in the neighborhood made advances towards me and used to tell us younger children how homosexuality was natural (though, as far as I know, he didn't sexually abuse any of the children). Though it wasn't appealing to me, I remember questioning and exploring my sexual identity then. Though I'd always been attracted to the opposite sex I remember that occasion being the one time when I was exposed to a different idea. I wonder how many people that are gay went through that experience and 'found' something appealing about the same sex.

Click to expand...

I'm having trouble understanding how this entails a choice as we commonly define it. Do you think at that point homosexuals-to-be consider men and women equally attractive and are basically flipping a mental coin?

Example. Have you ever found a girl unappealing to you? Were you completely unattracted to her? Did you ever have her grow on you though, perhaps even reconsider the way she looks and suddenly find her quite appealing? Not sure if you're following me, but I know I've done that.

Click to expand...

Sure, but that always entails additional knowledge. It's not something than happens minute-to-minute.

One other thing since, from what I've gathered, you believe homosexuality is not a choice and therefore shouldn't be a sin since the urging is a natural one..... What about straight men, like you and I, finding a married woman completely attractive....let's say we even fall in love with them. Does that mean it is perfectly okay for us to pursue them? As a Christian I find that a very bad sin, though it doesn't change the fact that I've been attracted to married women before. It is, after all, not by my own choice but simply because I've been programmed to like women. So why should I consider my attraction to a married woman a 'wrong' one?

Click to expand...

That's a good example because it illustrates the seemingly arbitrary foundation of homosexuality-as-sin. I know if I pursue an otherwise-involved woman, I'll end up directly upsetting/hurting at least one other person by virtually necessary consequence of the act of adultery. Thus, I am empathetic towards the other guy in addition to possibly considering adultery a sin. As far as I can tell, homosexuality carries no such consequence solely as a result of its existence.

drfeelgood said:

Volos:

I don't think the issue is whether the decision to be homosexual is a choice you can make.

What MATTERS is that acting on homosexuality is a choice you can well avoid, and THAT is what God is going to hold you accountable for my friend.

On the Judgement Day God will not care what your excuses or justifications are for your behaviour. He won't be interested in your eisegesis or atheistic worldly views. God will reiterate that He does not tempt you beyond that which you are able.

Your day is coming, and no weak arguments hanging on flaws in others posts, or any twisted thesis' are going to hold water on that Day, not that I think they hold any water here either.

That day is going to be awesome, isn't it, and it's coming right quick. Amen.

Click to expand...

AMEN thats good stuff there folks.

drfeelgood said:

I don't think the issue is whether the decision to be homosexual is a choice you can make.

Click to expand...

I'm a bit confused about this statement. How can a decision not be a choice you make? Doesn't a decision directly imply that there is a choice to be made?

Mac6yver said:

Nope, your science appears good on the surface, but it is flawed. You do know that there is a "Fat Gene" that predisposes certain people to be over weight. This does not necessarily mean that they will be fat, only that they have the disposition to be fat. There are identical twins that are both fat and skinny. Many genes are like this. The human Genome has been mapped, that is over 30,000 human genes. Yet we have only determined what a fraction of them actually do. Literally a fraction.

Anyways, roughly 50% of identical twins who have one of the pair gay are both gay. 50%, that is a much higher percentage then just regular brothers and sisters where one is gay but the other is not. Anyways, hee are some links for you on the Human Genome and Homosexual identical twins:

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/genome/thegenome/hg02n004.html
http://www.fact-index.com/g/ge/genetic_basis_for_homosexuality.html#Twin%20Studies

Click to expand...

You said that there is a fat gene that predisposes certian people to be over weight,but dosent necssairly mean they will be fat but could be.
Ok so if there is a gay gene that wouldnt mean the person would turn out gay either.Come on your just fishing now.
You can belive what you want,ive done my part,because ultimitly it will be between you and god.Hes the one in the end you will have to answer to not me,i was just trying to save you some trouble in the long run.So good luck.

trunks2k said:

I'm a bit confused about this statement. How can a decision not be a choice you make? Doesn't a decision directly imply that there is a choice to be made?

Click to expand...

Actually, that's really bad wording on my part to be honest.

PatrickM said:

Why not? Are you saying all gay relationships are platonic?

Click to expand...

Certainly not. Nor should they be.

Where in the world did you find this??? Can you name any reputable commentaries which point this out??

Click to expand...

Pretty much any freshman socioloigy textbook will tell you until recent history almost all marriages were arranged, and most still are in over half of the world. Some fundamentalist cults are also starting doing it and citing Biblical reasons for it.

drfeelgood said:

I wanted to throw in this point here and other similar threads when I think about evil and those that rise to it's defense...

"Birds of a feather flock together".

Ponder that, if you would....

Click to expand...

If you are talking about those here who band together to promote and defend discrimination than I am in complete agreement with you though I personally would not use the word ‘evil’.

brinley45cal said:

If homosexuaility were truly genetic,it would be eveident in identical twins,since they share the same DNA.Ifone twin is gay, then the other should be as well.

Click to expand...

Other posters have indicated research suggests at least 50% of the time they are. It's probably higher with samples extending across more diverse cultures.

Science will never be able to link genetics with homosexuality because a gay lifestyle was not Gods natural intent for the human body.In Romans 1:26-27 Paul labels homosexuality as an act against nature.

Click to expand...

Paul was a tentmaker, not a sociologist. Your premise doesn't follow.

Psycho-social explanations rveal that homosexuality is largely a matter of conditioning.

Click to expand...

No reputable social scientist believes that.

Our thinking and behaviors are largely based on our experience and environments.

Click to expand...

Among other things which are innate.

It is a terrible thing to attempt to blame birth as a cause to sin.

Click to expand...

I don't believe anyone here is doing that. However, there is disagreement about what is sinful and what is not.

Can anyone give me the unbiased scientific proof there's a gay gene? I've seen the "gay gene" term thrown around a lot over the past two years but have yet to see the evidence, along with how long the scientific study was conducted. If there are going to be assertions here at CF regarding this specific gene, it should be provided as a basis of discussion.

If not, then I can only assume that the opinions expressed here are simply that. Opinions.

drfeelgood said:

Volos:

I don't think the issue is whether the decision to be homosexual is a choice you can make.

Click to expand...

But that has been the issue discussed for quite a number of pagers in this thread. And it remains the issue.

If sexual orientation is an inborn and immutable trait like eye color or right or left handedness then the supposed moral component of the anti-gay front becomes much more difficult to defend. (not that it has a good defense in the first place) As long as those advocating discrimination can pretend that sexual orientation is a choice then they are able to pretend that they are motivated by something other than personal prejudice.

What MATTERS is that acting on homosexuality is a choice you can well avoid, and THAT is what God is going to hold you accountable for my friend.

Click to expand...

First: you are not my friend. You have never expressed anything to me that was not based in fear, hate or contempt. Doing so and then pretending friendship is simply hypocritical.



Second: Your God is not my God. Unconditional love is part of the Divine beings I believe in. Unconditional love is just that, without condition. While I certainly believe that your God’s love is also unconditional it is the result of those who wish personal power and ego gratification that have falsely placed the demands that gays and lesbians either pretend to be heterosexual or demand that they live lives of isolation and fear.

On the Judgement Day God will not care what your excuses or justifications are for your behaviour. He won't be interested in your eisegesis or atheistic worldly views. God will reiterate that He does not tempt you beyond that which you are able.

Click to expand...

Atheistic?

Your day is coming, and no weak arguments hanging on flaws in others posts, or any twisted thesis' are going to hold water on that Day, not that I think they hold any water here either.

Click to expand...

As is your day. when you meet the Goddess and I believe she will ask you why when you saw love did you respond with hate?



Not that she will reject you in any way but you might want to start thinking of a good answer.

That day is going to be awesome, isn't it, and it's coming right quick. Amen.

Click to expand...

If I ever have the opportunity to meet your God I expect he will apologize for the behavior of his followers

Blindfaith said:

Can anyone give me the unbiased scientific proof there's a gay gene? I've seen the "gay gene" term thrown around a lot over the past two years but have yet to see the evidence, along with how long the scientific study was conducted. If there are going to be assertions here at CF regarding this specific gene, it should be provided as a basis of discussion.

If not, then I can only assume that the opinions expressed here are simply that. Opinions.

Click to expand...

You know, I really don't think it even matters if their is actually a 'gene'...the point is that something has happened to make a person the way they are before they are born. Things happen during gestation that we don't understand and people are effected by it in various ways. Our personalities, our temperaments, our taste in various things, and our sexual persuasions, all take root before we are born.

What terrible, horrible thing would happen if people accepted that instead of insisting its just a choice people make?

Blindfaith said:

Can anyone give me the unbiased scientific proof there's a gay gene? I've seen the "gay gene" term thrown around a lot over the past two years but have yet to see the evidence, along with how long the scientific study was conducted. If there are going to be assertions here at CF regarding this specific gene, it should be provided as a basis of discussion.

If not, then I can only assume that the opinions expressed here are simply that. Opinions.

Click to expand...

I have asked repeatedly for similar evidence showing that homosexuality is a choice (or a matter of how one was raised or any other psychological or sociological or familial trait) and no one has presented any evidence showing this.



There is precious little reliable research into the origins of homosexuality. What little does exist all points to homosexuality along with heterosexuality and bisexuality are inborn traits and not the result of social factors or choice.



Here are a few studies showing that sexual orientation is an inborn trait:





J.A.Y. Hall and D. Kimura identified a relationship between the number of fingertip ridges on men and their sexual orientation. They compared the number of ridges on the index finger and thumb of homosexual and heterosexual men and found that the number and structure of ridges on the fingertips of homosexual men were markedly different than the ridges found on the fingertips of heterosexual men. This is a particularly interesting finding, because fingerprints are fully developed in a fetus before the 17th week of pregnancy, and do not change thereafter. This would show that sexual orientation is pre-determined before birth, perhaps at conception or at the very least by the end of the 4th month of pregnancy.

J.A.Y. Hall & D. Kimura, "Dermatoglyphic Asymmetry and Sexual Orientation in Men", Behavioral Neuroscience, Vol. 108 #6, 1994-DEC, P.1203-1206.





Ray Blanchard studied families in which there is a male child with a homosexual orientation. He found that a gay man is more likely to have older brothers than older sisters. He found that the probability that a male child will grow up as a homosexual increases by about 33% for each older brother that he has. Blanchard suggests that this effect may be caused by an immune response within the mother during pregnancy.

R. Blanchard, "Fraternal birth order and the maternal immune hypothesis of male homosexuality," Hormones & Behavior, 2001, 40, Pages 105 to 114.



Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard studied the sexual orientation of male siblings raised together since birth. They found that in identical twins if one was homosexual then the chance of their sibling being homosexual was 52%. This correlation is much higher than the coloration of twins in relationship to type I diabetes. This result was identical for twins raised together and for twins separated and raised by different families.

Non-identical twins are no more likely to be homosexual than any other same gendered sibling. Bailey, J. M., & Pillard, R. C. (1991). A genetic study of male sexual orientation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 48, 1089-1096.



Qazi Rahman studied groups of homosexual and heterosexual men and women and found significant differences in an involuntary response to being startled with bursts of loud noises. This is formally called "prepulse inhibition" or (PPI). Subjects were exposed to a low level noise, followed by a strong noise. Researchers measured the strength of the involuntary eye-blink responses. These data were then compared to similar strength measurements taken after exposure to a loud noise without the preceding low level noise. The lower the response, the stronger the level of inhibition. "The reaction of the lesbian test subjects was closer to that which would be expected among straight men. And, gay men reacted closer that of women, although to a lesser extent."

They found that the average PPI was:

40% for heterosexual men

32% for gay men

13% for heterosexual women

33% for lesbains

Startle responses is known to be an involuntary response rather than learned reaction. It controlled by the limbic system, a region of the brain that also controls sexuality. Qazi Rahman, said: "The startle response is pre-conscious and cannot be learned...This is very strong evidence that sexual orientation may be 'hard-wired' in this region" of the brain. The researchers claimed that "this study offers the first independent evidence of a non-learned neurological basis for sexual orientation." Dr. Rahman said: "These findings may well affect the way we as a society deal with sexuality and the issues surrounding sexual orientation."

Sexual Orientation Related Differences in Prepulse Inhibition of the Human Startle Response" Qazi Rahman Behavioral Neuroscience magazine, 2003-OCT, published by the American Psychological Association.

Volos said:

I have asked repeatedly for similar evidence showing that homosexuality is a choice (or a matter of how one was raised or any other psychological or sociological or familial trait) and no one has presented any evidence showing this.

Click to expand...

I'll give you two.

Two of my coworkers who were formely gay and now are straight. Did a gene run amock? No. It was by choice.

jameseb said:

I'll give you two.

Two of my coworkers who were formely gay and now are straight. Did a gene run amock? No. It was by choice.

Click to expand...

Not exactly scientific proof...what about the people who live as heteros only to realize later that they are gay? While some people may 'choose' to experiment sexually that is not an indication of their sexual identity.

flicka said:

Not exactly scientific proof...what about the people who live as heteros only to realize later that they are gay? While some people may 'choose' to experiment sexually that is not an indication of their sexual identity.

Click to expand...

LOL, then what do you call it exactly? They were gay....they --chose-- to become straight. That's a choice, that's an example that was asked for. That's more than you've been able to provide for this so-called 'gay gene,' no? What about those who engage in sex at all? Do they have a 'not interested' gene? I'm not attempting to be sarcastic, just pointing out what I deem to be a ridiculous idea.

jameseb said:

LOL, then what do you call it exactly? They were gay....they --chose-- to become straight. That's a choice, that's an example that was asked for. That's more than you've been able to provide for this so-called 'gay gene,' no? What about those who engage in sex at all? Do they have a 'not interested' gene? I'm not attempting to be sarcastic, just pointing out what I deem to be a ridiculous idea.

Click to expand...

I presume you mean What about those who Do NOT engage in sex at all?

It wouldn't be a gene, per se, but it's definitely chemically related, so whatever orchestrates our chemical make-up would be the factor. Testosterone... estrogen... high levels, unbalanced levels, or low levels... and that guides the drive accordingly.

jameseb said:

LOL, then what do you call it exactly? They were gay....they --chose-- to become straight. That's a choice, that's an example that was asked for. That's more than you've been able to provide for this so-called 'gay gene,' no? What about those who engage in sex at all? Do they have a 'not interested' gene? I'm not attempting to be sarcastic, just pointing out what I deem to be a ridiculous idea.

Click to expand...

I thought people were asking for evidence and proof...not examples like 'i know this guy'..lol

I never said their was a gay gene anyway, but I do believe its inborn..whatever the cause.

If a homosexual could just choose to be straight I think there would be alot more evidence to support that. Groups that try to 'recondition' homosexuals thru various type of therapy do not have much success and thats working with people who WANT to change!!!! No, you can't just wake up tomorrow and say "I think I'll be straight" any more than you could say "I think I'll be gay". Sure, you can physically have sex with anyone of any gender..that IS a choice. But (unless your bisexual) your attraction, your desire and your sense of self will always be with just one or the other.