Intersexuality

[MachZer0]

You think in this day and age doctors and scientists would be able to tell the difference between boys and girls. Sadly there seem to be some still confused. Anything to push the homosexual cause.

I think a more important question here would be is it ethical to exploit those unfortunate enough to have been born with male and female characteristics in order to promote an unrelated agenda

 

[MachZer0]

<quote removed bystaff>
And what does that have to do with homosexuals getting married?

 

[reverend B]

And what does that have to do with homosexuals getting married?

no worries. i never thought you would engage the issues here.

 

[MachZer0]

And what does that have to do with homosexuals getting married?

no worries. i never thought you would engage the issues here.

I see.. It has nothing to do with homosexual marriage. Thank you.

 

[MachZer0]

<quote removed bystaff>
Sorry, but I view your post, like the OP, is exploiting these people to push a homosexual agenda. Especially since you won't say what is has to do with homosexuals. Have a great day.

 

[MachZer0]

<quote removed bystaff>

And yet it is the topic here, per the OP. So we need to know what intersexed people have to do with homosexual marriage, other than exploitation .

 

[Waiting for the Verdict]

http://www.isna.org/faq/marriage

THe leading intersexual organization in the country sees that the issues are related. Who am I to disagree?

 

[Arnold_Philips]

Intersexed people and the fact of their existence is one of the strongest arguments against reactionary and bigoted thinking. Unlike homosexuals, their biological condition is plain and demonstrable, and it is a stumbling block for anyone that wishes to push gender roles onto people.

 

[Arnold_Philips]

I think a more important question here would be is it ethical to exploit those unfortunate enough to have been born with male and female characteristics in order to promote an unrelated agenda

It is definitely a queer issue. No exploitation whatsoever.

 

[Waiting for the Verdict]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/igm_circ.htm

Charles Colson's lovely theory about intersexuality. And no, I can't post a link to it cause Colson took it down.

 

[Bombila]

The biological reality of intersexuality is easier to demonstrate than the likely biological reality of homosexuality. It's impossible to ignore biology when looking at someone with one ball and one ovary, for example - not very realistic suggesting to them that if they just accept Christ they can change.

Homosexuals, on the other hand, bear no outward or chromosomal signs that they are different from heterosexuals. Studies have indicated that homosexuality is likely based in biology:

Studies that I am aware of:

1. Brain scans indicate differences between homosexual and heterosexual men, but those who believe the behaviour is chosen will argue that the changes may occur as a result of homosexual behaviour.

2. More interesting to me, a study which suggests that the more male children a woman has, the more likely it is that one of the younger males will be homosexual. I would like to see this study expanded upon (and sorry, I can't find it at the moment, read it in a newspaper, I think, some time ago). {off topic, sorta, pure, unscientific speculation: The implications, if the study's numbers are confirmed, might even suggest an evolutionary benefit of homosexuality. We have been a farming species for a very long time. There was surely a familial benefit to having sons in large extended farm families who are unlikely to marry or leave home.}

So I don't see how people opposed to homosexuality can even address this topic, but one hopes some of them might be curious enough to read some of the information, and just maybe consider that if biologically intersexed people exist, then biologically homosexual people also exist.

(Man was this post convoluted: sorry, people.)

 

[Waiting for the Verdict]

The biological reality of intersexuality is easier to demonstrate than the likely biological reality of homosexuality. It's impossible to ignore biology when looking at someone with one ball and one ovary, for example - not very realistic suggesting to them that if they just accept Christ they can change.

Homosexuals, on the other hand, bear no outward or chromosomal signs that they are different from heterosexuals. Studies have indicated that homosexuality is likely based in biology:

Studies that I am aware of:

1. Brain scans indicate differences between homosexual and heterosexual men, but those who believe the behaviour is chosen will argue that the changes may occur as a result of homosexual behaviour.

2. More interesting to me, a study which suggests that the more male children a woman has, the more likely it is that one of the younger males will be homosexual. I would like to see this study expanded upon (and sorry, I can't find it at the moment, read it in a newspaper, I think, some time ago). {off topic, sorta, pure, unscientific speculation: The implications, if the study's numbers are confirmed, might even suggest an evolutionary benefit of homosexuality. We have been a farming species for a very long time. There was surely a familial benefit to having sons in large extended farm families who are unlikely to marry or leave home.}

So I don't see how people opposed to homosexuality can even address this topic, but one hopes some of them might be curious enough to read some of the information, and just maybe consider that if biologically intersexed people exist, then biologically homosexual people also exist.

(Man was this post convoluted: sorry, people.)

I've also heard of studies (sorry I don't have links) that posit a hormonal theory of homosexuality, rather than a genetic one. Personally, I hope the genetic theory turns out to be true, because it seems to me that it would be harder for homophobic scientists to alter embryos genetically, than to alter them hormonally. But I'm certainly no expert on this stuff (sorry, former creationist )

 

[Bombila]

I've also heard of studies (sorry I don't have links) that posit a hormonal theory of homosexuality, rather than a genetic one. Personally, I hope the genetic theory turns out to be true, because it seems to me that it would be harder for homophobic scientists to alter embryos genetically, than to alter them hormonally. But I'm certainly no expert on this stuff (sorry, former creationist )

I've read that theory as well, but as far as I know, there's not much to support it, and certainly hormonal therapy for adult homosexuals has been unsuccessful.

 

[MachZer0]

http://www.isna.org/faq/marriage

THe leading intersexual organization in the country sees that the issues are related. Who am I to disagree?

So are we to understand that all intersexuals are homosexuals?

 

[Waiting for the Verdict]

Mach, where did you get that from? No, intersexuals are arguing that the language used in most of these marital amendments "Marriage between one man and one woman" is too restrictive, since the govt. never defines what constitutes a 'man' and a 'woman'. Thus, intersexuals are left in legal limbo if such laws go into place.

 

[MachZer0]

Mach, where did you get that from? No, intersexuals are arguing that the language used in most of these marital amendments "Marriage between one man and one woman" is too restrictive, since the govt. never defines what constitutes a 'man' and a 'woman'. Thus, intersexuals are left in legal limbo if such laws go into place.

So, then, once again, what does that have to do with homosexuals?

 

[SimplyMe]

I've also heard of studies (sorry I don't have links) that posit a hormonal theory of homosexuality, rather than a genetic one. Personally, I hope the genetic theory turns out to be true, because it seems to me that it would be harder for homophobic scientists to alter embryos genetically, than to alter them hormonally. But I'm certainly no expert on this stuff (sorry, former creationist )

Strangely, I think it might be easier for them to alter homosexuality if there are no genetic markers than if there are. Since the "fix" would likely need to be done before hormones made the individual homosexual, they would need some type of indicator to know that for this child they need to give the hormones -- and giving hormones to those that do not need it could lead to serious birth defects including (but not limited to) genital defects and cancer.

Much of the initial work on this theory was done by Günter Dörner, unfortunately I'm having trouble finding his studies on the web.

I've read that theory as well, but as far as I know, there's not much to support it, and certainly hormonal therapy for adult homosexuals has been unsuccessful.

I'm not quite sure what theory you are talking about here? If it is about the hormones causing homosexuality, there is a fair amount of evidence, with the problem being that it would be inhumane to attempt testing these theories on humans. In fact, one recent study even suggested that aspirin taken by a mother during pregnancy could cause the baby to be gay (aspirin acts as a male hormone inhibitor). There is also recent evidence that various environmental pollutants (some of which act as an estrogen) are causing homosexuality, intersexuality, and transsexuality among some animals.

Realize, however, that the theories show that the hormones causing homosexuality occur during fetal development and sets the sexual orientation of the person. As such, hormone therapies for adults (or even for children) are ineffective, as the orientation is already set.

 

[SimplyMe]

So are we to understand that all intersexuals are homosexuals?

That depends on an individual's viewpoint. If someone is born with a ball, does that make him/her homosexual if "she" has sex with men? Or, if "he" has an ovary does it make "him" homosexual to have sex with women. There appear to be many that believe it does.

 

[CCGirl]

I am interested in what, if anything, is known about homosexuality that seems to "run" in people's families? I have a friend who is a fundie, she has 3 generations of homosexuals in her family, of course, these people have been shunned by the family group, sadly. So, there is an Uncle (who was married, had 2 kids, now is married to a man), then she has 2 cousins who are also gay, they are all related through her father and his 2 brothers. Is there any evidence of this type of thing happening?

 

[Mling]

So, then, once again, what does that have to do with homosexuals?

Absolutely nothing. That's the point. This entire thread has nothing to do with homosexuals.

Earlier, you said this:

I think a more important question here would be is it ethical to exploit those unfortunate enough to have been born with male and female characteristics in order to promote an unrelated agenda

If this is true, then STOP DOING IT! This thread is not about homosexual marriage or sexual orientation--or, it wasn't until you and TwinCrier started dithering about such things. It is, or was, about a medical issue and the confusing legal situations it produces. Please stop twisting the conversation to pursue your own agenda, and then tearfully bemoaning the fact that it is being twisted.