|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
I'm not an expert on why some people are homosexuals and some aren't, but I seriously think you'll find a more plausible answer in psychology than in genetics. Nobody is born gay. At least there hasn't been any conclusive evidence to support that idea yet.
Dammit, if I post in this topic ONE MORE TIME...
And Matt, you're allowed to be an asshole if you want. I just don't feel like bothering with you is all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Sammitch:
I'm not an expert on why some people are homosexuals and some aren't, but I seriously think you'll find a more plausible answer in psychology than in genetics. Nobody is born gay. At least there hasn't been any conclusive evidence to support that idea yet.
Dammit, if I post in this topic ONE MORE TIME...
Some gay people would agree with you about the psych thing. Many don't though. For me it just doesn't jibe. My sexual orientation just seemed to be always there in the way I suspect most heterosexual people always had theirs. Also homosexuals seem to come from all types of parents. I would think there would be some type of common link apparent but it's just not there.
I always wondered if it was something related to our instincts like "fight or flight" Dumb animals have mating instincts to keep their species alive. What if we had those insticts too but they're just weaker? And if we did it would be then just a case of having the wrong instinct gene or whatever telling us to be interested in the same sex.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
quote:
Originally posted by klinton:
A FUCKING CURSE?!?!
First it's immoral to just be myself, and live a normal life. Now I'm decidely cursed by God? A test for the twisted people who called themselves my parents? I've been trying to avoid this ridiculous thread and the bullshit that it's been spewing, but c'mon folks, if this gets anymore blatantly hateful and sick...
You do realize folks that Adolf fucking Hitler presented an entire array of 'scientific' and 'biblical' evidence for his genocide. If you read up on it, alot of it came across a hell of a lot like the shit in this thread.
Good Christians my ass....You smug fucks!
Jesus loves you. Now read this pamphlet.
Seriously though, I don't think PI ever said anything about that obviously askew view being a Christian one. I think you'll agree that you've jumped the gun a smidge by assuming he was speaking about Christian-folk.
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Sammitch:
I'm not an expert on why some people are homosexuals and some aren't, but I seriously think you'll find a more plausible answer in psychology than in genetics. Nobody is born gay. At least there hasn't been any conclusive evidence to support that idea yet....
I've always believed it to be either/or. I've known people who've felt an attraction to the same sex since... they've felt attraction. I've also known people who've decided, usually (but not always) after some unfortunate or traumatic event involving the opposite sex, to make "the change." Either way is my vote.
Of course, my vote is worth about as much as the gum I'm chewing.
quote:
Originally posted by Harpy of the JLR:
If Jesus lived in modern-day Tampa (where I'm from)...
If you ever need to purchase or refinance your house, you know who to turn to ![[biiiig grin]](images/icons/grin.gif) .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
quote:
From Canada - AFP:
British Columbia court rules gays on west coast can marry immediately
VANCOUVER (AFP) - Wedding bells rang for gay couples in Canada's westernmost province, after the top court in British Columbia scrapped a waiting period for marriage laws to change.
In May, the British Columbia Court of Appeal ordered Canada's federal government to change the legal definition of marriage, saying federal laws preventing same-sex marriages were discriminatory and violate the Canadian constitution.
However, at that time, the court set a deadline for the change of July 12, 2004.
Then, last month the Ontario Court of Appeal issued a similar ruling, but it allowed gays to marry immediately. Ottawa had indicated it would not appeal the Ontario ruling and would seek to change the current definition of marriage as that between a man and a woman.
On Tuesday, in response to an appeal by the gay rights group EGALE Canada and several same-sex couples in British Columbia, the western court removed the waiting period.
"Any further delay in implementing the remedies will result in an unequal application of the law as between Ontario and British Columbia," the court said in a written decision.
Immediately after the written decision was released, Anthony Porcino and Tom Graff exchanged marriage vows outside the courthouse in this coastal city. The couple have been together for 11 years.
"Marriage means a lot to both of us, and it means a lot to society," Procino told CBC Radio. "And to actually have our relationship recognized by society is actually very important to us."
In Ottawa, EGALE, the main lobby group for Canadian gays and lesbians, welcomed the BC court decision and called on other Canadian provinces to join British Columbia and Ontario to legalize same-sex marriages.
"We encourage other provinces to do the right thing and allow same-sex marriages," said Gilles Marchildon, EGALE's executive director, adding that so far some 250 marriage licences had been issued.
Parliament is expected to vote on a new marriage law in the fall.
The federal government, meanwhile, has indicated it will seek advice from the country's top court, the Supreme Court of Canada, on re-wording the definition of marriage.
On Monday, a coalition of conservative and religious groups said they would try to stop same-sex marriages in Canada by appealing to the Supreme Court.
Marchildon dismissed their fight to stop same-sex marriages, which he says are "part of a growing trend in the legal community."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Just to go way, way, way back to pages long forgotten(probably), I'll throw in my two cents....
Dave WB-I can respect your opinion, as you do appear to be a well educated individual, but some of your reasoning is suspect(to me).
Firstly, I don't see how what's written in the Bible dictates the legality of same sex marriages. You seem to believe that the law should be concerned with the moral teachings of a(not the most common, and certainly not the only) religous sect. I can only ask....why? The United States of America was founded on the principle of freedom, and this archaic law contradicts that foundation.
Secondly, biblical interpretations are not adamant. The bible is not suppose to be directly from God, but, as you touch on, only "inspired" by God. It's still a human's words on paper, and humans are imperfect. The bible once said that slavery was morally acceptable, reflecting the social standards of the era in which it was written. As I'm sure you know, we are no longer in that era.
Thirdly, and what is most puzzling to me, I don't see how something like same sex marriage is "forced on the mainstream of American culture". I am not religous. Infact, I consider religion to be absurd, but I tolerate it's affect on the world, and living in Texas, I can tell you, it's affect is much, much, much larger than anything else. From schools that have prayer servies, to athletes that "thank god" after every touchdown/goal/homerun/win, religion is everywhere. I don't, however, see players thanking their gay husbands in a post-game interview, or congressman chanting "I'm here, I'm queer, get used to it" at conventions. I think that if I, and millions of other people, can tolerate the massive presence that is religion in the U.S, you, and those with your beliefs, can tolerate gay marriages. You don't have to like or accept it, but so long as it's not breaking the law, you do have to tolerate it, just like it tolerates you.
My two cents. Realize I'm chiming in waaaaaay late, but I wanted to say it anyway, so there it is.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Sammitch:
I'm not an expert on why some people are homosexuals and some aren't, but I seriously think you'll find a more plausible answer in psychology than in genetics. Nobody is born gay. At least there hasn't been any conclusive evidence to support that idea yet.
Dammit, if I post in this topic ONE MORE TIME...
And Matt, you're allowed to be an asshole if you want. I just don't feel like bothering with you is all.
The scientific community are still researching the whole nature vs nurture thing, Sammitch, so the "jury" is still out on this one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
Welcome to the party, Animalman. Did you bring your share of the money to pay for all these kegs we bought, young man? ![[wink]](images/icons/wink.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
I saw this at http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/gaygene990422.htmlBiological Links to Homosexuality 1991: Northwestern University's Michael Bailey and others find greater homosexual correlation among identical twins than fraternal. 1991: Salk Institute’s Simon LeVay discovers that a tiny section of the hypothalamus in the brain is smaller in gay men than in straight men. 1992: Laura Allen and Richard Gorski of the University of California at Los Angeles discover that a section of the fibers connecting the right and left hemispheres of the brain is one-third larger in gay men than straight men. 1993: National Cancer Institute’s Dean Hamer study finds possible location of “gay gene” on the X chromosome, inherited from mothers. 1995: Geneticists Shang-Ding Zhang and Ward Odenwald of the National Institutes of Health discover that a single transplanted gene can cause fruit flies to display homosexual behavior. 1995: Hamer repeats his 1993 findings with a follow-up study.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
In the whole 'nature vs. nurture' debate, one need s to remember that homosexual inclinations are not exclusive to mankind. Homosexual behavior is present in every species...This fact alone kind of puts to rest the idea that people are taught to be 'gay', or that they make a 'choice' based on social factors. The behavior (for lack of a better phrase) is as natural (albeit by no means the majority) as heterosexuality. I don't know if there is or is not scientific evidence to ultimately debunk the myth of it being a choce, but simple observation of non-human societies on this planet clearly establishes that it is not a human phenomenon.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 43
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 43 |
I'm more inclined to think that you can both genetic and environmental factors can affect sexual orintation.
As with high cholestroal, obesity, and recently theorized, alcholism (although I am having trouble 'swallowing' this idea) homosexuality might have genetic factors (I am not saying homosexuality is bad like those three examples, but they are all possibly genetically-linked). But most genetic factors have to be 'switched on' in some sort of a way. For example, I have been told I might be genetically predisposed for diabetes, so I moniter my diet and none of the problems have surfaced. Now something like breast cancer, which some members of my family have been diagnosed with, is a little harder or impossible to prevent, but that's something that increases with age.
So there could be some sort of homosexual genetics out there (I'm not sure what else it could involve but maybe different coding for proteins in hormones? its not been studied well I suppose). But it has to be 'triggered'. It could be dissatifaction with the opposite gender, or maybe abuse as a child. The 'trigger' factors could be endless.
Looking at Man-eater Man's info he pulled up:
1. I am not suprised after the deal with hypotalamus. The right-left brain part I don't understand, but that's still interesting.
2. Having the 'gay gene' on the X-chromosome is interesting. But it leaves me a little confused. That would make homosexuality the same as color-blindness in terms of who can inherit it. A homosexual male would have to have either a homosexual mother or be a carrier. A homosexual woman would need a homosexual father and either a carrier or homosexual mother...ah screw it this is hurting my head. This means either there are more genes coding for it or something is behavioral-based as well.
Klinton, I want to comment on what you said. Some of it was dead on, but some of it was a little off, IMO. First of all, not all species have homosexual tendicies because not all species are sexual (bacteria are asexual for the most part). And even amongst those that procreate sexually, some actually have no gender until mating (like snails -- the one that gives the other snail its genetic material is considered the 'male'). Many plants have both male and female sex parts.
I think you meant animal species, but snails and other species can't really be defined as male-female. Fish change sexes all the time. As you go up the evolutionary ladder, there is a greater difference in the genders of each species. This is called 'sexual dimorphism' in case you are a Trivial Pursuit fan.
And these more advance animals tend to act homosexual as more as a dominant issue. One bitch willl hump another to prove she is the alpha female. Monkeys show the same behavior. So personally, I would invest more in the idea of genetics than using animals as an example. Using animals lowers oneself to their level, and that is no good way to win an arguement.
Right...back to studing biology *makes snoring sounds and falls asleep on books*
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
quote:
Originally posted by Harpy:
Klinton, I want to comment on what you said. Some of it was dead on, but some of it was a little off, IMO. First of all, not all species have homosexual tendicies because not all species are sexual (bacteria are asexual for the most part). And even amongst those that procreate sexually, some actually have no gender until mating (like snails -- the one that gives the other snail its genetic material is considered the 'male'). Many plants have both male and female sex parts.
I think you meant animal species, but snails and other species can't really be defined as male-female. Fish change sexes all the time. As you go up the evolutionary ladder, there is a greater difference in the genders of each species. This is called 'sexual dimorphism' in case you are a Trivial Pursuit fan.
And these more advance animals tend to act homosexual as more as a dominant issue. One bitch willl hump another to prove she is the alpha female. Monkeys show the same behavior. So personally, I would invest more in the idea of genetics than using animals as an example. Using animals lowers oneself to their level, and that is no good way to win an arguement.
I had mammals in mind as I said that....so I dunno where snails, bacteria and shit fit into the picture. And in terms of 'lowering onself' I think the human tendancy to look at ourselves as somehow superior to everything else on the planet is a huge error, and the catalyst for all sorts of cruelties on this planet (but that is really the subject for another discuission). My main point there was the fact that even thought they don't share complex social structures like we do, and can't be subject to social ideals in the same way that we are, they still find it within themselves to engage in homosexual realtions. They are acting soley on instinct and desire, and yet this behavior does occur.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by klinton:
quote:
Originally posted by Harpy:
Klinton, I want to comment on what you said. Some of it was dead on, but some of it was a little off, IMO. First of all, not all species have homosexual tendicies because not all species are sexual (bacteria are asexual for the most part). And even amongst those that procreate sexually, some actually have no gender until mating (like snails -- the one that gives the other snail its genetic material is considered the 'male'). Many plants have both male and female sex parts.
I think you meant animal species, but snails and other species can't really be defined as male-female. Fish change sexes all the time. As you go up the evolutionary ladder, there is a greater difference in the genders of each species. This is called 'sexual dimorphism' in case you are a Trivial Pursuit fan.
And these more advance animals tend to act homosexual as more as a dominant issue. One bitch willl hump another to prove she is the alpha female. Monkeys show the same behavior. So personally, I would invest more in the idea of genetics than using animals as an example. Using animals lowers oneself to their level, and that is no good way to win an arguement.
I had mammals in mind as I said that....so I dunno where snails, bacteria and shit fit into the picture. And in terms of 'lowering onself' I think the human tendancy to look at ourselves as somehow superior to everything else on the planet is a huge error, and the catalyst for all sorts of cruelties on this planet (but that is really the subject for another discuission).
Very well said, K.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 6,377
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 6,377 |
YAY! Now me and Tom Cruise can run off to Canada and be married!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
quote:
Originally posted by klinton:
My main point there was the fact that even thought they don't share complex social structures like we do, and can't be subject to social ideals in the same way that we are, they still find it within themselves to engage in homosexual realtions. They are acting soley on instinct and desire, and yet this behavior does occur.
Fair enough. I would have to respond to that, however, by saying that as human beings we are capable of suppressing both instinct and desire if we so choose. That's why I'd still have to go with my position that homosexuality is a choice people make. But again, that's just me. I think you make a very good case, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
True enough Cap but then the question would be why would you want somebody to supress their orientation? They would still be gay.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
I know most homosexuals I know or have heard touch on this subject say that they were born gay, but I don't understand how. It's not a disease or a syndrome of some sort. It's not like baldness or something innate in your physical being. Perhaps I just think this because I'm straight, but I think that homosexuality has to be something acquired, something that comes from one's background or cultural upbringing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
Perhaps I just think this because I'm straight
Exactly. I know I was born gay, because I'm gay. There is no arguing this fact. I resorted to the 'animals do it' reference in an attempt to convey the fact that it is natural, and it occurs in species that are not inclined to make 'choices' about their sexuality.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 27
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 27 |
I agree with you Klinton, that gays & lesbians just are. It's who they are, not who they decided to be. I think some are confusing the sexual acts, with the true feelings behind the acts. Engaging in same-sex sex isn't what makes a person gay. If that were the case, then most of the prison population would be gay (as opposed to making use of available resources). But, I'm willing to bet most revert back to opposite-sex sex upon release from prison/access to wimmins.
Futhermore, my belief is that all humans are inherently bi-sexual. It's the straight behavior that's the learned behavior, due to family/societal pressures throughout history. These stigmas/taboos/pressures are just so prevalent & deeply ingrained that most of us don't realise we've been effected by them. My view is that any heavily stigmatised or taboo behavior is one because it is our natural state. If it wasn't, you wouldn't need the strong stigma or taboo to discourage it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
I know this thread is long dead, but I just couldn't pass this article up, and I think you'll see why... I embolened the important parts, but I truly believe the entire article bears reading... quote:
From AP White House:
Bush Wants Homosexuals Out of Marriage
By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - President Bush says Americans should respect homosexuals, but he wants to make sure marriage is defined strictly as a union between a man and a woman.
Government lawyers are exploring measures to enshrine that definition in the law, the president said Wednesday.
"I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or the other," he said.
Still, he urged Americans not to ostracize gays.
"I am mindful that we're all sinners, and I caution those who may try to take the speck out of the neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own," the president said, invoking a biblical passage from the Gospel of St. Matthew.
"I think it is very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country," Bush said.
His remarks offered a sop to conservatives who were angered earlier this month after he distanced himself from a House proposal for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., was the main sponsor of a proposal to amend the Constitution to read: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman." It was referred on June 25 to the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution.
Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative" in 2000, and is still trying to bridge the gap between his conservative base and critical swing voters. Some advisers fear any hint of intolerance will alienate middle-of-the-road Americans.
Recent polls have shown that just over half of Americans oppose gay marriage, though that opposition has been declining in recent years. A CBS-New York Times poll released Thursday found that 55 percent oppose gay marriage and 40 percent support it.
On the other hand, a Supreme Court decision last month that ended the criminalization of gay sex seems to have occasioned a backlash, with more Americans in a recent poll saying such relations should not be legal.
Bush's statement touched off passionate responses from groups with an interest in the issue.
"There is a real movement for same-sex marriage, and if the president doesn't intervene, and if he doesn't take leadership in this area, we could lose marriage in this country the way we know it," said Franklin Graham, president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and the son of the Rev. Billy Graham. "I think the president is doing the right thing."
Gay-rights activists and a member of Congress took offense at Bush's comment that "we're all sinners," interpreting the remark as reflecting on gays and lesbians.
"While we respect President Bush's religious views, it is unbecoming of the president of the United States to characterize same-sex couples as 'sinners,'" said Matt Foreman, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's executive director.
Rep. Janice Schakowsky, D-Ill., wrote Bush a letter charging that he "seemed to equate homosexuality with sin," and demanding that the president apologize.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush had not meant to single out homosexuals as "sinners."
"The president doesn't believe in casting stones. He believes we ought to treat one another with dignity and respect," McClellan said.
The Human Rights Campaign, which says it is the nation's largest gay and lesbian political group, branded Bush's exploration of a law on gay marriage a "call to codify discrimination."
In 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allowed states to ignore same-sex unions licensed elsewhere. Bush's aides have said they are studying ways to strengthen the law.
"We ask the president to explain to the American people why DOMA does not already meet the objective he set this morning," the Human Rights Campaign said.
The group also pointed to a statement by Vice President Dick Cheney that suggested he had a different view than Bush's.
Asked during an October 2000 debate whether homosexuals should have all the constitutional rights enjoyed by each American citizen, Cheney said: "I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area.
"People should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into," said Cheney. "It's really no one else's business, in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard."
Cheney's daughter Mary is a lesbian.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289 |
Whether it's a case of nurture or nature does change the simple fact that there's naff all wrong with it.
I still have yet to hear a decnt anti arguement (Bible doesn't count for me, I'm non religious).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Looks like President Bush wants to weaken the Constitution for the appearance of strengthening marriage. If the concern was serious why stop with the simple "keeping marriage between a man & a woman"? Considering divorce rates, dead beat dads, remarriages, swinging clubs & such, he should push for more when protecting the marriage concept. Granted that would ensure he wouldn't be re-selected
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
From this article, by Alan P. Medinger, a formerly gay man, who has counseled thousands of gays out of that psychological obsession, over close to two decades of professional work: http://www.messiah.edu/hpages/facstaff/chase/h/articles/regenera/9.htm He speaks not only as a mental health professional, but from his own experience as a homosexual man. Some excerpts: quote:
The psychiatric profession's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III-R) describes compulsive behavior as "repetitive, purposeful, and intentional behaviors that are performed in response to an obsession, or according to certain rules or in a stereotyped fashion." It goes on to say that the behavior is "designed to overcome discomfort," that the person "recognizes that his or her behavior is excessive or unreasonable."
First off, we can say with some certainty that all male homosexuals are not sexually compulsive. I have known any number who never, or who seldom, acted out sexually. On the other hand, there are strong indications that compulsive sexual behavior is highly prevalent among male homosexuals, particularly when compared with their heterosexual counterparts. Some recent news items and some widely accepted statistics support this connection.
Perhaps the most thorough study of its type, the Kinsey Institute
study of homosexual men in San Francisco, presented in the book by Bell and Weinberg, Homosexualities, A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, reported the following:
43% of the white male homosexuals surveyed estimated they had had sex with 500 or more different partners -28% with over 1,000 partners
79% said more than half of their partners were strangers -- 70% said more than half of their sexual partners were men with whom they had sex only once.
These figures astound even the most worldly heterosexuals. In fact, a recent University of Chicago survey reveals that for the U.S population as a whole, the estimated number of sex partners since age 18 is 7.15 (8.67 for those never married).
Finally, in our own organization, we have checked with members of our groups who also attend 12-step groups for sexual addicts (such as Sexahollcs Anonymous) and they estimate that at least half the participants in their groups have been homosexual, even though homosexuals probably make up less than 5% of the general population.
That homosexual men are on average extremely promiscuous, when compared to heterosexual men is beyond dispute. That many homosexual men act out sexually with great frequency, despite powerful reasons not to, is also quite obvious. The facts provide strong evidence that a high percentage of homosexual men are engaged in behavior that is "excessive or unreasonable", i.e., compulsive. An honest look at homosexuality could hardly lead to any other conclusion.
In fact, tolerance and acceptance, while perhaps decreasing hypocrisy somewhat, inevitably increases the behavior that it is coming to accept.
With male homosexuality, there is no evidence that in those places where homosexual relationships are most accepted--San Francisco, West Hollywood, New York City -- the level of promiscuity has gone down. In fact, AIDS statistics indicate just the opposite. The cities where homosexuality is most tolerated have both the highest numbers of AIDS cases, and the highest levels of HIV infection within the gay community. I don't believe that anyone has made a case to blame male homosexual compulsion on society.
The powerful influence of gay activists in this country, and the widespread sympathy for the homosexual among the media and educational elite in the United States have made it almost impossible to speak publicly about such things as male homosexual compulsion. This has been tragic because recognizing the compulsive aspect of male homosexuality could help head off so much human suffering.
Recognition of this aspect of homosexuality could change how we raise and educate our children. Many have come to accept that "homosexuality is just like heterosexuality". And so children are taught, in the public schools at least, that it is quite all right to be gay; no disadvantages, except societal prejudice, are acknowledged. But suppose we told children and parents that if a boy grows up gay he is far more likely to find himself driven by sexual compulsions? Many agree that some things can be done to prevent homosexuality early in a child's life, and there seem to be some children who in adolescence could go either way. If this characteristic of homosexuality were recognized, surely some children could be steered or counseled away from a life that presents terrible inherent risks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
quote:
Originally posted by Matter-eater Man:
..Granted that would ensure he wouldn't be re-selected
Politics, gotta love it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
quote:
Originally posted by Wednesday:
quote:
Originally posted by Matter-eater Man:
..Granted that would ensure he wouldn't be re-selected
Politics, gotta love it.
I'm guilty there! I sometimes catch myself thinking it's "us against them", & their the bad guys. As I get older I suppose it's still "us against them" but both parties are guilty of political speak & have good/bad guys in them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
DWB that article is for starters from 1990 using stats from 1978. I think it's fair to say that those stats from 1978 were from homosexuals who grew up being taught that homosexuality was wrong & evil. So the article concludes that teaching a more negative attitude in the future would get better results? How & why, if it's own results show negative reinforcement doesn't work?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
The trick is that many people who don't condone homosexuality haven't figured out yet that nobody's gonna listen to someone who doesn't show any regard for them as a person. As I've said many, many times in this thread, that doesn't mean rubber-stamping everything someone else does, but it does mean offering kindness and understanding rather than condemning a person for their actions instead of simply opposing their actions. It's just hard for people to find that balance in there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
The guy who wrote the article IS a homosexual. I fail to see how the article is either condescending or outdated. From what I've read, mostly from secular sources, is that AIDS is on the increase among young gays, who are increasingly having unprotected sex. Can you clarify how this is "outdated", Matter-eater Man ? And Captain Sammitch (assuming your comments were directed at me) how do these quoted comments not "show any regard for them as a person", or come across as unkind or unsympathetic? I think as a homosexual, and one who has counseled probably thousands of fellow homosexuals over two decades, Alan P. Medinger is infinitely qualified to comment on the lifestyle. There was another reformed homosexual, Greg Quinlan, and his wife Cheryl (a former lesbian), on the 700 Club on July 24th. The segment on Greg and Cheryl Quinlan is at this link, from Thursday, 7/24/2003 broadcast ( It's only available as audio, no written transcript, and the audio is of the 60-minute broadcast. You can move the audio-bar to about 25 minutes into the one-hour broadcast, and the entire segment is about 15 minutes of the broadcast ) http://www.700club.com/video/player.asp?prgm=700club&vsrc=archive/072403&seg= Another reformed Christian gay man, Stephen Bennett, also has a website: http://www.sbministries.org/ ( who appeared on the Friday, 7/18/2003 broadcast of 700 Club) Again, these are people who have lived the gay lifestyle, and are not angrily judging it from the outside.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
I wasn't directing that at you, DTWB. I was simply replying to MEM's statement in his earlier post.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
quote:
Originally posted by klinton:
Exactly. I know I was born gay, because I'm gay. There is no arguing this fact.
There may be no arguing the fact that you are gay now, but how do you know if you were born gay? How do you know anything about what you were like when you were born?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
DTWB those stats are outdated because they came from 1978, over 2.5 decades ago. Things have changed so much in a relative short period of time. Back then nobody new about AIDS. Positive portrayals of gays on TV were taboo. It had only been a few yrs before that homosexuality was considered to be a mental illness. I don't understand how that wouldn't be a deterrent to gays having monogomous relationships. As for Medinger, his views are not supported by any real evidence & is not supported by any reputable medical organization. However various religous right organizations do like what he has to say & provide insane amounts of money to promote their agenda. Check out what th APA says about reparitive therapy & this link for more facts http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html"The American Psychiatric Association in its position statement on Psychiatric Treatment and Sexual Orientation states: The potential risks of "reparative therapy" are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone "reparative therapy" relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed.9" Also heres a link of an exexgay's website that contains his story & provides links to other exexgays & their stories. http://jgford.homestead.com/index.htmlThey tell a far different story than what the religous right is promoting.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
I do have some major questions about some of the endorsed positions of the American Psychological Association, when you consider that health care professionals have a suicide rate about 6 times the national average. That alone speaks volumes about their accepted practices. Doctor, heal thy self. I think the legitimizing of homosexuality and removing it from the list of psychological disorders is a mistake, and there are literally millions who hotly dispute that homosexuality is a healthy and natural psychological condition. There are many who still think of homosexuality as a treatable mental illness. The fact that many do not seek treatment simply proves that they do not want to change. Which is equally true for many compulsive gamblers, drug and alcohol abusers, and those suffering from other compulsive disorders. That does not change the fact that many others offer therapeutic treatment for homosexuality, and that many seek out and change their lives for the better with this treatment. Some examples: " Psychology Today Editor defends Reorientation Therapy" http://www.narth.com/docs/defends.html "Sexual Reorientation Treatment supported in Journal of Marital and Family Therapy" http://www.narth.com/docs/jmft.html The front page of NARTH's website makes clear that many mental heath professionals --who don't think homosexuality is a disorder-- feel similarly about pedophilia exhibitionism, fetishism, transvestism, voyeurism, and sadomasochism, and are actively seeking to remove their status as disorders as well: http://www.narth.com/ In particular this article: http://www.narth.com/docs/debate2.html quote:
In a second article in the Archives, "The Dilemma of the Male Pedophile," Gunter Schmidt, D. Phil., makes a sympathetic case for the pedophile who, Schmidt says, must "remain abstinent for significant periods of time" and "lead a life of self-denial at significant emotional cost."
Schmidt calls for a new, "enlightened discourse on morality" with the recognition that "in view of the pedophile's burden, the necessity of denying himself the experience of love and sexuality," he deserves society's respect.
Furthermore, Schmidt argues, molested children do not always appear to be harmed. A 1998 study by Bruce Rind, he notes, found that many boys grow up to have positive or neutral memories of their man-boy sexual experiences.
Kind of makes you want to vomit, doesn't it?
The state of the APA is wonderfully summed up in this article:
"American Psychiatric Association Symposium Debates Whether Pedophilia, Gender-Identity Disorder, Sexual Sadism Should Remain Mental Illnesses"
http://www.narth.com/docs/symposium.html
quote:
"And," [Dr.] Nicolosi added, "we must agree on those things that genuinely enhance human dignity. It's a measure of how low the psychiatric establishment has sunk, that it would even debate the idea that pedophilia, transvestism, and sado-masochism could ever be expressions of true human flourishing."
Psychoanalyst Johanna Tabin, Ph.D., of NARTH's Scientific Advisory Committee, also commented on the A.P.A. symposium. "If the arguments prevail that are given for ignoring these psychological problems, then suicide attempts must be considered normal when they are desired by the participants. And what about the sociopath, who--having no conscience--feels quite content with himself?"
"Uncommon 'common sense,' " Dr. Tabin added, "is sure to reassert itself--but in the meantime, the mental health professions are failing many suffering individuals by rigidly adopting political correctness as the guide as to when people need help.
"And the saddest thing about the current climate," she added, "is that people who ask for help because they are not at ease with homosexual impulses, right now are frequently forbidden to obtain it."
I also think this below linked study, among many others, shows a clear desire to enhance the lives of homosexuals, through treatment. And details of the study make clear the nature of the disorder, compassion for gays, and desire for them to live more full lives:
"Research summary, Lawrence J.Hatterer, Changing Homosexuality in the Male"
http://www.newdirection.ca/research/hatterer.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
I thought this article in particular, of those I just listed, points out the intimidation tactics of gays, to harass into silence any who dissent from their views, even when science, common sense and other evidence do not not back up the gay side of the issue: " Psychology Today Editor defends Reorientation Therapy" http://www.narth.com/docs/defends.html quote:
Psychology Today Editor
Defends Reorientation Therapy
In an editorial which just appeared in the latest issue of Psychology Today (Jan./Feb. 2003) editor Robert Epstein, Ph.D. defends sexual reorientation therapy, responding as well to recent bruising criticism from the gay community.
Epstein's editorial, "Am I Anti-Gay? You Be the Judge" was written after gay activists objected to his magazine's publication of an ad for a controversial new book.
The book is A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality, by Joseph and Linda Nicolosi, which describes the ways in which parents can maximize the likelihood of their children growing up with a secure gender identity and heterosexual orientation.
Angered when she saw the ad, psychologist Betty Berzon somehow located the private phone number of magazine editor Bob Epstein. Calling him at home on a Saturday, she demanded an explanation from him.
(Epstein graciously refrained from identifying Berzon by name in his editorial, but a gay magazine, The Advocate, later identified her as the caller.)
Berzon demanded to know why his magazine accepted "such a heinous ad." She told Epstein that she was speaking for thousands' of gays who were going to boycott the magazine -- "and worse," she warned.
In that conversation, and in letters from other gay activists that followed, Epstein -- who is a social liberal and champion of gay rights--was suddenly immersed in something quite new to him--what he describes as "the dark, intolerant, abusive side of the gay community."
The author of the book, Berzon charged, "was 'a bigot.'" Furthermore, "no gay person had ever successfully become straight," and "homosexuality was entirely determined by genes." She added that sexual conversion therapy had been condemned by the American Psychological Association.
"Threats, Insults and Brutal Letters"
When Epstein disagreed with the above assertions, Berzon hung up the phone and sent out a flurry of postings to gay and lesbian internet sites, urging activists to harass him at home by telephone, Epstein says, and then to barrage him with complaint letters.
The Psychology Today editor subsequently received "threats, insults," and "brutal letters" from gay activists.
"In all," Epstein says, "I received about 120 letters...Several writers suggested I was a 'Nazi' and 'bigot,' and one compared me with the Taliban. A surprising number of letters asserted that gays have a right to be rude or abusive because they themselves have been abused."
But Reorientation Therapy
Is Not Condemned
"But my caller was way off-base, on key points," Epstein notes. "The APA has never condemned sexual conversion therapy but has merely issued cautionary statements." One of those statements in fact reminds psychologists "of their obligation to 'respect the rights of others to hold values, attitudes and opinions that differ from [their] own'--an obligation from which my caller clearly feels exempt."
So what about therapy to change homosexuality? Since the condition was removed from the diagnostic manual in 1973, did the authors of Preventing Homosexuality have the right to promote reorientation therapy?
"Although homosexuality was removed from the DSM as a mental disorder in 1973," Epstein says, "all editions of the DSM have listed a disorder characterized by 'distress' over one's sexual orientation, and some choose to try to change that orientation. Both gays and straights have a right to seek treatment when they're unhappy with their sexual orientation, and some choose to try to change that orientation. It would be absurd to assert that only heterosexuals have that right."
But can gays actually change? Epstein said that he had seen some "interesting data" supporting the ethics and effectiveness of reorientation therapy. He cited recent research, featured on the NARTH web site and just published in an APA journal, by NARTH Fellow Award recipient Warren Throckmorton, Ph.D., "which suggests that sexual orientation conversion therapy is at least sometimes successful...From this and other sources I'd guess that such therapy is probably successful about a third of the time."
Epstein then notes that perhaps another third of the clients--those who do not succeed and eventually drop out--"are unhappy or even angry" about their failure to change. These figures might sound discouraging, he says, but there are many similar examples of clinical problems that resist change.
He notes that agoraphobia (fear of leaving home) and autism are also very difficult to treat successfully, and that "angry outcomes" after therapy often occur as a result of many difficult treatments, such as marital counseling.
Then there's also the charge by critics of reorientation that therapy may change behavior, but not fantasies. In fact, Epstein notes, mere behavioral change is sufficient for many clients and is not an unethical form of treatment, because "it's common for people to ask therapists to help them suppress a wide variety of tendencies with possible genetic bases: compulsive shopping and gambling, drinking, drug use, aggressiveness, urges to have too much sex, or sex with children, etc."
But of still greater importance in this discussion, Epstein continued, "is a new study by Robert Spitzer, M.D. of Columbia University." Epstein notes that "even though he has been under tremendous pressure by gay activists to repudiate his findings, Spitzer has concluded that sexual conversion therapy can produce significant, positive and lasting changes."
Throughout the unfolding controversy--including an "O'Reilly Factor" TV interview in December with book author Joseph Nicolosi, in which host Bill O'Reilly vehemently defended Nicolosi's right to publish and advertise--editor Epstein refused to back down.
"Stay tuned," he advises his readers in an editorial in the January issue of Psychology Today. Because it's time, he says, to review the sexual conversion issue again in his magazine.
"We'll soon offer and objective, comprehensive look at the ex-gay issue, " he says, "and also give the factions space to vent."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source of Epstein quotes: Editorial by Dr. Robert Epstein, Ph.D., "Am I Anti-Gay? You Be the Judge," Psychology Today, Jan./Feb. 2003, page 7-8.
And in other news...
A recent CNN article shows a sharp increase in the number of reported gay/bisexual AIDS/HIV cases. (Thanks for the link, Amy !)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/conditions/07/28/aids.diagnoses.reut/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
Actually using AIDS as some sort of indicator of compulsive behavior in homosexuals doesn't work. The infection rate dropped in the mid 90's for gay men & rose for hetrosexual men. Even then it was being predicted that rates would go up because the new HIV drugs were creating a false sense of security & younger gays who were not around in the 80's truly don't understand what they are risking. That is the nature of youth I suppose. Here's a link to another CNN story about the rise in HIV in straight guys & the drop in rates for gay men. http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9709/18/nfm.aids/"However there were some troubling signs in what was largely a promising report. Although new AIDS cases declined 15 percent among white gay and bisexual men in 1996, AIDS among heterosexuals rose 11 percent among men and 7 percent among women. "
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,820
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,820 |
this was a very popular topic!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
quote:
From Reuters Top Stories:
Canada's Gay Marriage Debate Coming to a Head
By Randall Palmer
OTTAWA (Reuters) - The political storm over gay marriage in Canada headed for a flash point on Monday, with opponents and proponents making last-minute pitches ahead of a key vote in Parliament scheduled for Tuesday.
The gay marriage debate dominated headlines and political discussion over the summer after the federal government decided not to appeal a provincial court decision that declared the heterosexual-only definition of marriage unconstitutional.
The opposition Canadian Alliance, which is against gay marriage, will try embarrass the ruling Liberals on Tuesday by introducing an identical motion to one supported by cabinet in 1999. That motion directed Parliament to preserve a definition of marriage as "the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."
"It'll come down to how did you vote last time, how are you voting now and why did you change your mind," John Reynolds, who runs the Alliance's legislative agenda in the House of Commons, told Reuters.
Prime Minister Jean Chretien, asked why he supported the motion in 1999 but not now, shrugged: "Society evolved."
The Alliance is eager to turn it into an issue in the federal election expected to be called next spring, particularly in the vote-rich battleground of Ontario, where the Liberals are seen as most vulnerable -- though they still have overwhelming dominance in the polls.
So many Liberals, particularly in rural districts, have signaled their intention to side with the Alliance on traditional marriage that Tuesday's vote is predicted to be razor-thin.
If it goes down to defeat, the Liberal government will hail the vote as support for its intention to change the law to allow for homosexual marriage.
But the government will find itself in a delicate situation if the motion passes, since it says Parliament -- which is led by the cabinet -- should "take all necessary steps" to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.
That would run contrary to the government's plans to change the definition, and would put cabinet in the position of seeming to ignore the re-expressed -- though nonbinding -- will of Parliament if it pushes ahead with those plans.
Justice Minister Martin Cauchon said it would not derail the government legislation. "Not at all," he told reporters, charging that the Alliance was playing a political game.
His spokesman, Mike Murphy, was more explicit: "The cabinet has embarked on a process. We'll continue that process."
Gay Ottawa city councilor Alex Munter said that "Canadian values are under threat" by the Alliance motion.
In a dueling news conference, Derek Rogusky of the conservative group Focus on the Family, replied to Munter's remark: "We think that's offensive to the millions of Canadians who hold views otherwise. To suggest that, is quite frankly un-Canadian -- to not tolerate these types of views in our society."
At first, many members of Parliament had been afraid to speak out vocally on the issue for fear of being branded homophobic, but some have been emboldened by polls showing just as many oppose gay marriage as support it and by an avalanche of letters and e-mails.
Meantime, there is a patchwork of rules, with gay marriage legal in Ontario and British Columbia because of court decisions there but banned in the rest of the country.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
http://www.opinionjournal.com/ac/?id=110004130The State of Our Unions If it's not a crime to be gay, why can't we get married? BY ANDREW SULLIVAN Wednesday, October 8, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT It didn't take long for many social conservatives to ponder the long-term implications of the Supreme Court's recent decision to strike down all antisodomy laws in the U.S. Moves are afoot to advance a constitutional amendment that would bar any state's legalization of same-sex marriage; next week is "Marriage Protection Week," in which the alleged danger of Lawrence v. Texas will be highlighted across the country. This push toward blanket prohibition, however, sidesteps a basic point about the post-Lawrence world. Whatever you feel about the reasoning of the decision, its result is clear: Gay Americans are no longer criminals. And very few conservatives want to keep them that way. The term "gay citizen" is now simply a fact of life. In retrospect, this might be the most significant shift on the question of homosexuality in a generation. For if homosexuals are no longer criminals for having consensual private relationships, then they cannot be dismissed as somehow alien or peripheral to our civil society. Moreover, the social transformation of the last decade cannot simply be gainsaid: A poll this week for USA Today found that 67% of the 18-29 age group believe that gay marriage would benefit society. The public as a whole is evenly split on that issue. Many of the people favoring a new tolerance are Republicans and conservatives. And this is inevitable. When the daughter of the vice president is openly gay, it's hard to treat homosexual citizens as some permanent kind of Other, as a threat to civil order and society. But if conservatives have now endorsed the notion of homosexuals as citizens, they haven't yet fully grasped the implications of that shift. Previously, social policy toward homosexuals was a function of either criminalization or avoidance. People who are either in jail or potentially subject to criminal sanction are already subject to a social policy of a sort. You may disagree with it, but it's social policy on the same lines as that toward drug users or speeders. It's a form of prohibitionism. But when all illegality is removed from gay people, as it has been, that social policy surely has to change. So what is it? What exactly is the post-Lawrence conservative social policy toward homosexuals? Amazingly, the current answer is entirely a negative one. The majority of social conservatives oppose gay marriage; they oppose gay citizens serving their country in the military; they oppose gay citizens raising children; they oppose protecting gay citizens from workplace discrimination; they oppose including gays in hate-crime legislation, while including every other victimized group; they oppose civil unions; they oppose domestic partnerships; they oppose . . . well, they oppose, for the most part, every single practical measure that brings gay citizens into the mainstream of American life. This is simply bizarre. Can you think of any other legal, noncriminal minority in society toward which social conservatives have nothing but a negative social policy? What other group in society do conservatives believe should be kept outside integrating social institutions? On what other issue do conservatives favor separatism over integration? We know, in short, what conservatives are against in this matter. But what exactly are they for? Let me be practical here. If two lesbian women want to share financial responsibility for each other for life, why is it a conservative notion to prevent this? If two men who have lived together for decades want the ability to protect their joint possessions in case one of them dies, why is it a conservative notion that such property be denied the spouse in favor of others? If one member of a young gay couple is badly hurt in a car accident, why is it a conservative notion that his spouse not be allowed to visit him in the intensive-care unit? In all these cases, you have legal citizens trying to take responsibility for one another. By doing so, by setting up relationships that do the "husbanding" work of family, such couples relieve the state of the job of caring for single people without family support. Such couplings help bring emotional calm to the people involved; they educate people into the mundane tasks of social responsibility and mutual caring. When did it become a socially conservative idea that these constructive, humane instincts remain a threat to society as a whole? And how do these small acts of caring actually undermine the heterosexual marriage of the people who live next door? Some will argue that these and many other benefits and responsibilities can be set up in an ad hoc fashion. You can create powers of attorney, legal contracts and the like, if you really need to. These arrangements can be enormously time-consuming and complex, and they don't always hold up in courts of law, of course. But even if they did, isn't it a strange conservative impulse to make taking responsibility something that the government should make harder rather than easier? One of the key benefits of marriage, after all, is that it also upholds a common ideal of mutual support and caring; it not only enables such acts of responsibility but rewards and celebrates them. In the past you could argue that such measures were inappropriate for a criminal or would-be criminal subgroup. But after Lawrence, that is no longer the case. The question is therefore an insistent one: On what grounds do conservatives believe that discouraging responsibility is a good thing for one group in society? What other legal minority do they or would they treat this way? If a group of African-Americans were to set themselves up and campaign for greater familial responsibility among black couples, do you think conservatives would be greeting them with dismay and discouragement or even a constitutional amendment to stop them? It is one thing to oppose gay marriage (some, but not all, conservative arguments against it are reasonable, if to my mind unconvincing). But it is another thing to oppose any arrangement that might give greater security, responsibility and opportunity to gay couples. At times, the social conservative position is almost perversely inconsistent: Many oppose what they see as gay promiscuity; but even more strongly, they oppose any social measures that would encourage gay monogamy, such as marriage. What, one wonders, do they want? In this, they actually have lower standards for now-legal citizens than they do for incarcerated criminals: Even murderers on death row have the constitutional right to marry, where the institution could do no conceivable social good. But for millions of citizens currently excluded from such incentives for responsibility, conservatives are prepared even to amend the Constitution to say no. If this debate is to move forward, a few simple questions therefore have to be answered: What is the social conservative position on civil unions? What aspects of them can conservatives get behind? What details are they less convinced by? These are basic public policy questions to which social conservatives, for the most part, have yet to provide an answer. It's well past time they did. Mr. Sullivan, a senior editor of The New Republic and columnist for Time, writes daily for andrewsullivan.com. This is part of an occasional series.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
quote:
Sexual Identity Hard-Wired by Genetics, Study Says
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Sexual identity is wired into the genes, which discounts the concept that homosexuality and transgender sexuality are a choice, California researchers reported on Monday.
"Our findings may help answer an important question -- why do we feel male or female?" Dr. Eric Vilain, a genetics professor at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine, said in a statement. "Sexual identity is rooted in every person's biology before birth and springs from a variation in our individual genome."
His team has identified 54 genes in mice that may explain why male and female brains look and function differently.
Since the 1970s, scientists have believed that estrogen and testosterone were wholly responsible for sexually organizing the brain. Recent evidence, however, indicates that hormones cannot explain everything about the sexual differences between male and female brains.
Published in the latest edition of the journal Molecular Brain Research, the UCLA discovery may also offer physicians an improved tool for gender assignment of babies born with ambiguous genitalia.
Mild cases of malformed genitalia occur in 1 percent of all births -- about 3 million cases. More severe cases -- where doctors can't inform parents whether they had a boy or girl -- occur in one in 3,000 births.
"If physicians could predict the gender of newborns with ambiguous genitalia at birth, we would make less mistakes in gender assignment," Vilain said.
Using two genetic testing methods, the researchers compared the production of genes in male and female brains in embryonic mice -- long before the animals developed sex organs.
They found 54 genes produced in different amounts in male and female mouse brains, prior to hormonal influence. Eighteen of the genes were produced at higher levels in the male brains; 36 were produced at higher levels in the female brains.
"We discovered that the male and female brains differed in many measurable ways, including anatomy and function." Vilain said.
For example, the two hemispheres of the brain appeared more symmetrical in females than in males. According to Vilain, the symmetry may improve communication between both sides of the brain, leading to enhanced verbal expressiveness in females.
"This anatomical difference may explain why women can sometimes articulate their feelings more easily than men," he said.
The scientists plan to conduct further studies to determine the specific role for each of the 54 genes they identified.
"Our findings may explain why we feel male or female, regardless of our actual anatomy," said Vilain. "These discoveries lend credence to the idea that being transgender --- feeling that one has been born into the body of the wrong sex -- is a state of mind.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
I still stand by my original thoery that no trait is purely genetic/environmental. To say it is purely on or the other is, in my opinion, ignorant.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
