What science says about homosexuality

[Polycarp_fan]

Could you link a verse that says it was mandated? I have never seen such a mandate and would be interested to see that.

In Matthew 10:

What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs.

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.
"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven."

Of course this was a comission just for Jews at the time.

 

[b&wpac4]

In Matthew 10:



Of course this was a comission just for Jews at the time.

Ah, yes, I see.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Old discredited scientific research?

Yes.

Born Gay Hoax: Studies Debunked Conservative Colloquium


A peek:



There's always truth out there.

<staff edit>

There is a difference between 'no scientific evidence for homosexuality being in part genetic' and 'no scientific evidence for homosexuality being solely genetic'.








Also, ~Genetic != Choice.

 

[Shane Roach]

I'm starting to feel like it's almost pointless to argue the science debate, especially considering that religion is more of a choice then anything, but for some reason they are granted more rights and benefits then the LGBT community and also think they can limit the rights and freedoms of the LGBT community because they have made a choice to be a Christian and therefore must abide by God's law and force everyone else to do so as well, regardless of other people's own personal beliefs.

The distinction between an entire religion and a single behavior is not difficult to perceive. Religious freedom is preserved in our Constitution in no small part because countries in Europe began to nationalize the church and drive off worshipers who would not change their orthodoxy for the sake of the state.

Inasmuch as religion influences values, and values influence the law, there is no such thing as a civil right to a specific behavior. This is the error of the Supreme Court continually attempting to interfere in religious issues. In order for a nation to be a republic, people must be allowed to vote based on the totality of their beliefs, not just ones they hold that are not religious.

So, if you can actually convince people something is ok, that's fine. It will eventually be legalized. But trying to argue that something should be legal because of freedom of religion is not logical. Freedom of religion expressly denotes an ability of religious people to participate fully in their own self government under the Constitution.

 

[FlamingFemme]

Well, at this point in time I find the whole science vs. choice debate just to be laughable for the reasons I stated in that post.

Yup, me, too. I personally don't care whether it's a choice or not, since even if it is, it's a choice that harms no one. This is called a 'free country' for a reason.

Gay marriage has been legal in MA for how long? Going on 5 years? I'm pretty sure that state hasn't dropped off into the depths of hell and people have realized that gay marriage in no way harms or affects their hetero marriage.

Five years and counting, actually. The sky has not fallen, the earth has not swallowed us up, and no one is going into elementary schools and teaching small children how to have gay sex.

I've also presented the argument on this forum numerous times that legalizing gay marriage continues to strengthen the idea of family and commit relationships. It start a precedence for committed relationships between people and encourages homosexual families to adopt/have children within a married unit. I really don't see how encouraging committed relationships and family units really threatens heterosexual marriage or heterosexual families in any way, but somehow every time I present that argument it just gets ignored.

It gets ignored because there is no justification against it. What I find interesting (and frustrating) is that one of the agruments against gay marriage is that gay men are promiscuous (of course, they never mention lesbians). I ask the question, wouldn't encouraging monogamous relationships help to curb promiscuous sex? And I get silence.
I'll never understand it.

 

[Mercy Medical]

The distinction between an entire religion and a single behavior is not difficult to perceive. Religious freedom is preserved in our Constitution in no small part because countries in Europe began to nationalize the church and drive off worshipers who would not change their orthodoxy for the sake of the state.

Inasmuch as religion influences values, and values influence the law, there is no such thing as a civil right to a specific behavior. This is the error of the Supreme Court continually attempting to interfere in religious issues. In order for a nation to be a republic, people must be allowed to vote based on the totality of their beliefs, not just ones they hold that are not religious.

So, if you can actually convince people something is ok, that's fine. It will eventually be legalized. But trying to argue that something should be legal because of freedom of religion is not logical. Freedom of religion expressly denotes an ability of religious people to participate fully in their own self government under the Constitution.

I'm not arguing that someone should be legal based on freedom of religion, I'm arguing that the religious right needs to drop the "but it's a choice!" aspect of their rhetoric because it's hypocritical. It leads us to believe that we should not grant people freedoms based on certain choices, while religion is a certain choice and has been granted freedom.

 

[Mercy Medical]

Yup, me, too. I personally don't care whether it's a choice or not, since even if it is, it's a choice that harms no one. This is called a 'free country' for a reason.



Five years and counting, actually. The sky has not fallen, the earth has not swallowed us up, and no one is going into elementary schools and teaching small children how to have gay sex.



It gets ignored because there is no justification against it. What I find interesting (and frustrating) is that one of the agruments against gay marriage is that gay men are promiscuous (of course, they never mention lesbians). I ask the question, wouldn't encouraging monogamous relationships help to curb promiscuous sex? And I get silence.
I'll never understand it.

The mere fact that most people tend to base their prejudices and opposition to gay marriage on gay men just indicates to me that it's more of an issue with their internal uneasiness at the idea of two men engaging in sexual activities and has more to do with the deep rooted issues with gender roles and how it makes some uncomfortable to see a man in a female based role.

The fact is that most that oppose gay marriage do not understand what causes a lot of gay men to be promiscuous. For the most part gay and lesbian individuals do not go through the typical dating rituals as a young teen because they are either a) still trying to figure themselves out or haven't figured themselves out or b) too afraid to come out of the closet. It has a serious impact on one's head to not gain that typically experience that most heterosexual individuals have.

Also, the fact that they are men interested in men. Men tend to be significantly more sexual beings, especially early on in life. One man in a relations with one woman is enough testosterone for a lifetime, but put two men together? It's through the roof! It should be no big surprise that some gay men tend to be promiscuous. However, just because they are perceived that way in the media does not mean that is the standard, it's merely a stereotype.

And the only thing that I can attribute to lesbian promiscuity is the fact that we a) cannot get pregnant, so that risk has been thrown out the window in regards to sleeping around b) have the lowest STD rates of any sexually active group in this country. The risks for lesbians engaging in sexual activities is significantly, significantly lower then any other group. Eliminate the risk and you will most likely get more people sleeping around. However, I do not feel as though most lesbians have the stereotype of being promiscuous as the stereotype tends to be U-haul lesbians that dive into monogamous relationship very, very quickly...but I think that just tends to be the nature of women in general (yet another stereotype).

I mean, these stereotypes are very evident and alive in the LGBT community itself.

The reference to a "U-Haul" in the gay community has been considered one of the touchstones of sexual identity.[3] The expression may have originated in the early 1980s by comic Lea DeLaria, who joked:

Q: What does a lesbian bring on a second date?
A: A U-Haul.

The joke has been repeated numerous times, mostly but not exclusively within the lesbian community,[4][5][6] and is considered a staple in lesbian humor.[7] It is sometimes followed by a joke about gay men:

Q: What does a gay man bring on a second date?
A: What second date?[5]

I mean, if anything lesbian culture should be a great example for monogamous, committed relationships.

 

[Skaloop]

The distinction between an entire religion and a single behavior is not difficult to perceive.

Since I didn't get an answer last time:

Which behaviour would that be?

 

[LittleNipper]

I'm starting to feel like it's almost pointless to argue the science debate, especially considering that religion is more of a choice then anything, but for some reason they are granted more rights and benefits then the LGBT community and also think they can limit the rights and freedoms of the LGBT community because they have made a choice to be a Christian and therefore must abide by God's law and force everyone else to do so as well, regardless of other people's own personal beliefs.

People choose to have sex.
People choose who they will have sex with.
People choose why they have sex.
People can remain celebate and do.

No one has to have sex with anyone. It is always a choice or it amounts to rape.

I believe that Christian communities at large are far better places to live in and raise children and enjoy life more than any other sort. I believe Chriatianity had a great influence in forming the United States.

I feel some people are willing to throw it all away, so that they can call themselves married when in fact they are not, and never can be ---- at least where marriage is more than just a word.

 

[b&wpac4]

I believe that Christian communities at large are far better places to live in and raise children and enjoy life more than any other sort. I believe Chriatianity had a great influence in forming the United States.

What is a Christian community? Could you please give me an example of one?

 

[sidhe]

People choose to have sex.
People choose who they will have sex with.
People choose why they have sex.
People can remain celebate and do.

No one has to have sex with anyone. It is always a choice or it amounts to rape.

I believe that Christian communities at large are far better places to live in and raise children and enjoy life more than any other sort. I believe Chriatianity had a great influence in forming the United States.

I feel some people are willing to throw it all away, so that they can call themselves married when in fact they are not, and never can be ---- at least where marriage is more than just a word.

People can choose what religion they are, too. Therefore, if the only marriage allowed was between two Baha'i, that wouldn't be discrimination, because you could choose to be Baha'i.

 

[FlamingFemme]

People choose to have sex.
People choose who they will have sex with.
People choose why they have sex.
People can remain celebate and do.

This is mostly true. Except for one thing: Most people do not choose who they will want to have sex with.

No one has to have sex with anyone. It is always a choice or it amounts to rape.

Once again, you're right. However, generally speaking a person does not choose who they are going to find attractive.

I believe that Christian communities at large are far better places to live in and raise children and enjoy life more than any other sort. I believe Chriatianity had a great influence in forming the United States.

I'm really not sure what this has to do with anything.

I feel some people are willing to throw it all away, so that they can call themselves married when in fact they are not, and never can be ---- at least where marriage is more than just a word.

Here's where you're unequivocally wrong.
I am married, it says so on my marriage certificate. It comes with all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities bestowed upon married couples by my state, therefore, I can 'call [my]sel[f] married'. There are 6 states in the US that have legalized gay marriage, and a few others that recognize said marriages. Not to mention the several other countries that have legalized it federally.

 

[Mercy Medical]

People choose to have sex.
People choose who they will have sex with.
People choose why they have sex.
People can remain celebate and do.

No one has to have sex with anyone. It is always a choice or it amounts to rape.

I believe that Christian communities at large are far better places to live in and raise children and enjoy life more than any other sort. I believe Chriatianity had a great influence in forming the United States.

I feel some people are willing to throw it all away, so that they can call themselves married when in fact they are not, and never can be ---- at least where marriage is more than just a word.

I think you missed the point of my entire post.

Also, homosexuality is more then just sex...so why focus strictly on that aspect of it? Is your heterosexual relationship strictly focused on sex?

 

[FlamingFemme]

I think you missed the point of my entire post.

Also, homosexuality is more then just sex...so why focus strictly on that aspect of it? Is your heterosexual relationship strictly focused on sex?

I've been wanting an answer to this question for a very long time. But I rarely find anyone with that view willing to actually answer it.

Any takers?

 

[b&wpac4]

Also, homosexuality is more then just sex...so why focus strictly on that aspect of it? Is your heterosexual relationship strictly focused on sex?

Can I wish mine was?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

I've been wanting an answer to this question for a very long time. But I rarely find anyone with that view willing to actually answer it.

Any takers?

Gay = desired sex acts.

Lesbian = desired sex acts.

Bi-Sexual = desired sex acts.

"Gay" is a neologism to do away with the word homosexual as a negative connotation.

Otherwise we just have men and women, boys and girls. Now, why does anyone need to label themself by their sexual tastes?

 

[FlamingFemme]

Gay = desired sex acts.

Lesbian = desired sex acts.

Bi-Sexual = desired sex acts.

"Gay" is a neologism to do away with the word homosexual as a negative connotation.

Otherwise we just have men and women, boys and girls. Now, why does anyone need to label themself by their sexual tastes?

You didn't answer the question.
The question is, is the reason for your (heterosexual) relationship solely about the sex acts you engage in? And, if not, why do you assume that all homosexual relationships are?

 

[Maren]

The dishonesty there is so great that you made the King of Lies very happy.

There is a difference between 'no scientific evidence for homosexuality being in part genetic' and 'no scientific evidence for homosexuality being solely genetic'.

Also, ~Genetic != Choice.

Not to mention, lack (or no) scientific evidence does not mean that it does not exist -- as he tried to claim in his post. Until we fully understand the human genome (and we aren't even close yet) it is premature to claim that a genetic cause for homosexuality does not exist. Further, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, there is some evidence that it is not a single gene but rather a combination of genetic markers that determines (or causes a propensity for) sexual orientation and gender expression (though this research is in relatively early stages).

 

[Mercy Medical]

Not to mention, lack (or no) scientific evidence does not mean that it does not exist -- as he tried to claim in his post. Until we fully understand the human genome (and we aren't even close yet) it is premature to claim that a genetic cause for homosexuality does not exist. Further, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, there is some evidence that it is not a single gene but rather a combination of genetic markers that determines (or causes a propensity for) sexual orientation and gender expression (though this research is in relatively early stages).

Applause all around.

I don't get why people can sit and say "well science has proven ______!" Science hadn't proven a lot of things in the past that we thought were facts. Maybe science just hasn't figure it out yet. We know a lot about the human body and brain, but compared to what we could know, it's very, very little.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

You didn't answer the question.

Originally Posted by Mercy Medical

I think you missed the point of my entire post.

Also, homosexuality is more then just sex...so why focus strictly on that aspect of it? Is your heterosexual relationship strictly focused on sex?​

​

The question is, is the reason for your (heterosexual) relationship solely about the sex acts you engage in? And, if not, why do you assume that all homosexual relationships are?

I answered why we focus strictly on sex of of it. It is GLB's that label themself by their preferred sex acts.

My sexuality is never what I label myself as in any way. I'm not "straight," I am just me. Now, the GLBT community definately presents differently.

I'm wrong how?