PeterDavid.net

So is this an acknowledgement that being gay is how a person is made, & not a "lifestyle choice"?

You realize of course if its acknowledged that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice many people's perceptions and faiths are gonna be blown all to hell???Mind you I think this is a good thing ,Im just saying.

Sounds like a double edged sword to me, Glenn.

On the one hand it will be cool for many reasons when our knowledge of genetics gets to that point. Finding cures and so forth. The added bonus would be that we would have proof that homosexuality is a genetic trait rather than, as the unenlightened would have us believe, a deviant character trait.

I would question, however, outlawing abortions on the basis of homosexuality genes found in a fetus. For one, how do we prove what someones motivation for an abortion is?

When it comes to pre-birth genetic determination (hey, I just invented a phrase!) I would personally suggest that we go not much farther than we have already.

Determine gender? Sure.
Prevent disease or disability? Maybe.
Create designer children so that parents can have another way to live vicariously through them? Or so they're all pretty? Or smart? Or, better yet, so they don't talk back? No.

Hell no! It reminds me of Hitler injecting dye to change eye color.

It's bad enough that we throw all these pills at them now to make them docile zombies because we can't find ways to engage them. How far would we be willing to go? I'm willing to bet we'd go too far.

Plus, there is another downside. A bill banning abortions based on sexual orientation would eventually be used to piggy-back legislation that would reach even deeper into our right to choose.

'Looks into the future' indeed.

SIDENOTE: Any woman who would abort a fetus based on sexual orientation should not be bearing children in the first place.

Which brings me to this: Given such technology, how long before we decide that certain people are 'Genetically Undesireable' and are forbidden to reproduce at all?

I think that, after a certain point, this particular key to Pandora's Box should be locked away.

Every once in a while a Republican does something right...wing! HA HA HA HA!!! I made a funny.

Um, isn't he jumping the gun a little bit? I'm no law expert, but I certainly wouldn't try to create laws based on premises that are still in the realm of the theoretical. It seems kind of silly to make a law "just in case." On the other hand, I guess it couldn't hurt to be prepared.

Got any laws for human/alien hybrids yet? Couldn't hurt...

I'm always amazed that people think homosexuality is a choice. How many people would choose a lifestyle that is condemned by the Bible and several major religions; that has very uphill battles for marriage, adoption, and legal rights for the partner; and that, as the last presidential election showed, is incredibly divisive and largely homophobic in America.

As for this current bill, it presents quite a dilemma for pro-choice folks: How do you balance the right to choose with restrictions on what you choose? I have absolutely no answer to this.

If people can choose to have an abortion simply because they're "not ready" to have a child, then how can you say they can't have an abortion because they don't want a gay child? Pretty hypocritical.

Hey, are we sure this article isn't in error?

For a Republican, I'm surprised the guy isn't demanding that a "gay" fetus is aborted. Nothing like playing god, you know.

Or is this where the moral struggle finally arises, to prevent a gay person from living by another act of sin, in presumably taking a life?

Ah, this quote from the article does bring up the point:
The bill, they say, is a way of forcing some lawmakers to choose between abortion rights and gay rights.

This should be interesting.

I think this a conservative attempting to be clever by pitting abortion rights groups against gay rights groups, with the hope of making headway against Roe v. Wade. Similar thing with the proposed laws charging a double homicide for killing a pregnant woman.

The added bonus would be that we would have proof that homosexuality is a genetic trait rather than, as the unenlightened would have us believe, a deviant character trait.

Of course, the thing that scares me is that, right before you said this sentence, you said "Finding cures and so forth".

Talk about the ultimate "cure" for the homosexual "problem".

Again, I'd see plenty of 'playing god' by way of abortion or genetic manipulation, etc, if a gene were discovered. Obviously, if the gene exists, it needs to be found to shut up the "It's a Choice" idiots, but still...

I read a porno like this once. Turns out that the only gay people left were Catholics, because they didn't believe in abortion, no matter what.

:|

Matt has it nailed right on the head--this is someone who is having much merry fun with the opposition, putting them into a position where they must piss off one of their essential constituents. Don't think the Democrats are exactly in a position to do that. It's clever, but of course meaningless, since no such gene has yet been discovered.

But it probably will be.

And then at that moment, we will see the truth about those who claim to be pro-choice. If they, in any way shape or form, prohibit abortion for the "wrong" reasons, they will be exposed as hypocrites. There are women today who get abortions for reasons no less contemptible. Hell, Asia is heading for a demographic time bomb now that sex selection abortions have so knocked the usual 50/50 male/female ratio out of whack.

If a woman can abort a handicapped child, or a child who is the "wrong" sex, or because it will conflict with a planned vacation,or for any other bad reason, how the hell can anyone suddenly claim that it's become unallowable to abort a child based on sexual orientation?

Incidentally, it's far more likely that Limbaugh got the idea from the play or movie TWILIGHT OF THE GOLDS. Perhaps playwrite Jonathon Tolins is a comics fan, though it's not like the idea is all that radical.

Mitch Evans wrote:
-----------------------------------
When it comes to pre-birth genetic determination (hey, I just invented a phrase!) I would personally suggest that we go not much farther than we have already.
-----------------------------------

And those deny women the right to do what they wish with their bodies. Making a law to prohibit genetic testing and manipulation would only serve to open the door toward limit abortion, since we're saying the State has a right to supersede a women's right to do whatever she wants with her body. So whether its abortion, abortion of homosexual babies, or gene manipulation of a baby, then the right belongs to the woman.

Or something.

And then at that moment, we will see the truth about those who claim to be pro-choice. If they, in any way shape or form, prohibit abortion for the "wrong" reasons, they will be exposed as hypocrites.

Your hypothetical assumes that "they" think and act monolithically. And it furthermore assumes that it is hypocrisy to choose which issue is more important to you-- it could be that to one person, preventing an act of bias against a sexuality is more important, while to another, keeping the government out of these decisions could be more important. That doesn't mean that they don't value either side, it simply means they each have different priorities, which is our right in America.

Here's what will happen though; if I could deduce what this dope is up to within a few seconds of reading Glenn's excerpt, any group with a serious interest in these issues will be able to as well. And so this bill will die quietly, like all the other political posturing bills the Republicans dream up as sops for their right-wing constituencies, because gay rights groups will instantly understand that anything coming from the party that put preventing them from getting married at the top of its political agenda, is not being done to help them.

After all, what this bill really says is, "I think homosexuals are morons."

And gay people will just love that.

A note of caution: it sounds more like someone's found away to stop an abortion from being carried out, I don't think it has anything to do with the sexuality of the baby. May be this is just a first stab at overturning Wade vs. Roe?

I thought pro-choice was pro-choice, or are you now saying that it's OK to be pro-choice unless it touches a liberal sacred cow?

Look at it this way. If someone that's "on the right" finds out she's pregnant, and the fetus shows signs of some homosexual gene, decides to get an abortion, then we don't have to worry about Roe v Wade being overturned.

Abortion for convenience...OK
Abortion for carelessness...OK
Abortion for life of mother...OK
Abortion for gay gene...HELL NO!

WTF???

the way around this is to ban the testing for sexual orientation on fetuses.

I'm confused. No, not by the idea. I'm confused because of what quarter it's coming from.

Your hypothetical assumes that "they" think and act monolithically. And it furthermore assumes that it is hypocrisy to choose which issue is more important to you-- it could be that to one person, preventing an act of bias against a sexuality is more important, while to another, keeping the government out of these decisions could be more important. That doesn't mean that they don't value either side, it simply means they each have different priorities, which is our right in America.

At the very least, the pro-choicers who take that position will have to change their rhetoric.

"A woman has the right to choose!"
"(As long for reasons we approve!)"

Ok, it doesn't quite trip off the tongue, does it?

And if we ban testing for the gay gene while allowing it for the sex and genetic health of the child, doesn't that send a message to women and the handicapped that while they are fair game for pre-natal elimination, homosexuals are more important?

The fact that we are having this discussion means that Mr. Duprey has achieved his goal; stirring the pot, making his adversaries uncomfortable. I don't know whether this guy is a political genius of just some doof who got lucky but you have to admire it on some level.

Also, if the right is going to admit that being gay is genetic & not a choice, that means that their claim of homosexuality being unnatural will be shot to hell.

Yeah, cause republicans think other reasons for abortion are okay.

Hey, why not pass laws prohibiting trade with martians, travelling faster than .04c outside Earth's atmosphere, and only allowing Godzilla (or Gojira, depending on your accent) to enter the US through ports south of New York City?

Glad to see our elected leaders have enough free time to work on laws to address issues that don't exist today. Not like we have current issues to take care of...poverty, hunger, a huge debt and deficit.

That this comes from the conservative side is interesting for a few reasons. First, it's a tacit admission that homosexuality might not be a lifestyle choice, but genetics or biology. It really calls into question the whole religious acceptance of homosexuality on the basis that it's an abomination in the eyes of God. If there's a "gay gene," then it's pretty clear that God make people gay. Going to be hard for the current religious leadership to digest that.

Second, it does seem like this is kind of a conservative test. Sort of a way of saying "let's put the liberal's convictions to the test. We'll make law that forces them to choose between protecting their precious gays, or allowing women free choice to murder their babies."

Third, it's clearly a back-door attempt to outlaw abortions. Once the door to preventing abortion is open, it's so much easier to pass successive laws that expand the prohibition.

It's much like Bush's attempt to "protect" marriage by prohibiting same sex marriages. Once he sets a precedent for defining marriage, I'd not be surprised if his next step was to outlaw divorce.

If a lesbian is pregnant, would the automatic assumption be that the child would be gay? Even though the male contributor to the pregnancy might not be? Just wondering....

I'm really enjoying this discussion for many reasons. But since several postings brought up Rowe vs. Wade, I thought I'd pass along an interesting fact. My aunt works on the hill and when these discussions are brought up, she likes to ask people if they know what overturning RvW would do. Every person responds that it would outlaw abortion. Well, this isn't true, it would send the issue BACK TO THE STATES. It currently protects a woman's right to choose on a federal level, but overturning it does not outlaw abortion.

So a woman who lives in a "Red" state that does outlaw abortion, can travel to a "Blue" state where it is legal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a person can't be charged with a crime in her/his home state if it was committed in a state where it is perfectly legal.

If Congress and the Supreme Court refuse to make a ruling on this issue, then each state may end up doing so.

Interesting, huh?
Daniel

I still think you're proceeding from a few false assumptions, Bill.

Assumption #1: that there is a single "gay gene" that can be isolated and tell you with unerring accuracy whether your child will wind up gay. Considering that (if memory serves) there are multiple genetic markers for something as simple as eye color, the odds of there being a single G-Marks-the-Spot location for homosexuality strike me as extreme.

Assumption #2: that "pro-choicers" not only think monolithically, but are so blitheringly stupid as to let themselves get caught in this bill's trap. (I could come up with all kinds of rude retorts here, but I'm trying to behave myself.)

Speaking personally, I've got a couple of observations.

1) This is a completely unenforceable law, unless the discovery of said "gay gene" comes hand-in-hoof with a major advance in telepathy. How anyone expects to be able to discern someone's intentions to the point of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is an intriguing question.

2) Those on the pro-choice side aren't the only one with a catch-22 here. I'd love, love, LOVE to see someone discuss this law with ... oh ... Rick Santorum.

3) I will say flat out that I wouldn't support this law. One cannot be in favor of choice and then say "but only if it's choices we agree with." Would I disapprove of this particular choice? Hell, yeah. Would I personally wind up shunning someone who made it? Possibly. Would I make it illegal? No.

4) Remember, folks, any government that's given the power to prohibit abortions is also being given the power to mandate them given a majority of lawmakers. Think about that. The opposite of "choice" is not "life" -- it's lack of choice.

TWL

Craig J. Ries:
M.E.: "The added bonus would be that we would have proof that homosexuality is a genetic trait rather than, as the unenlightened would have us believe, a deviant character trait."

C.J.R.: "Of course, the thing that scares me is that, right before you said this sentence, you said "Finding cures and so forth"."

Hi Craig.

I'm assuming that the part that scares you is 'and so forth.' Please let me know if I'm wrong, but I'm going with that assumption for now.

To adress 'and so forth' I think I first need to clarify 'finding cures.' By 'finding cures' I'm refering to many things. Let's look at the flu and cerebral palsy. In the case of the flu the level of genetic understanding that we're talking about would allow us to determine how different strains affect the human host and we could create a defense that could make the human host unattractive to the flu.

In the case of cerebral palsy we could possibly prevent it altogether through genetic manipulation.

Now what I refer to when I use the phrase 'and so forth' would be cases involing babies being born with one arm, for example. Through testing we discover that the fetus in question will be born with one arm and we use genetic manipulation to ensure that both arms develope in utero(sp). This would not be a disease but rather a deformation, and I probably should have been more clear in my original post.

Like I said, I'm working from an assumption based upon how I interpreted your post so I could still be way off.

Seamus Bradley:
"Mitch Evans wrote:
-----------------------------------
When it comes to pre-birth genetic determination (hey, I just invented a phrase!) I would personally suggest that we go not much farther than we have already.
-----------------------------------

And those deny women the right to do what they wish with their bodies. Making a law to prohibit genetic testing and manipulation would only serve to open the door toward limit abortion, since we're saying the State has a right to supersede a women's right to do whatever she wants with her body. So whether its abortion, abortion of homosexual babies, or gene manipulation of a baby, then the right belongs to the woman.

Or something."

Hi Seamus.

I think I may have given the impression that a woman's right to choose what she does with her body be superceded. That wasn't my intent and I find that it's generally a bad idea to do so.

Even though I would prefer that unwanted pregnancies be prevented I would never dictate that a woman must abort or must not abort.

Yes, most people don't realize that RvW doesn't make abortion legal, it "simply" makes it legal at the federal level and forces the states to comply. But that doesn't mean that losing RvW won't end with abotions re-criminalized across the board.

Most states have used the gaps in RvW to create their own rules on timing, information, and parental consent. And at least as far as parental consent, yes, many states have indeed tried to criminalize the act of going to another state to avoid a local law. (Though it is usually phrased as "custodial interference" or "interstate transport of a minor".)

And it really doesn't matter if only one state ends up banning abotions, because we are a federation of states. If 49 states can be forced to recognize gay marriages performed in one, then one state can demand that it's views on abortion be upheld by every other state. (And while that is extreme, if there is enough political will to overturn the Supreme Court, more than likely 51% of the [voting] population will be behind it.)

In the end, that's why we have a Federal government, to uphold those basic rights that apply to everyone, equally. If we are going to buy into this Red State/Blue State mentality, we might as well kick the Constitution to the curb and start Balkanizing like Europe.

(Oh, wait, they are starting to come together and try and find ways to function as a single Union. Those crazy Europeans and their silly ideas...)

This story echoes my little Michael Crichton story wannabe. Never got around to trying to write it - way too much research.

Tim Lynch:
"Assumption #1: that there is a single "gay gene" that can be isolated and tell you with unerring accuracy whether your child will wind up gay. Considering that (if memory serves) there are multiple genetic markers for something as simple as eye color, the odds of there being a single G-Marks-the-Spot location for homosexuality strike me as extreme."

Hi Tim.

You're correct. After discovering the "gay gene"
we would have to determine if it would have dominance over the "not gay gene" and the "not gay, not straight, but instead bi gene." I was going to mention that in a follow-up post, but you beat me to it. I was also going to add the best part: Discovering a "gay gene" would mean that everyone has it. How do you suppose the homophobes would react to that?

T.W.L.:
"1) This is a completely unenforceable law, unless the discovery of said "gay gene" comes hand-in-hoof with a major advance in telepathy. How anyone expects to be able to discern someone's intentions to the point of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is an intriguing question."

What you said.

Tim,

Welcome back. Been missing your contributions but babies will do that won't they? It's getting hard to even remember what it was like BC, isn't it?

Assumption #1: that there is a single "gay gene" that can be isolated and tell you with unerring accuracy whether your child will wind up gay. Considering that (if memory serves) there are multiple genetic markers for something as simple as eye color, the odds of there being a single G-Marks-the-Spot location for homosexuality strike me as extreme.

I'm not assuming anything beyond the likelihood that there exits genetic components that create predisposition to homosexuality. So no, the discovery of such a marker would not be any more a certainty of the child's eventual sexual orientation any more than the markers for alcoholism or musical talent guarantee that this will be the childs actual destiny. You could have every possible predisposition to alcoholism but if you are raised as a strict Amish you will never be an alcoholic. There are tons of kids starving in Africa who could be child prodigies on the violin; doesn't really matter since the poor kid won't ever get to hold one.

If the tests can predict homosexuality to around a 25% or better predictive rate it'll be used. I don't think that's too unlikely. GATTACA ain't too far off.

Assumption #2: that "pro-choicers" not only think monolithically, but are so blitheringly stupid as to let themselves get caught in this bill's trap. (I could come up with all kinds of rude retorts here, but I'm trying to behave myself.)

I never said anything about all pro-choicers thinking monolithically (that would be the a better description of the posters who are scratching their heads wondering how it's possible that any republican could be against aborting gay fetuses since we all KNOW that all republicans want to kill as many gay people as possible blah blah blah)

What I said was "At the very least, the pro-choicers who take that position will have to change their rhetoric." I think it's pretty clear that I'm distinguishing between the ones who take the position and the ones that don't. So where am I claiming that the pro-choice side thinks monolithically???

I usually try very carefully not to make broad generalizations about people so it's especially flummoxing when something I say gets interpreted that way.

And as I've mentioned, I don't think it's the guys idea to "trap" the pro-choice side, just stir up some trouble between two groups that the Democrats absolutely MUST hold on to. Don't be surprised if some future smart Republican leader introduces legislature that will pit animal rights activists against AIDS activists. The Democrats could easily do some of the same but I'll leave it to others to make those suggestions. :)

"1) This is a completely unenforceable law, unless the discovery of said "gay gene" comes hand-in-hoof with a major advance in telepathy. How anyone expects to be able to discern someone's intentions to the point of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is an intriguing question."

Absolutely true, which is why it might pass. Even pro-choice politicians might be tempted to play up to their gay constituents and they may feel that since the law won't actually be enforced it's a no-lose situation. I believe that India had passed a law against the use of abortion for sex selection. It hasn't worked but it HAS certainly weakened the hand of the pro-choice feminists who suddenly found themselves lobbying for it.

"2) Those on the pro-choice side aren't the only one with a catch-22 here. I'd love, love, LOVE to see someone discuss this law with ... oh ... Rick Santorum."

I'll bet you get your wish and I'll bet Santorum will say something to the effect that he would oppose any abortion on a child just because they are gay. He'll come off as a good guy. Sorry to disappoint my blue state friends but the "Let's round up the gays and kill them" lobby isn't a very big one. I don't know if the "hate the sin love the sinner" crowd mean it when they say it but that's what they say. And so will he.

3) I will say flat out that I wouldn't support this law. One cannot be in favor of choice and then say "but only if it's choices we agree with." Would I disapprove of this particular choice? Hell, yeah. Would I personally wind up shunning someone who made it? Possibly. Would I make it illegal? No.

Agree 100%. Surprised?

Sorry, I just don't believe that it's as simple as "Gay/Not Gay". Yes, some people are born with a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality--I think that that's been pretty definitively established. Even among those persons, some consider themselves gay and some don't (and never will). Others enjoy a homo- or bi-sexual lifestyle with no genetic predispostion.

As to a woman's right to an abortion; what rights do we have that are completely absolute? Why should this be any different? I believe that medically necessary abortions should be allowed--after that, I'm ambivalant. I don't think that makes me a hypocrit--others may disagree.

Welcome back. Been missing your contributions but babies will do that won't they? It's getting hard to even remember what it was like BC, isn't it?

Oh, those memories are long gone...

I'm not assuming anything beyond the likelihood that there exits genetic components that create predisposition to homosexuality.

Boy, if that's all, then the proposed law gets REALLY absurd. When we start worrying that Person A *might* consider an abortion because of some slightly-higher-than-average likelihood that their kid *might* be gay, we're into serious "dude, you've got too much free time if this is what you worry about" territory. Sure, it's interesting to speculate, but it's hardly worth a dispute at this stage...

If the tests can predict homosexuality to around a 25% or better predictive rate it'll be used.

Not by most people, I'd wager. I certainly wouldn't use it -- I probably wouldn't even with a 90% predictive rate.

Assumption #2: that "pro-choicers" not only think monolithically, but are so blitheringly stupid as to let themselves get caught in this bill's trap. (I could come up with all kinds of rude retorts here, but I'm trying to behave myself.)

I never said anything about all pro-choicers thinking monolithically

Not explicitly, no, but I think

"we will see the truth about those who claim to be pro-choice. "

implies it rather strongly. It implies that pro-choicers are both monolithic and hypocritical.

If that's not what you meant, my apologies, but then I'd like a clarification. (The "at the very least..." bit you mention later came after this statement, BTW.)

1) This is a completely unenforceable law, unless the discovery of said "gay gene" comes hand-in-hoof with a major advance in telepathy. How anyone expects to be able to discern someone's intentions to the point of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is an intriguing question.

Absolutely true, which is why it might pass. Even pro-choice politicians might be tempted to play up to their gay constituents and they may feel that since the law won't actually be enforced it's a no-lose situation.

Not anyone who's been in politics for long enough, no. I do think they'd see it as a "trap", and I think they'd see it as such quite correctly. Anyone incapable of explaining why an unenforceable law shouldn't be enacted is someone I'd just as soon vote out of office anyway, thanks.

2) Those on the pro-choice side aren't the only one with a catch-22 here. I'd love, love, LOVE to see someone discuss this law with ... oh ... Rick Santorum.

I'll bet you get your wish and I'll bet Santorum will say something to the effect that he would oppose any abortion on a child just because they are gay. He'll come off as a good guy.

And if the questioner has any combination of brains and balls, there will be innumerable followups dealing with a lot of Santorum's past statements linking homosexuality to all sorts of criminal behaviors, not to mention lovely things like bestiality.

Now, this undoubtedly shows that I still maintain too much unjustified faith in the media to ferret out some truths, but I still like to think it's possible. Hell, give me a credential and I'll ask the SOB myself.

3) I will say flat out that I wouldn't support this law. One cannot be in favor of choice and then say "but only if it's choices we agree with." Would I disapprove of this particular choice? Hell, yeah. Would I personally wind up shunning someone who made it? Possibly. Would I make it illegal? No.

Agree 100%. Surprised?

Not especially. Surprised?

TWL

Brian Duprey and Rush Limbaugh are about 25 years late. This idea has already been run. When gay groups were trying to ram down this "born gay" crap in the 80's, some big religious organization (I think it was Heritage USA) offered to pay for the research to prove them right. The reason, of course, was to then find a "cure." How you can cure what people decide to do with their various body parts later in life, I have no idea.

JamesLynch:
"I'm always amazed that people think homosexuality is a choice. How many people would choose a lifestyle that is condemned by the Bible and several major religions; that has very uphill battles for marriage, adoption, and legal rights for the partner; and that, as the last presidential election showed, is incredibly divisive and largely homophobic in America."

And yet is still portrayed as being so cool and funny by TV, movies, magazines, etc. People choose to be drunks, thieves and rapists, too, and all of those things are pretty universally condemned. If you take away the pampered conveniences of modern life, and all of the media influences, you'll see that homosexuality is a choice... heterosexuality is an instinct.

Andrew W. Laubacher:
"Yes, some people are born with a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality--I think that that's been pretty definitively established."

By what? The way somebody walks, dresses, or gets their hair cut? The most limpwristed goth-fag dude I ever met, was also the biggest horndog.

There is no "gay gene."

Powell, if homosexuality isn't an instinct, then how come homosexual behavoir has been observed in over 400 different species in the animal kingdom? Does murdering your neighbor's children not qualify as instinct because animals do it?

I am being facetious here, but your declaring that homosexuality isn't instict or that there isn't a "gay gene" doesn't make it so. You have to provide scientific proof that the gay geen doesn't exist. And saying that it hasn't been identified doesn't mean it don't exist! The sexual behavior we engage in is a choice, the desire is biological.

Part II

To answer your question about the "established by what?", then read the twin studies published in peer-reviewed journals and you will see that there is genetic evidence for homosexuality, even thought the exact genes are unknown.

Daniel
"Happy to know that the day will never come when a person can just declare something and it becomes scientific fact."

I always get here too late and invariably someone else says what I want to say only more eloquently than I probably would have. So nuts to all of you who came first.

My little bit: I get a little discoureged by the pharse woman's right to choose. I think "parent's" right to choose would be better. And I get that most often women are forced to make the desicion alone (and that sucks on so many levels I don't want to get into it), and maybe it's only semantics, but it still gets to me.

"I was also going to add the best part: Discovering a "gay gene" would mean that everyone has it."

I don't see why. Discovering the gene for cystic fibrosis doesn't mean we all have it.

"Yes, some people are born with a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality--I think that that's been pretty definitively established."

By what? The way somebody walks, dresses, or gets their hair cut? The most limpwristed goth-fag dude I ever met, was also the biggest horndog.

There is no "gay gene."

I don't get your point. Being gay has nothing to do with "The way somebody walks, dresses, or gets their hair cut". It has mostly to do with having sex with your own gender.

The gay gene or genes has NOT been proven, but the evidence, I think, strongly leans that way.

JamesLynch:
"I'm always amazed that people think homosexuality is a choice. How many people would choose a lifestyle that is condemned by the Bible and several major religions; that has very uphill battles for marriage, adoption, and legal rights for the partner; and that, as the last presidential election showed, is incredibly divisive and largely homophobic in America."

And yet is still portrayed as being so cool and funny by TV, movies, magazines, etc. People choose to be drunks, thieves and rapists, too, and all of those things are pretty universally condemned. If you take away the pampered conveniences of modern life, and all of the media influences, you'll see that homosexuality is a choice... heterosexuality is an instinct.

But you can find gays in places where being gay will get you killed. There's no Will & Grace in Saudi Arabia. It's beyond silly to think that such a fundamental desire as which gender you prefer could be heavily influenced by the media. Golden Showers could be the Next Big Thing but it won't ever appeal to me ever ever ever. I don't care if everyone in Hollywood does it. (I also wouldn't be surprised).

If the tests can predict homosexuality to around a 25% or better predictive rate it'll be used.

Not by most people, I'd wager. I certainly wouldn't use it -- I probably wouldn't even with a 90% predictive rate.

I wouldn't expect YOU to do it even at a 100% rate--what would be the point?

I would be willing to find out if my kid to be had any predispositions to health problems or, on a more positive note, special genius in some area--just so I could be on the lookout for things. If my kid was likely to be diabetic I'd make sure they were monitered for it at a higher rate than a kid who has no such issues.

Since I don't consider homosexuality to be a "problem" for anyone other than those who make it so, I have no reason to look for it.

I never said anything about all pro-choicers thinking monolithically

Not explicitly, no, but I think
"we will see the truth about those who claim to be pro-choice. "
implies it rather strongly. It implies that pro-choicers are both monolithic and hypocritical.
If that's not what you meant, my apologies, but then I'd like a clarification. (The "at the very least..." bit you mention later came after this statement, BTW.)

Ok, I can see where that might have come across that way. I was thinking of the second sattement but the first one wasn't clear.

I think it would be incredibly hypocritical to allow abortions for any reason other than to not have a gay kid, as appalling as that choice would be. I can understand how some gays might feel differently and I suspect it could well weaken support for abortion rights for a significant percentage of the gay community.

To those people, the politicians who oppose the law will be supporting gay genocide (obviously that's an extreme position but these are issues that bring out extreme positions).

"And if the questioner has any combination of brains and balls, there will be innumerable followups dealing with a lot of Santorum's past statements linking homosexuality to all sorts of criminal behaviors, not to mention lovely things like bestiality.

Look, I am no Santorum fan so I don't like having to defend him in any way shape or form, but as I recall he was saying something to the effect that if the Supreme Court says you can't legislate against homosexual acts then you could also argue that they can legislate against other acts, like incest or bestiality. There's a kernal of validity in that. (Other than moral and religious grounds, why should incest be illegal? Pointy headed offspring? Easily solvable with a simple sterilization. And gay incest would obviously have no danger of procreation so what would be the problem?)

(EDITORS NOTE- I'm not advocationg eliminating laws against incest).

Santorum stated after the initial controversy " "I am a firm believer that all are equal under the Constitution. My comments should not be construed in any way as a statement on individual lifestyles." he'll say the same thing here. Much as I'd LOVE to see you interview the guy, I suspect it wouldn't go as well as you think. He'd be smart enough to take the high ground and talk about protecting gay babies (safe in the knowledge that this law will do no such thing).

Agree 100%. Surprised?

Not especially. Surprised?

Nah, I knew I'd eventually get you to think just like me. A simple combination of brilliant arguments combined with sleep deprivation...works every time. :)

For those interested:

1) I consider myself very liberal, very far left.

2) I think that this entire discussion is specious (without merit.) Why? Because, (and I'm taking a human sexuality class right now which involves biology among other issues) I think that the entire idea of a "gay gene" is bad science. If any professional geneticists would like to pop up and tell me that I'm wrong, I'll apologize.

Short version: Human sexuality is very complex. Nature vs. Nuture arguments alone do not explain all of the variety. Is someone born gay? Bisexual? Heterosexual? Other? I don't know. I used to be convinced that it was solely genetic, now I just try to avoid simplifications.

Bottom line: Abortion isn't ever going to go away untill unwanted pregnancies stop happening. If you can think of a way to eliminate all rape (and I don't say, "rape and incest" because, for the most part, incest is usually a form of rape) faulty birth control, and I have no idea what else, we're never gonna rest this issue. I'm pro-choice because history tells me that outlawing abortion leads to far more harm than good. Untill we ever find a way to install a foolproof "switch" in every human being ("I want to be fertile right now, produce sperm, or not") that lets us make sure that we only have pregnancies when we want them, I see no happy endings.

See you around,

Jon

"If you can think of a way to eliminate all rape (and I don't say, "rape and incest" because, for the most part, incest is usually a form of rape) faulty birth control, and I have no idea what else, we're never gonna rest this issue."

That should have read "Unless you can think of a way..."

Damn typos

Bill Mulligan:
"The gay gene or genes has NOT been proven, but the evidence, I think, strongly leans that way."

WHAT evidence? The "1992 Twin Studies of Homosexuality?" Bah. There were so many leaps of logic in there. How many twins are gay, and vice-versa? Freud's analyses in the 50's were not only more in-depth and better presented, they were more applicable to everyone, not just twins.

But so what? Thomas Jefferson wrote book that is still considered historically significant, despite including a lot of the same rhetoric as the Bell Curve about the mental superiority of whites over blacks. Were either one of those "studies" correct? No, I don't think so.

vocalyz:
"Happy to know that the day will never come when a person can just declare something and it becomes scientific fact."

The gay groups are the ones making the declaration that some people are "born gay." They've provided no convincing data, and balked at accepting moneys from opposition groups to conduct serious study. If there's a "gay gene" that pre-determines what a person will find sexually attractive later in life... gah, that is just stupid on so many levels. But like a life after death, I'll believe it if I see it.

Jon:
"I think that the entire idea of a "gay gene" is bad science."

I agree. It's most often used by gay groups to try and attain special privileges by riding the wave caused by the Civil Rights movement that so many blacks fought so hard for. But now this Republican jackass in Maine is trying to turn the "gay gene" pseudo-biology around and use it as a trap for the gay groups to undo Roe v. Wade. I bet he thinks he's real clever.

If we adopt a law based on something Rush Limbaugh said on the radio, I'm leaving.

POWELL
"WHAT evidence? The "1992 Twin Studies of Homosexuality?" Bah. There were so many leaps of logic in there. How many twins are gay, and vice-versa?"

Actually, I haven't read that particular study, so i can't remark on any "leaps". But, your response to it "suggests" that you don't understand why studying the prevalence of something in a twin population is evidence. In short, and I mean in a REALLY basic simplistic manner, because monozygotic (i.e., twins from the same egg dividing) share 100% of their genetic make-up, and dizygotic (i.e., twins from two separate eggs) share on average 50% of their genetic make-up (if memory serves).

So, if the prevalence of homosexuality is greater in monozygotic (identical) twins than in dizygotic (fraternal) twins, we know that means there is a strong genetic influence.

The same is true if we find that homosexuality is greater in identical twins raised together than in identical twins raised separetly. In other words, nature CAN play a stronger role than nurture in these instances.

So, your personal disbelief that these are leaps of logic doesn't change that it is scientific evidence in support of genetics influencing sexuality. It just demonstrates that you didn't take the time to understand the science behind the logic to realize that it isn't a "leap". It's an actual measure of genetics. It's not a PERFECT measure, but we know from countless twin studies of biology that it is telling, fact-based evidence and not just conjecture.

Daniel

"Human sexuality is very complex."

Well sure, but so is the human immune system and about 1000 other things with a genetic component. As I think I've mentioned, it is incredibly unlikely that there is a single gene that, if you have, bam, you're gay.

There could be lots of factors, but, on the whole, the idea of a genetic component makes a hell of a lot more sense than repeated viewings of The Birdcage or Shazam.

"Bottom line: Abortion isn't ever going to go away untill unwanted pregnancies stop happening."

But the problem is, we will have even more reasons in the future for a pregnancy to be unwanted.

Regrettable but inevitable. really, everyone, watch the movie GATTACA. Not perfect as a film but the premise will come true in our lifetimes and will utterly change the world. For better or worse, so we might as well face it and try to make it for the better.

Hey, is it me or has Chris Rock been less funny so far on the Oscars than he's ever been? Worst. Show. Ever.

I saw some of Rock's opening monologue. Not his 'A' material for sure, but he was probably sanitized by the network to be non-offensive.

And I love Chris Rock. I almost drove off the road once listening to a comedy album of his.

I dunno, it's just a bad fit, Rock and the Oscars. And is it me or did the movies and actors just get smaller...the last few years had the Lord of the Rings trilogy to keep things great but this year...yow. I may actually go to sleep on time tonight.

"Bottom line: Abortion isn't ever going to go away untill unwanted pregnancies stop happening."

"But the problem is, we will have even more reasons in the future for a pregnancy to be unwanted."

Perhaps, but in this case (the current law proposed) I think that it is almost a non-issue. Many people base both their opposition to abortion and their opposition to homosexuality based on religious grounds. We already have so many reasons that a person might want to get an abortion (such as places that want to abort a female baby to try again for a male) that I don't see too much of a change in the abortion debate. As long as there is a coat hanger in the world (or sulfuric acid, or poison, or blows to the stomach, or one of the many things desperate women used when abortion was illegal), and unless we turn the world in 1984 with hidden camera and police everywhere (not if I can help it) any women that wants an abortion for any reason, and is willing to take the risks involved, can have one. That's one of the reasons I think laws against abortion don't work well for those who call themselves pro-life or pro-choice. What will cut down on most abortions? Reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. What is the best way to do that? From what I have read, the best results come from sex education that is comprehensive (not abstinence only, which is what many religiously based pro-lifers want; I believe that the evidence shows that leads to more unwanted pregnancies than comprehensive sex-ed) more programs for young girls (sports, honors society, etc.) that give them the sense of self-worth and self-confidence to say no to a pressuring boyfriend, and I don't really know what to do about pregnancies caused by rape (incest or not) and the mother's life being in danger, except in the second case, wait for medical science to improve.

"Regrettable but inevitable. really, everyone, watch the movie GATTACA. Not perfect as a film but the premise will come true in our lifetimes and will utterly change the world. For better or worse, so we might as well face it and try to make it for the better."

I liked the movie a lot, but I'm not sure how predictive it will be and I'm not sure how much of it will be bad. One of the points of the movie is that science isn't omniscient, and that just because, "genetics say this person is class-A and this person is class-B" that a person's life isn't set at bith. If I had access to one of those labs and could make sure that my kid would be much less likely to get some horrible disease by using gfenetic engineering, I'd do it.

What will happen in the future? Short term: Some will always have ethical objections to new technology (the "faith-birthers") some will always abuse and misrepresent it (eugenicists, racists, the heavily misguided, the power seekers, and the hate filled) and some will use it wisely (the healers, and those that know to try new "improvements" slowly, if at all.)

On the whole, I think that technological change has increased the human life span, the amount of work and time we have available (for things such as ethical ponderings as opposed to just surviving) for the better. I think that the future will probably be much better than the past if we embrace it optomistically, cautiosly, and wisely.

Personally, I wish I was born again today (physically, not religiously =) so that I'd have more time and a better chance to get those moon colonies/space ships/alien contacts/star trek/voltron/babylon 5 futures that I wanted growing up.

Ah well. C'est le vie.

And in the future, I hope that I learn to communicate *much* *more* *economically*!!!

"One of the points of the movie is that science isn't omniscient, and that just because, "genetics say this person is class-A and this person is class-B" that a person's life isn't set at bith. If I had access to one of those labs and could make sure that my kid would be much less likely to get some horrible disease by using gfenetic engineering, I'd do it."

true on both points, but even now, if you had to choose between 2 applicants for a job and one was said to be unusually intelligent and creative, you'd probably go with that person. But you're only going on reputation or impressions gained from a brief encounter. When we can get a reasonably good "read" on a person from a genetic fingerprint it'll be the way people get hired. Sure, a few gifted people without the right profiles will be missed but 99 times out of 100, the profiles will be useful.

And yeah, I would do anything I could to maximise my children's chances at happiness. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with in vitro fertilization and if one COULD know what each fertilized egg would become there would be nothing intrinsically wrong with choosing the one most likely to become the healthiest, smartest, best looking person. But theer WILL be serious problems that will result from all this, not the least of which is that the wealthy will not only be richer than most of us, they will also become smarter, healthier and better looking with each generation, while the underclass will fall even further behind.

Anyone got a suggestion for an Oscar Drinking Game? I'm getting bored...

The only thing that would be worse than making all these poor nominees line up on the stage while they announce the winner would be if a trap door opened up beneath the losers and they plunged into a pit of vipers.

David Letterman must be a happy man tonight.

At the very least, the pro-choicers who take that position will have to change their rhetoric.

Again, you're assuming some kind of monolithic rhetoric that "they" have.

And if we ban testing for the gay gene while allowing it for the sex and genetic health of the child, doesn't that send a message to women and the handicapped that while they are fair game for pre-natal elimination, homosexuals are more important?

Don't ask me. Ask the guy who's proposing the bill.

The fact that we are having this discussion means that Mr. Duprey has achieved his goal; stirring the pot, making his adversaries uncomfortable.

Really? So discussion implies uncomfortability? I for one am no more or less perturbed with Republicans or their agenda than I was before reading this.

I don't know whether this guy is a political genius

I'm sorry, but how high are your standards of intellect if you think that managing to upset some people qualifies as genius?

Bill,

I would be willing to find out if my kid to be had any predispositions to health problems or, on a more positive note, special genius in some area--just so I could be on the lookout for things. If my kid was likely to be diabetic I'd make sure they were monitered for it at a higher rate than a kid who has no such issues.

Well, sure -- I would as well (and in some ways did, or at least agreed to the idea; that's what all that genetic testing for pregnant women is about, after all). But homosexuality is neither a health problem nor a special genius, folks like Oscar Wilde to the contrary (possibly in both cases).

I know you agree with that, so I'm not sure why you're bringing these up as examples.

On the "pro-choicers thinking monolithically" question...

I think "we will see the truth about those who claim to be pro-choice. " implies it rather strongly. It implies that pro-choicers are both monolithic and hypocritical.

Ok, I can see where that might have come across that way. I was thinking of the second sattement but the first one wasn't clear.

I think it would be incredibly hypocritical to allow abortions for any reason other than to not have a gay kid, as appalling as that choice would be.

That I can agree with, though I'm not sure it's as strong an issue as you make it out to be, especially in the here and now. After all, since (as you pointed out) some cultures are still in the habit of doing abortions for sex selection, one would think that might weaken support for abortion rights among those devoted to women's rights. I haven't seen any sign of such.

Look, I am no Santorum fan so I don't like having to defend him in any way shape or form,

No one's forcing you, big fella. You do seem quick at times to defend those you insist you'd rather not be defending.

but as I recall he was saying something to the effect that if the Supreme Court says you can't legislate against homosexual acts then you could also argue that they can legislate against other acts, like incest or bestiality. There's a kernal of validity in that.

If someone other than him were making the argument, perhaps -- but given many of his other statements on the issue, it was a very clear attempt to link the activities in the minds of the audience. Context is important.

[Now, if you want to get into questions of incest or polygamy, since the latter also tends to come up, I'm game ... but it seems a bit far afield for this.]

Rest assured, if I were actually in a position to interview Santorum I'd do a lot more research than I'm in a position to do at present. Plus, if you don't like Santorum as an example, there's no shortage of other loonies to choose from. Feel free to substitute in "Tom Coburn" or "Tom DeLay" (or Jesse Helms / Bill Dannemeyer if you're willing to dig into past folks in power).

Much as I'd LOVE to see you interview the guy, I suspect it wouldn't go as well as you think. He'd be smart enough to take the high ground and talk about protecting gay babies (safe in the knowledge that this law will do no such thing).

You're welcome to believe that. Given the documented cases of him basically flipping out when confronted with gay-friendly audiences, I'm inclined to believe otherwise.

I knew I'd eventually get you to think just like me.

Um. Yes, well.

To quote Susan Ivanova...
I'll have you know I've been nothing but compassionate and understanding, I mean all you have to do was admit that you were wrong and I was right and everything would've been fine.

:-)

TWL
who's missing the Oscars entirely this year, and not especially broken up about it

Me:
"I was also going to add the best part: Discovering a "gay gene" would mean that everyone has it."

Bill Mulligan:
"I don't see why. Discovering the gene for cystic fibrosis doesn't mean we all have it."

Hi Bill,

Please clarify... When you say, "doesn't mean we all have it" are you refering to cystic fibrosis or to a gene that makes us suseptible to it?

I know you agree with that, so I'm not sure why you're bringing these up as examples.

Just to show my objection is not to pre-natal testing in general, even to the point of GATTACA type prognostication.

After all, since (as you pointed out) some cultures are still in the habit of doing abortions for sex selection, one would think that might weaken support for abortion rights among those devoted to women's rights. I haven't seen any sign of such.

I think it was Indian feminists who led the fight to outlaw using abortion for gender selection, so I'd say their support for abortion rights took a hit (I am, however, assuming that feminists in India were ever abortion supporters to the degree that most American feminists are).

Since in this country there seems to be a slight preference for girls among those who go to the trouble of using in vitro to bump the odds up for a specific gender, I don't see this becoming a big issue. Thank God, the Asians are gonna show the world some day what a disastrous mistake it is to screw around with the usual 50/50 male/female ratio.

No one's forcing you, big fella. You do seem quick at times to defend those you insist you'd rather not be defending.

Thank you. I try to be fair, even to those I may disagree with. It's how I was raised.

Wait, that WAS supposed to be a compliment, right?

If someone other than him were making the argument, perhaps -- but given many of his other statements on the issue, it was a very clear attempt to link the activities in the minds of the audience. Context is important.

You may be right, though he could easily deny it. I should think SOMEONE will ask Santorum, Helms, et al about this at some point soon, so we should find out who's right (And remember, I have no idea what they REALLY believe, lack of telepathy and all, I'm just saying that they will officially come down on the side of the little gay babies. I'd bet on it.)

Mitch
"I was also going to add the best part: Discovering a "gay gene" would mean that everyone has it."

Bill
"I don't see why. Discovering the gene for cystic fibrosis doesn't mean we all have it."

Hi Bill,

Please clarify... When you say, "doesn't mean we all have it" are you referring to cystic fibrosis or to a gene that makes us susceptible to it?

Oh I see now--yes, you're right, if we find a gene for gayness it means we all have the potential to have been gay. But this won't phase the people who say it is not genetic--they seem to think it's a choice, which must mean they could have chosen it and chose not to. I never got that since I never remember any point where there was choosing involved. One day, breasts became very interesting, that was pretty much it. Didn't have to sign a form or anything.

hey, btw, has anyone ever determined just what it is that makes us right or left handed? Purely genetic or does it have some nurture components as well?

Hell, Asia is heading for a demographic time bomb now that sex selection abortions have so knocked the usual 50/50 male/female ratio out of whack.

Actually, I just read an article tonight that there are administrative laws in China that ban ultrasounds to determine the sex of the baby unless medically necessary.

Some lawmakers in China now want it to be a criminal act to abort a child due to the sex of the child, specifically because of the now-imbalance between the number of girls and boys born in the country.
The article said, nationally, there are 117 boys to every 100 girls. In some rural areas, that number is 150/100.

It currently protects a woman's right to choose on a federal level, but overturning it does not outlaw abortion.

Except, once Roe vs Wade is overturned, Congress can sweep in and make a law that effectively bans abortion.

So, with one leading the other, I'd say that people aren't far off when they say that striking down Roe vs Wade will cause abortions to be banned.

To adress 'and so forth' I think I first need to clarify 'finding cures.'

That the religous and conservatives of this country would use the ability to abort a 'gay' fetus will be the "cure" to the "gay problem" - you prevent gays from being born, you have no gays in the future to persecute.

Purely genetic or does it have some nurture components as well?

Well, that's a fun little question, isn't it?

The only member of my family who's left handed is one of my brothers. As far as I know, he's the only southpaw in my extended family too (5 aunts and uncles and a dozen or so cousins).
I can't explain it in any way, shape, or form. :)

Bill Mulligan,
"Hey, is it me or has Chris Rock been less funny on the Oscars than he's ever been."

It's not just you. I admittedly only started watching from Best Actress onward, but he was remarkably muted. It's hard to be funny when you don't say anything or even - as the late great Carson did - make faces and react to things. From what I saw, he was just there. He introduced who had to be introduced and that was it.
Very lame.
I was definitely disappointed.
Where are Billy Crystal or Steve martin when you need them?
And what does it say about an oscar telecast when the HIGHLIGHT were the speeches?
If they cut them off, I would have rated them the show and F. As it was, I give t a D-/
Zzzzzzzzzz.........

"Actually, I just read an article tonight that there are administrative laws in China that ban ultrasounds to determine the sex of the baby unless medically necessary."

But few Chinese can afford such things. I suspect the imbalance is more likely due to low tech reasons (gulp). The best case scenario is that it's due to all the girls who are adopted out of the country (but then why do the Chinese allow it?).

Bill,

No one's forcing you, big fella. You do seem quick at times to defend those you insist you'd rather not be defending.

Thank you. I try to be fair, even to those I may disagree with. It's how I was raised.

Wait, that WAS supposed to be a compliment, right?

Under most circumstances, yes -- I think it's a much more positive trait than a negative one, and try to maintain the same sense of fairness myself.

When the people you're leaping to defend are always on the same side of the aisle, however (and the one you always back away from when I or someone else refers to "your side"), it does start to take on a tinge of thou-doth-protest-too-much.

If I saw you leap to the defense of someone I know you really didn't agree with much (the Clintons, say, or Ted Kennedy), then I'd certainly see it as nothing more than basic fairness at work.

I should think SOMEONE will ask Santorum, Helms, et al about this at some point soon, so we should find out who's right (And remember, I have no idea what they REALLY believe, lack of telepathy and all, I'm just saying that they will officially come down on the side of the little gay babies. I'd bet on it.)

Oh, I'm sure they'll try to do so -- my claim is simply that a good interviewer would break through that surface coyness and try to ferret out the real opinion underneath. We disagree on what those real opinions might be ... but since the odds of the asker being competent enough to dig are slim anyway, we may not find out that particular answer.

hey, btw, has anyone ever determined just what it is that makes us right or left handed? Purely genetic or does it have some nurture components as well?

Well, both my parents are right-handed and both my brother and I are left-handed ... so if someone does find out, I'd love it if they'd see fit to inform me. :-)

TWL

Geeze, I feel like I'm being pilloried by one sound bite taken out of context (pilloried on the internet, now why should I be surprised?). When I mentioned my belief in a genetic component to homosexuality, I was thinking largely of studies of animal populations (wolves, for instance) in which homosexual behaviour was observed. Yes, humans are not wolves; but we are living creatures who share many genetic similarities. Anyway, I'm surprised that so many missed the main thrust (no pun intented) of my argument--that genetics alone do not determine behaviour. We are much more complicated than that.

Most people who don't accept the genetic theory (nor should they, there is no "gay gene" but their MIGHT be something that influences a gene, so the oversimplification is wrong but what it is likily shorthand for may be true) don't think it's truly "a choice" rather that is shorthand for 'conditioning'.

The idea being that someone doesn't go from desiring females to desiring males overnight, but that through environmental influence same-sex is ultimately desired.

OR, the "choice" component is involked when influence (genetic or enviromental) is chosen to be acted upon, as a violent man chooses to murder someone - just because he's prone to violence, doesn't mean he didn't make a choice in his behavior.

The only study that matters as far as I'm concerned is the study that determines if homosexuality harms the continuance of a successful, healthy society -- and since no one will ever agree what successful and healthy comprise, no study matters. Better to just leave the matter between the individual and God and let them hash it out. :)

When the people you're leaping to defend are always on the same side of the aisle, however (and the one you always back away from when I or someone else refers to "your side"), it does start to take on a tinge of thou-doth-protest-too-much.

If I saw you leap to the defense of someone I know you really didn't agree with much (the Clintons, say, or Ted Kennedy), then I'd certainly see it as nothing more than basic fairness at work.

Well, you're free to misquote either one any time. In my opinion, Santorum did not link homosexuality to bestiality. There are certainly others who have--I'm drawing a blank here, who was the preacher who got caught with the prostitute? He made some statements that seemed to indicate that being gay was the worst crime one could commit, so you might get an interesting result there.

(Of course, these folks also believe that you can "cure" homosexuality with therapy so they should oppose aborting gay fetuses for that reason alone. Hell, with the heads up from the geneticist they could start the heteroindoctrination early, with extra exposure to manly pursuits like Greco-Roman wrestling and dressing up like a cowboy.)

Obviously I can't prove what is in my mind to you or anyone else. If someone wants to believe that I am a secret Santorum supporter--my several dozen pro-gay rights post part of some clever subterfuge--nothing I say will convince them otherwise. My offical line is that nothing I've ever seen of Santorum convinces me that he is anything but an ernestly empty suit. Not much there, there. That boy, I say, that boy reminds me of Paul Revere's ride. A little light in the belfry. About as sharp as a bowling ball. Lower than a snake full of buckshot. Like beating a dead horse...he's got no get up and go.

(Whenever I hear the "dost protest too much" I always flash back to the great Mary Tyler Moore show episode where she does that to Lou Grant.)

MARY: Methinks thou dost protest too much.
LOU: What did you just say?
MARY: I said I don't believe you.
LOU: No, no, the other part.
MARY: Oh, Mr. Grant, that's just an expression. You can't repeat that.
LOU: Yeah, you can!
MARY: (self consciously) I said...methinks..thou dost...protest too much.
LOU: You thinks that dost you?! Well, let me tell thee something, Mary...

I'm not saying you're a "secret Santorum supporter", much as I might appreciate the alliteration -- merely that it's a lot more difficult to see you as even-handed when you only ever leap to the defense of one side. Just trying to clarify, though, not to belabor things.

And speaking of belaboring things...

In my opinion, Santorum did not link homosexuality to bestiality.

Obviously you've got a right to said opinion and it's unlikely I'll be able to convince you otherwise ... but I'm going to try one last time before we simply agree to disagree.

Here is the actual quote, with enough on either side to give (IMO) a realistic context:

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.

[As an aside, I do get a huge kick out of the interviewer's response.]

Now, is he explicitly equating homosexuality to bestiality? No. Is he, by listing homosexuality as "one thing" in a list that includes pedophilia and bestiality, implying that homosexuality is morally or legally equivalent to them? In my opinion, yes -- and that's why I tend to use him as the poster boy for anti-gay rhetoric.

As you say, in many ways he may be not much more than an empty suit -- but as a reasonably well-spoken empty suit who gets a LOT of press time, he's one that deserves a significant amount of attention. And given that he's high up in the Republican leadership, I think a lot of rank-and-file Republicans should be paying significant attention to what he says and how he says it.

Now, if that doesn't change your mind at all, then we can just leave it there. We're way off the original topic of the thread anyway.

TWL

Yeah, he's an idiot. No argument there and I'd rather not waste any more time on him. I can see your point and if you turn out to be 100% correct it won't bother me a whit.

Incidentally, on the right/left hand thing--A study done shows that the chance for two right-handed parents having a left-handed child is 2%. One parent left-handed and the other right-handed makes it a 17% chance, and two left-handed parents having a lefty is 46%.

BUT-- there is evidence of a "right hand shift" gene that influences handedness. People lacking it could go either way. Thus your parents could be right handed but not hardwired for it and the odds of two boys being lefties might be closer to 25%.

The bad news is that lefties have a surprisingly greater likelihood of all kinds of afflictions. I suspect it's the price of living in a world where everything is constructed for righties. The paucity of left hand screwdrivers and hammers is an inequity that should be addressed.

The bad news is that lefties have a surprisingly greater likelihood of all kinds of afflictions. I suspect it's the price of living in a world where everything is constructed for righties.

Even if that's not the sole reason, I certainly agree with you that it's a huge one. (I also tend to use left-handedness as the reason my handwriting is so dreadful, but my brother tends to put the lie to that one.)

The paucity of left hand screwdrivers and hammers is an inequity that should be addressed.

And let's not forget the need for left-handed spanners!

TWL

You have to provide scientific proof that the gay geen doesn't exist.

On the contrary, the burden is to prove a gay gene does exist. And the overwhelming scientific evidence is that it does not, at least not in the way most think of it. The lie that there is a gay gene is just that, a lie.

The human being is a very complex organism. Current evidence (not speculation) suggests that there would NOT be a specific gene that causes someone to have a given sexual orientation. In a very few cases where the DNA is messed up there are true genetic cases where you can track someone having too many X or Y chromosomes, and they therefore have some severe sexual problems. But that is not the case for *behaviorial* traits and is not the case with most people who are gay.

If there was a specific gene that made someone "gay," then identical twins would both be gay almost 100% of the time. The reality is, the statistics are not even close. Why is that? It is because while genetics may play a role, they do not *determine* someones behavior or even their desires.

Regardless of whether you feel gay actions are right or wrong, having a gay orientation is not purely a matter of genetics. I am not saying someone makes a deliberate, concious choice to be gay. But neither is it genetically pre-determined. Instead, there is quite likely a combination of factors that make this a unique issue for each person. That is why you can have one person who makes a successful choice at 30 years old to change (to being either gay or straight) and some who have a desire to change but find themselves unable to do so.

Bottom line, after studying the evidence on both sides, I am convinced that there never will be a way to test "at or before birth" for a gay gene. Even current tests for other "risk factors" are far from absolute. To think we could be accurate with something that is far more complicated is absurd.

Iowa Jim

This is a very interesting discussion. I some ways, I tend to agree with Jim on this issue. Human sexuality is far too complex for any one gene or even a group of genes to wholly determine destiny. The nature vs. nurture argument reduces everything down to a simplistic either/or choice: Either someone's genes or their upbringing causes sexual preference.

I find it more plausible (although I admit that I am by no means an expert on genetics or behavioral psychology) that there some combination of genes may predispose people to being gay but that there are environmental factors that play a role as well, which would explain why the number of identical twins who are both gay is not 100%.

Lifewise, environment alone can't determine destiny. There have been studies of children who were genetically male but (due to defects and some surgery) were raised as female and nearly all of them grew up to be maladjusted emotionally and sexually.

I personally know of two families where two out of three kids turned out to be homosexual. Now, is that proof of genetics or a common factor in the environment that "made" them that way? Who knows? Arguments could be made for both.

A side note on that embarrassment to PA named Rick Santorum: Ever since it came out that he bilked a Pittsburgh-area school district out of $100,000 to send his kids to "cyber-school" even though they live in Virginia, I have no faith whatsover in his alleged integrity. From what I know of him, though, I think it's likely that if someone told him that his wife was pregnant and the child had a greater than 25% chance of being gay, he wouldn't allow her to have an abortion. But, from the moment of that child's birth, it would be bombarded with anti-gay propaganda to the point of driving him or her to suicide.

There are many websites that talk about the lack of evidence for a gay gene. Here are a few:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/325979.stm

http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/satinover.html

Obviously, future studies could find such a gene. But it goes against the current evidence to say there must be such a gene. As stated in my other post, I am inclined to believe that our sexual orientation is not so clearly pre-determined by our genetic code.

Iowa Jim

I personally know of two families where two out of three kids turned out to be homosexual. Now, is that proof of genetics or a common factor in the environment that "made" them that way? Who knows? Arguments could be made for both.

Den,

If you have the time, the second website I listed makes a very strong argument that it could be more environment than genetics.

http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/satinover.html

Overall, I agree with you that there is probably some combination of factors. Genetics does play some role, I just don't think it pre-determines the outcome.

I didn't mention before, but I am against abortion, so even if a gay gene was found, I still would opposes abortion since it ends an innocent human life.

Iowa Jim

While I think that a genetic component to homosexuality will be found, I do agree that there are likely a wide variety of factors involved.

For starters, it occurs to me that a single gay gene would probably be eliminated over time since it is evolutionarily disadvantageous. Anything that makes it less likely that the carrier will get to pass on his or her genes to the next generation should end up present in fewer and fewer individuals with each new generation. While nobody knows the exact percentage of gays in the population I don't see any evidence that it was massively higher in the past and has decreased steadily over time.

A trait like left handedness, which seems to have a deleterious effect overall, might be retained if it is, as it seems, part genetic, part hormonal, part environmental (has there ever been a case of identical twins with different handedness?). And I suspect that being left handed only began to matter fairly recently--when we were hunter-gatherers it probably didn't matter much which hand you held the spear in.

Andrew W. Laubacher:
"I was thinking largely of studies of animal populations (wolves, for instance) in which homosexual behaviour was observed."

Oh, knock it off. Wolves exhibit "homosexual" behavior as a matter of establishing social dominance. Humans do the same thing with money and religion.

Iowa jim:
"I am not saying someone makes a deliberate, concious choice to be gay."

I liken it to people who buy comics they don't enjoy, don't want to buy, but do anyway. They got into it at an early age, there was some enjoyment in there once, and they just carry on trying to re-live that memory.

Den:
"I personally know of two families where two out of three kids turned out to be homosexual. Now, is that proof of genetics or a common factor in the environment that "made" them that way?"

Getting a job instead of going to college, using drugs, "free love," long hair, tattoos, dating other races, joining the military, listening to punk/metal/rap music... none of that is shocking any more. Being gay is the new way that kids rebel.

"Being gay is the new way that kids rebel"

Am I the only one who thinks this is insane? I know I'm setting myself up for another "thinkest I doth protesteth to mucheth" but seriously, gang, if all the women vanished tonight, it would be a lifetime of celebicy for moi. I'm amazed WOMEN find men attractive. The idea that a straight kid would engage in gay sex just to torque off mom and dad is nuts!

Besides, most of the ones I've known have spent a lot of their lives trying to keep the folks from finding out about, which sort of defeats the whole purpose, rebellion-wise, doesn't it?

Am I the only one who thinks this is insane? I know I'm setting myself up for another "thinkest I doth protesteth to mucheth" but seriously, gang, if all the women vanished tonight, it would be a lifetime of celebicy for moi. I'm amazed WOMEN find men attractive. The idea that a straight kid would engage in gay sex just to torque off mom and dad is nuts!

Bill,

I think the majority are like you. It would never happen in a million years. But there is a very sizable (and I would suggest growing) minority who would indeed do so. This is not just supposition. I know of this happening. I know of kids who try gay sex just to check it out. I know of others who think it is cool to be "omni" sexual. They just want sex. They don't care with whom it happens. Which is why I do think being gay can be a deliberate, conscious choice in some cases. Guys who choose it are not normally exclusively gay, but many women openly state that they became lesbian at a later age (30 and older) and they remain that way.

Iowa Jim

Iowa jim: "I am not saying someone makes a deliberate, concious choice to be gay."

Powell: I liken it to people who buy comics they don't enjoy, don't want to buy, but do anyway. They got into it at an early age, there was some enjoyment in there once, and they just carry on trying to re-live that memory.

Perhaps in some cases. A better analogy is of traits that are ingrained when a child is a young kid (toddler age and even earlier). These traits, combined with perhaps a genetic dispostion, could lead to early gay desires. As they are affirmed (or as a fundamental bond with the same sex parent is thwarted), the desire becomes very much ingrained. It was never a deliberate, concsious choice. But neither was it predetermined. And once sexual paths are burned into the brain, it is very difficult to change them. Sex is a very powerful human drive. So as the kid gets older, it would be very difficult to get out of the path that has been started.

The truth is, there has not been enough research yet to know. And the agenda to prove that homosexuality is genetic tends to stifle research into the environmental factors that could lead to a gay orientation.

Iowa Jim

"Being gay is the new way that kids rebel"

Am I the only one who thinks this is insane?

No. Not a'tall. I'm with you in being amazed that anyone finds men attractive (though I'd point out that you're sort of excluding lesbians in your example).

I continue to be amazed by people who insist that being gay is somehow made "cool" despite the instances of discrimination, murder (cf. Matthew Shepard) and being made a political football.

For starters, it occurs to me that a single gay gene would probably be eliminated over time since it is evolutionarily disadvantageous.

Only if it occurs in isolation.

For an example that I've used here before, sickle-cell anemia has a genetic link. One chromosome with the active gene gives you a stronger-than-usual resistance to something (cholera, I think), but having the gene on both chromosomes gives you sickle-cell anemia and puts your life at great risk.

I believe cystic fibrosis works the same way, though I don't recall specifics.

It could be that the "gay gene", were there a single one, provides an evolutionary *advantage* in the short term which offsets the tendency to have fewer offspring.

Jim -- I very much doubt that women "became" lesbian at the age of 30 so much as that they recognized that their dominant desire was for women. I know several women personally who are in that category.

Women are just a lot more open about conflicting desires, that's all -- even in 2005, there's much more of a stigma attached to gay men than to gay women. It's not uncommon at all for teenage girls to experiment with same-sex activity, but I think it's somewhat more so for boys -- and they're also a lot less likely to mention it.

TWL

And the agenda to prove that homosexuality is genetic tends to stifle research into the environmental factors that could lead to a gay orientation.

Sigh. I know I'm going to regret this, but ... what exactly would be the point of this "agenda" you keep referring to? And who exactly has this "agenda"?

TWL

Spongebob, of course...

*sigh*

Sigh. I know I'm going to regret this, but ... what exactly would be the point of this "agenda" you keep referring to? And who exactly has this "agenda"?

The agenda I refer to is to "prove" that being homosexual is the same as being born with black skin color. That it is stricly a matter of genetics, and therefore anyone (such as myself) who says homosexual actions are immoral and harmful to a person are bigots and ignoring scientific reality. Who has this agenda? Obviously those who fight for gay rights.

I have no problem with the fact that many feel homosexuality is acceptable just the same as they feel living together before marriage is acceptable. That is a moral judgment, and I would agree to disagree. We can debate the merits of monogamous marriage between a man and a woman being best for society and I understand not everyone would agree. I do have a problem when there is an unwillingness to actually look at the evidence. I do have a problem when people say it is impossible for someone to change. The fact is, there ARE people who have changed. They should not be forced to, but they also should not be lied to and told it is impossible.

Iowa Jim

(but then why do the Chinese allow it?).

Best guess? The fact that the Chinese are just big on wanting sons rather than daughters. Doesn't sound like great reasoning, but that's what you get when males have dominated most civilized societies since civilization began.

On the contrary, the burden is to prove a gay gene does exist

Interesting. Yet, there is no "burden" to prove that there is in fact a god. Go fig.

The agenda I refer to is to "prove" that being homosexual is the same as being born with black skin color. That it is stricly a matter of genetics, and therefore anyone (such as myself) who says homosexual actions are immoral and harmful to a person are bigots and ignoring scientific reality. Who has this agenda? Obviously those who fight for gay rights.

Um, only some of them. I fight for gay rights, and I frankly don't give a rat's patootie whether you believe it's a function of genetics of a function of 10% of the population solely wanting to piss you off.

What I care about is whether your opinion can be used to discriminate against gay people or gay couples, whether we're talking about hospital visitation rights or a host of other topics.

I don't especially care whether you think homosexuality is immoral or not -- as you say, we can simply agree to disagree on that. When you start asserting that your opinion is the one that should be the law of the land, however, then you can expect a fight.

Is it extreme to claim that homosexuality is purely genetic? Probably. It's just as extreme if not more so, however, to claim that it's solely environmental, and that seems to be the direction you're heading for. You want to fly in the face of significant evidence to the contrary, you knock yourself out -- but don't expect me to value that opinion over that of reputable biologists.

Lovely thing, science...

TWL

"For starters, it occurs to me that a single gay gene would probably be eliminated over time since it is evolutionarily disadvantageous."

Only if it occurs in isolation.

For an example that I've used here before, sickle-cell anemia has a genetic link. One chromosome with the active gene gives you a stronger-than-usual resistance to something (cholera, I think), but having the gene on both chromosomes gives you sickle-cell anemia and puts your life at great risk.

I believe cystic fibrosis works the same way, though I don't recall specifics.

I've read that people with a single recessive gene for CF might have some immunity to certain forms of tuberculosis.

It could be that the "gay gene", were there a single one, provides an evolutionary *advantage* in the short term which offsets the tendency to have fewer offspring.

I considered that but I can't see what that advantage would be. It might be advantageous for the human race in times of famine to have fewer members reproducing but it still seems to me that this would not be enough to compensate for the lack of offspring. Evolution has only one definition for genetic success--producing as many children as possible that carry the gene. Superman, were he sterile, would be an evolutionary dead end, however impressive.

(Is there any evidence that homosexuality DOES increase in times where it might help to limit a population that has over stripped its resources? Shouldn't parts of Africa have a lot of gays by this point if it were true?)

Iowa Jim is right on one point--I suspect that nobody wants to even research this can-o-worms. Witness the Larry Summers smackdown at Harvard--some subjects are just too much trouble to touch. Kind of a shame since the truth really does tend to set one free. (Not that extremists on either side will accept the answers that they don't like but what the hell.)

Powell Pugh writes: "Wolves exhibit "homosexual" behavior as a matter of establishing social dominance. Humans do the same thing with money and religion."

Well, Mr. Pugh, at least you acknowledge that animals exhibit such behaviour. Numerous people live in utter denial of such things. I'm not sure how you can be so certain that homosexual behaviour in animals (not just wolves) never has a genetic cause.
As fascinating as this subject is, I will probably retire from the discussion at this time. My wife insists that I'm spending too much time on the computer.

You go TWL!

Bill asked: "Has there ever been a case of identical twins with different handedness?"

I don't know the exact figure, but there is a high rate of opposite handedness among "mirror-image" identical twins. Unfortunately, the twins studies of homosexuality don't seem to take this into account when measuring the occurrence of opposing sexuality in "mirror-image" twins.

In fact, I know a mirror-image twin who has many things in common with his twin brother, including those known (or strongly believed) to have a genetic predisposition. For example, they are both alcoholics, BUT they have opposite handedness. They also have VERY opposite sexuality (one is totally gay, the other totally straight). They are also both "gym rats" with really hot bodies.

Daniel

Oops, I should've edited my last post. I meant toi say it's unfortunate that the sexuality twin studies didn't take into account which twins with opposing sexuality are "mirror-image" versus those who aren't.

My previous post messed that thought up...

Furthermore...
It's been suggested that modern twin studies measure differences between identical twins with a common fetal sac versus those with separate sacs.

Daniel

"Furthermore...
It's been suggested that modern twin studies measure differences between identical twins with a common fetal sac versus those with separate sacs."

So identical twins can either be in one sac or in separate sacs? Fascinating, I was not aware of that.

This law may amount to nothing but the thread has been interesting.

"When we can get a reasonably good "read" on a person from a genetic fingerprint it'll be the way people get hired."

While I think that some (if not far too many) business will opt for this cop-out, my hope that a variety of factors prevent this:

1) Anti-discrimination lawsuits (in Gattaca they talked about getting around that, but I stil think that they will be an improtant factor.)

2) As public knowledge of genetics increases, what I hope is that many people (including human resources personnel specifically trained to recognize quality) realize the *limits* of genetics. in other words "You have to meet/judge the person because we have a ton of research that shows that a person's ability isn't set at birth, just a lot of their potential. Genetic tests won't tell you whether or not this person studied their ass off studying physics, psychology, whether they have a good work ethic, treat the customers right, etc. Genetics can only provide some probabilities. You have to interview the person and check their background to measure their skills."

All of this is assuming that what little I know of genetics (at this time) is even true. it may be that bio-tech enginieering will let a person "build themsevles up" even after they are born and that there will be public assistance programs similar to the student grants/loans, welfare, and the bank loans we have now. (Are you poor? Can't get a good job? Try Super-Genentech! We have various government tested and approved ability/intelligence boosts. Ask about our special deferred payment options! Just like buying a new car or getting a home mortgage! Pay us back easily with your new earning potential!)

Not exactly wonderful, but not exactly terrible either.

Tim Lynch:
"10% of the population"

What exactly are you referring to with this figure?

"You want to fly in the face of significant evidence to the contrary, you knock yourself out"

Again, what evidence?

For starters, it occurs to me that a single gay gene would probably be eliminated over time since it is evolutionarily disadvantageous.

Only if it occurs in isolation.

[snip]

It could be that the "gay gene", were there a single one, provides an evolutionary *advantage* in the short term which offsets the tendency to have fewer offspring.

I considered that but I can't see what that advantage would be.

Cystic fibrosis doesn't have an advantage per se either. You're looking at the result, not the gene. (Again, this is assuming that there's a single "gay gene", and we've both said that we think that's unlikely.) The gene could carry some residual benefit, and a pair of them could result in the "disadvantage" of homosexuality.

This has gone into the realm of the hugely hypothetical, but I think the "if it's genetic, then why haven't gay people died off a long time ago?" argument is one worth addressing -- there are possible answers.

It might be advantageous for the human race in times of famine to have fewer members reproducing

Evolution doesn't work that way. It's not what's best for the species, it's what's best for that individual. (I'm surprised to see you making that argument, actually.)

Iowa Jim is right on one point--I suspect that nobody wants to even research this can-o-worms.

I'd go along with that, though I wish you'd used someone other than Larry Summers as an example. Summers is just an ass. (Not that this surprises me, given that he's at Harvard. :-)

TWL

"10% of the population"

What exactly are you referring to with this figure?

"You want to fly in the face of significant evidence to the contrary, you knock yourself out"

Again, what evidence?

You want to ask legitimate questions that further the discussion, my pseudonymous friend, you go right ahead. You want to ask rhetorical questions that make you look like a jackass, that's your call -- but don't expect responses.

TWL

Hey Bill. I got here late, but if noone else has responded to your comment about 'if all women vanished'. You should read THE WORLD WITHOUT WOMEN by Virgilio Martini

It might be advantageous for the human race in times of famine to have fewer members reproducing

Evolution doesn't work that way. It's not what's best for the species, it's what's best for that individual. (I'm surprised to see you making that argument, actually.)

Oh I know, I mentioned it only to point out an obvious possible advantage to homosexuality--I then said that I didn't think that this possible advantage would make up for the decrease in progeny.

But at the same time, can we completely say that evolution does not ever work against the individual for the benefit of the species? Some have claimed that there is a genetic component to altruism, which encourages us to sacrifice our lives even for strangers (not sure I buy that argument). And you could argue that ants and bees have taken this to the ultimate extreme where the individual has evolved to give no thought to it's own individual life so long as the hive survives (but again, I would argue that individual ants should be thought of less as individuals and more like cells in the body of the hive.).

The gene could carry some residual benefit, and a pair of them could result in the "disadvantage" of homosexuality.

That makes a lot of sense and would have the added benefit of meaning that people would be reluctant to mess too much with trying to eliminate the gene (though it is unlikely they would succeed anyway. I think Stephen Gould had an article on how the Nazis could never have had any success in eliminating recessive genes, even given their brutal methods).

Tim Lynch:
"You want to ask legitimate questions that further the discussion, my pseudonymous friend, you go right ahead. You want to ask rhetorical questions that make you look like a jackass, that's your call -- but don't expect responses."

I'm not asking rhetorical questions. I really want to know. What did you mean by "10% of the population?" Do you even know? And what "evidence" are you referring to? If it's so well-known, shouldn't you be able to give a ton of links to it?

The notion that ten percent of the populace is gay stems from the Kinsey report in which one out of ten people interviewed admitted to having participated in homosexual activities.

This percentage is, of course, aggressively disputed by conservative groups.

PAD

It's just as extreme if not more so, however, to claim that it's solely environmental, and that seems to be the direction you're heading for.

Tim,

I very clearly stated that I DO suspect genetics play a role. My point is that they do not *determine* the outcome. I would also say that environment alone also does not *determine* the outcome. I think it is rare (though it does occur) that someone makes a concious choice to be gay. My guess (based on all of the solid evidence currently available) is that genetics, hormones while in the womb, environment, and very early patterns/thougths established in a child's mind all weave together to form the individual in this area as they do with a host of other tendencies and traits that form our personalities.

Iowa Jim

Um, only some of them. I fight for gay rights, and I frankly don't give a rat's patootie whether you believe it's a function of genetics of a function of 10% of the population solely wanting to piss you off. What I care about is whether your opinion can be used to discriminate against gay people or gay couples, whether we're talking about hospital visitation rights or a host of other topics.

It goes without saying that not everyone who holds to a given opinion uses the same tactics to prove their opinion. Not all gay rights activists use this argument, but a very large number do.

Your statement about rights is one that we have gone around on before. I think gay couples and individuals have the same basic rights, so they should not be discriminated against. However, I don't think saying marriage is meant to be a union between a man and a woman is discriminating against their rights. (I am sure you would diagree.) But on other matters, such as hospital visitation, I think there has been discrimination and that is wrong.

I know of very few conservatives who have an agenda to make homosexuality a crime, but we maintain the right to say homosexuality is wrong.

Iowa Jim

The notion that ten percent of the populace is gay stems from the Kinsey report in which one out of ten people interviewed admitted to having participated in homosexual activities.

This percentage is, of course, aggressively disputed by conservative groups.

You fail to mention that other reputable scientists who are not conservative also dispute the methodology and accuracy of these figures. And that other studies have failed to duplicate Kinsey's results. But heaven forbid that real science should ever enter into this debate. Let's just assume that conservatives are idiots who have never even done 10 minutes of research on the subject.

Iowa Jim

Bill,

But at the same time, can we completely say that evolution does not ever work against the individual for the benefit of the species?

Well, there's certainly kin selection (as Lisa pointed out to me last night). You can have a trait that limits your own chances to reproduce while greatly increasing the chance that your close relatives can do so. That's fairly well documented at this point.

On the level of whole species, however, I don't think so -- it would imply a certain Asimovian Zeroth Law of Evolution which I just don't see.

The gene could carry some residual benefit, and a pair of them could result in the "disadvantage" of homosexuality.

It turns out that there's even some current evidence for this. (Boy, I married well.)

Lisa was reading a paper a few weeks ago which noted an interesting connection. It seems that the heterosexual siblings of gay people tend to have significantly more children than heterosexual siblings of straight people. Now, whether that's due primarily to genetics or environmental factors is yet to be determined (and an interesting question), but it looks like a very possible case of kin selection at work.

If anyone's interested, I can try to find a link to the paper.

Jim:

Fair enough, though if you think few people consciously choose to be gay I have to ask why you seem to play up examples of the occasional person making the conscious choice *not* to be.

(I also really wonder why the origin is so important beyond the interesting questions of science. Is your view of homosexual morality or your opinion of various gay-friendly or gay-bashing laws going to change depending on how homosexuality comes about?)

Powell Pugh:

I'm not asking rhetorical questions. I really want to know.

Sure you do. That's why you've named yourself after a fictional character who does nothing but stir up trouble.

Peter's already addressed the 10% question, and as for "evidence", you can read back through the thread, as the grownups involved have actually had some real discussions.

I'll be happy to answer serious questions -- but you can do your own homework assignments.

TWL

I know of very few conservatives who have an agenda to make homosexuality a crime, but we maintain the right to say homosexuality is wrong.

As you are welcome to do. Just as I maintain the right to call you bigots because of it.

Jim (since I'd only seen one of your posts when composing my previous reply):

Your statement about rights is one that we have gone around on before. I think gay couples and individuals have the same basic rights, so they should not be discriminated against.

Can you elaborate on which "basic rights" you mean? (And I notice you link gay couples with INDIVIDUALS, which seems an odd distinction.)

However, I don't think saying marriage is meant to be a union between a man and a woman is discriminating against their rights. (I am sure you would diagree.)

Depends on what you mean by it.

As I've said before, I think the real issue is that the word "marriage" is simultaneously used to refer to a civil/legal linkage and a religious/spiritual one. As far as I'm concerned, one of the best solutions would be to have the government get out of sponsoring ANY union with the word "marriage" -- make 'em all civil unions. Mine, Peter's, yours (if you're married), those of my gay friends, etc.

Individual organizations could then decide which couples fit their own faith's definition of marriage and act accordingly.

It ensures equal treatment under the law AND ensures that no religious body is being forced to sanction something they disagree with.

Would you have a problem with that particular solution? If so, can you explain why in such a way that doesn't suggest you want your personal religious views made into law?

I know of very few conservatives who have an agenda to make homosexuality a crime, but we maintain the right to say homosexuality is wrong.

I don't know of anyone who wants to take that right away from you. I maintain the right to say a whole bunch of things are wrong, including some things I'm sure you think are hunky-dory.

It's when that "wrongness" takes on force of law that it becomes a problem. I don't care if you believe gay friends of mine threaten the fabric of society -- believe what you like and I'll do the same. What I care about is the ways in which you're allowed to act on that belief.

TWL

Fair enough, though if you think few people consciously choose to be gay I have to ask why you seem to play up examples of the occasional person making the conscious choice *not* to be.

Good point. I am saying they do make other choices that lead them to the point of having a gay orientation. If so, then it would seem possible that they could deconstruct those same choices and regain a heterosexual orientation. Change is possible, but depending on the string of choices that led to the orientaton, it may be very, very difficult. The genetics/hormones/etc. just open the door for some to be able to move in that direction, it does not in any way alone determine the outcome. Nor does it mean someone cannot change.

Should someone change? Obviously, I think they should since I believe homosexuality is not only wrong (yes, a religious conviction) but also harmful to the person (both a religious conviction and an observation of gay society).

(I also really wonder why the origin is so important beyond the interesting questions of science. Is your view of homosexual morality or your opinion of various gay-friendly or gay-bashing laws going to change depending on how homosexuality comes about?)

My comments about the origin of homosexuality come because it has been emphasized by others who use it to say homosexuality cannot be any more wrong than being right or left handed. Due to my religious convictions, I would still say it was wrong, even it if was proven to be 100% genetic. On the other hand, whether it is 100% genetic or 100% a choice, I do not hate anyone who is gay and would defend them from harm from others.

Can you elaborate on which "basic rights" you mean? (And I notice you link gay couples with INDIVIDUALS, which seems an odd distinction.)

The odd distinction was just being tired and writing things backwards.

The basic rights would be the right to employment, housing, protection from violent acts and violent words. (Obviously, I don't think saying homosexuality is wrong qualifies as violent words. Standing on a corner and screaming that they are perverts does. There is room to disagree on issues and behaviors, but no room to belittle and threaten people.)

As I've said before, I think the real issue is that the word "marriage" is simultaneously used to refer to a civil/legal linkage and a religious/spiritual one. As far as I'm concerned, one of the best solutions would be to have the government get out of sponsoring ANY union with the word "marriage" -- make 'em all civil unions. Mine, Peter's, yours (if you're married), those of my gay friends, etc.

I am not in favor of your solution, but I would prefer it to gay marriage. The reason is simple, and goes beyond just my religious beliefs. I believe marriage is a union with a purpose: to have and raise children. That does not mean everyone who gets married has to have children, etc. It simply is my conviction that the act of marriage came to existence (whether by God or human custom) for this purpose. To broaden it to include gay unions is to dilute a central purpose for marriage.

That being said, I could live with a civil union system as you describe IF that was the vote of the people and not a command from a judge. From a religious standpoint, I find God considering a man and woman married regardless of whether it happened in Israel or in the church. So your distinction is artificial to me. But your solution provides a clear protection that a church would not have to recognize a gay marriage if they did not believe it was right.

Based on listening to many gay activits, I don't think your solution will be enough for some gay leaders. Their drive is to destroy my definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. By doing so, it would change society's perception of homosexuality. So my concern is that your solution is a just a stepping stone to forcing a change in the definition of marriage.

Bottom line, there is a place where something is right or wrong, regardless of whether I believe so according to religious beliefs or some other moral standard. I think there are good reasons why gay marriage is not wise that have nothing to do with imposing my religion on someone else.

Iowa Jim

Let's just assume that conservatives are idiots who have never even done 10 minutes of research on the subject.

Well, conservatives are idiots, I wonder how much research some of them have actually done, and, regardless, they'll go for whatever results are skewed in their view.

Well, conservatives are idiots, I wonder how much research some of them have actually done, and, regardless, they'll go for whatever results are skewed in their view.

Probably not the response you were expecting, but your comments actually gave me a good laugh since you are basically agreeing that I am right.

For what it is worth, I don't think the same of liberals or others who disagree with me. Some fit that profile, but many (including some on this site) have been quite fascinating to talk to since they are intelligent and are critical thinkers.

Iowa Jim

Craig J. Ries:
ME: "To adress 'and so forth' I think I first need to clarify 'finding cures.' "

CJR: "That the religous and conservatives of this country would use the ability to abort a 'gay' fetus will be the "cure" to the "gay problem" - you prevent gays from being born, you have no gays in the future to persecute."

Hi Craig,

(This happens alot. I'm out of the loop for a day and then have to play catch-up)

Yes, there are indeed those that view homosexuality as something that requires a 'cure.' Personally, I'm thrilled not to be one of them. That mindset just seems primitive to me.

On the related issue of gay marriage I think it's a non-issue. Or rather a red herring.

Iowa Jim (who, as I've stated before, I respect) believes that the core purpose of marriage is to produce offspring. I have to disagree. I believe that the core purpose of marriage is to spend ones life with the person ones loves beyond all others. Furthermore, the production of offspring is not for the purpose of propogating society. It's for the purpose of propogating the SPCIES. Otherwise people from different societies would never 'git naked and bump uglies.'

That's why I don't believe that marriage is the sole province of heterosexuals.

Iowa Jim's (sorry to keep harping on you Jim, but thus far you are the only one who has taken this position in this thread) own statements support my position: "I believe marriage is a union with a purpose: to have and raise children. That does not mean everyone who gets married has to have children, etc."

If the purpose of marriage is to raise and have children then why do people with no interest in having children get married?

Marriage has also been used to consolidate power and wealth. That is just historical fact. I submit that if marriage were the sacred institution that many claim it to be then it's use (abuse?) for said consolidations would never have happened. Nor would the divorce rate be so high.

People marry for a variety of reasons. Pregnancy has even been known to be a catalyst for marriage.
Again, historical fact.

So why is marriage sacred? Propogation of the species is done with out it, the divorce rate is high, marriage is abused to gain wealth/power... Where's the sacred part?

If you ask me the sacred part only occurs when two people's love for each other is true. Everything else just looks like product placement.

Personal Note To Iowa Jim:

I am in no way trying to denigrate your belief system or the foundations upon which you have built your life. I recognize that alot of good things come out of your faith and it's those good things that gain my respect for your faith even though I don't share it.

Jim,

Fair enough, though if you think few people consciously choose to be gay I have to ask why you seem to play up examples of the occasional person making the conscious choice *not* to be.

Good point. I am saying they do make other choices that lead them to the point of having a gay orientation. If so, then it would seem possible that they could deconstruct those same choices and regain a heterosexual orientation.

Okay, fair enough -- but why is that something you feel you have the right to ask someone to do? I could make exactly the same arguments about your choice to be a Christian, with exactly the same result.

You would (I assume) object to anyone making the attempt to change your faith, and quite rightly so -- it's clear that your faith is one of the things that makes you the person you are. Why, then, do you feel that it's okay for you to suggest someone change a fundamental aspect of what THEY are?

You think homosexuality is harmful to the person and to society. I can make the same argument about some aspects of your faith. What makes your argument "right" and mine offensive?

(I also really wonder why the origin is so important beyond the interesting questions of science. Is your view of homosexual morality or your opinion of various gay-friendly or gay-bashing laws going to change depending on how homosexuality comes about?)

My comments about the origin of homosexuality come because it has been emphasized by others who use it to say homosexuality cannot be any more wrong than being right or left handed. Due to my religious convictions, I would still say it was wrong, even it if was proven to be 100% genetic. On the other hand, whether it is 100% genetic or 100% a choice, I do not hate anyone who is gay and would defend them from harm from others.

"That was a stirring reply. Unfortunately, while all answers are replies, not all replies are answers." -- Babylon 5

In other words, you're not really addressing the question. If your opinions will not in any way change, then why does the issue matter to you in the slightest? Simply academic curiosity?

Can you elaborate on which "basic rights" you mean? (And I notice you link gay couples with INDIVIDUALS, which seems an odd distinction.)

The odd distinction was just being tired and writing things backwards.

Fair enough.

The basic rights would be the right to employment, housing, protection from violent acts and violent words. (Obviously, I don't think saying homosexuality is wrong qualifies as violent words. Standing on a corner and screaming that they are perverts does. There is room to disagree on issues and behaviors, but no room to belittle and threaten people.)

Does that "right to employment" include any form of employment? Are you fine with a gay person teaching elementary school? (I've no reason to believe you're against it, for the record -- but since lots of people in the past have talked about "not wanting THOSE people" in schools, I thought it was a position worth checking.)

As I've said before, I think the real issue is that the word "marriage" is simultaneously used to refer to a civil/legal linkage and a religious/spiritual one. As far as I'm concerned, one of the best solutions would be to have the government get out of sponsoring ANY union with the word "marriage" -- make 'em all civil unions. Mine, Peter's, yours (if you're married), those of my gay friends, etc.

I am not in favor of your solution, but I would prefer it to gay marriage. The reason is simple, and goes beyond just my religious beliefs. I believe marriage is a union with a purpose: to have and raise children.

A purpose decided by whom? You bring in God, and we're right back to you wanting dogma given force of law. You talk about "society", and then that same society is perfectly able to choose otherwise. You talk about "tradition", and suddenly we're in a dinner-theater production of "Fiddler On The Roof." Kindly clarify.

(And we've gone around and around on the "marriage implies children" question before. I know I'm not likely to change your mind there, and I trust you know you're not even remotely likely to change mine.)

The point, though, is that this proposed solution isn't redefining marriage or "diluting" it in any way. It's simply removing it from the legal arena entirely. How is that at odds with your convictions?

That being said, I could live with a civil union system as you describe IF that was the vote of the people and not a command from a judge.

And your problem with judges is?

Our legal system exists, in part, to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. If "the vote of the people" suggested that all evangelical Christians should be hacked to death at noon next Wednesday, I rather suspect you'd object ... and rightly so.

Obviously, the question of marriage is not the same thing as the question of you being hacked to death (mother-in-law jokes aside), but I think the case is clear: in some cases, "the vote of the people" is neither a necessary nor a sufficient criterion for doing something.

Based on listening to many gay activits, I don't think your solution will be enough for some gay leaders.

That, quite frankly, is not my problem. Last time I checked, one working definition of "compromise" is "a solution where no one gets everything they want."

Their drive is to destroy my definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Y'know, for someone who likes to present himself as above the negative characterizations that those pesky liberals are so fond of, you're awfully quick to accuse people of having goals set on destruction. (Similarly, while you may not have said "liberals are idiots", you've proven in the past that you're more than willing to blame Societal Ill #AE-35 on the nefarious "liberal elite" squad.)

Lots of members of the gay community would like to *change* the definition of marriage. That's the neutral term for it. You want to characterize it as destruction, fine -- but then you lose much right to be taken seriously when you accuse others of characterizing conservatives negatively.

Bottom line, there is a place where something is right or wrong, regardless of whether I believe so according to religious beliefs or some other moral standard.

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble parsing that sentence. Is the "place" you refer to literal or metaphorical?

I think there are good reasons why gay marriage is not wise that have nothing to do with imposing my religion on someone else.

I look forward to hearing them. I am, however, still waiting.

TWL

I believe that the core purpose of marriage is to spend ones life with the person ones loves beyond all others.

And this goes back to the point that marriage is an entity that evolves.

I would agree that, at one time, marriage was done for children (particularly heirs), for convenience, for money.

But, for the most part, that isn't the case today.

So, I can't just say no to gay marriage, when the idea is to prevent two people, regardless, from showing that they want to be together in an official and legal manner.

Okay, fair enough -- but why is that something you feel you have the right to ask someone to do? I could make exactly the same arguments about your choice to be a Christian, with exactly the same result.

You would (I assume) object to anyone making the attempt to change your faith, and quite rightly so -- it's clear that your faith is one of the things that makes you the person you are. Why, then, do you feel that it's okay for you to suggest someone change a fundamental aspect of what THEY are?

First, I have no problem if someone wants to politely persuade me to change my faith. I have not problem with people saying they think I am wrong as long as they are willing to talk about it rather than just call me names or assume I am an idiot/uneducated/etc. In the same way, I would politely try to persuade people to my viewpoint.

Second, I don't tell every gay person I meet that he is immoral (nor do I tell that to a man and woman living together but not married). If the person asks, I will tell him/her my beliefs. And if the person has a desire to change or is unsure that being gay is something they want to be, I will tell them of how others have changed and found their true self in the process.

Does that "right to employment" include any form of employment?

I do not have a problem with a gay school teacher (or an unwed woman who is pregnant or living with her boyfriend, etc.) as long as they don't make it an issue of it. (They don't have to hide it, but they don't have to wear it on their sleeve. And no, a Christian teacher does not need to hide it, but also should not wear it on his or her sleeve.)

I think private organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, churches, etc., should be allowed to discriminate based on their beliefs systems. A church should not have to hire a gay administrative assistant. But that is the only exception.

The point, though, is that this proposed solution isn't redefining marriage or "diluting" it in any way. It's simply removing it from the legal arena entirely. How is that at odds with your convictions?

Your solution does not dilute it; gay marriage does.

Y'know, for someone who likes to present himself as above the negative characterizations that those pesky liberals are so fond of, you're awfully quick to accuse people of having goals set on destruction.

Not hard to do when it is a stated goal. I don't have the references in front of me, but this IS the stated goal of SOME gay activists. One of the articles I posted above notes a study that deals with some of these issues.

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble parsing that sentence. Is the "place" you refer to literal or metaphorical?

Metaphorical

I think there are good reasons why gay marriage is not wise that have nothing to do with imposing my religion on someone else.

I look forward to hearing them. I am, however, still waiting.

I've stated it, you just don't agree. I believe that gay marriage does cause harm to the value of marriage and the family in society. It does so by changing the structure upon which society is built, namely, the family. This is not just a religious conviction, it is a logical and sociological conviction.

The best defense for this conviction can be found in an essay by Orscon Scott Card:

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html

Iowa Jim

Second, I don't tell every gay person I meet that he is immoral (nor do I tell that to a man and woman living together but not married). If the person asks, I will tell him/her my beliefs. And if the person has a desire to change or is unsure that being gay is something they want to be, I will tell them of how others have changed and found their true self in the process.

What if they're unsure that being straight is something they want to be? Will you be equally up-front about the (far larger) number of people who've come out later in life, and how the vast majority of them have found their true selves?

True story, Jim: I had a ninth-grader come to me several years ago and ask me something along the lines of "you're an atheist, right? Can I ask how you came to that?" She grew up in a strongly Christian family, but as she moved into young adulthood she was starting to question whether said faith really matched her own convictions.

I was flattered to be asked, but also enormously chastened and cautious -- not because I was worried about anything like parental pressure or employer disapproval, but because I wanted to make sure that when I looked at myself in the mirror I could say "I spoke honestly, but did not force any choices upon her."

I would hope that you exercise the same discretion if people come to you and ask about their sexuality.

Does that "right to employment" include any form of employment?

I do not have a problem with a gay school teacher (or an unwed woman who is pregnant or living with her boyfriend, etc.) as long as they don't make it an issue of it. (They don't have to hide it, but they don't have to wear it on their sleeve. And no, a Christian teacher does not need to hide it, but also should not wear it on his or her sleeve.)

That sounds great, and I appreciate it. The one question I have is how you define "wearing X on his/her sleeve." For example, I have pictures of my wife and daughter on my desk at school. If a gay teacher were to have pictures of his/her partner, is that making it a big public issue?

[Aside: One teacher here is most definitely out, but doesn't generally bring it up unless it's relevant to the conversation. A few years ago a sixth-grade class asked him if he'd given blood that day -- we had a bloodmobile on campus and lots of teachers donated. When he said he hadn't, they asked him why. At that point he thought for a moment, and said "well, because I'm married to a man." Is that making it an issue, or simply asking a question honestly?]

I think private organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, churches, etc., should be allowed to discriminate based on their beliefs systems. A church should not have to hire a gay administrative assistant. But that is the only exception.

That sounds fine by me, as long as said private organization isn't getting public funding. Otherwise you could turn the same argument around and insist that the NAACP hire a Klan member.

The point, though, is that this proposed solution isn't redefining marriage or "diluting" it in any way. It's simply removing it from the legal arena entirely. How is that at odds with your convictions?

Your solution does not dilute it; gay marriage does.

You're changing your answer. If my solution does not dilute it, why do you oppose my solution?

I also note that you avoided answering the "purpose decided by whom?" question. I will assume that means you're conceding the point.

Y'know, for someone who likes to present himself as above the negative characterizations that those pesky liberals are so fond of, you're awfully quick to accuse people of having goals set on destruction.

Not hard to do when it is a stated goal. I don't have the references in front of me, but this IS the stated goal of SOME gay activists. One of the articles I posted above notes a study that deals with some of these issues.

I'm going to call bullshit on this one. Show me a reference where a gay activist is quoted as saying (or writing) that their intent is to "destroy" marriage.

(I'd point out, by the way, that if you can come up with a single quote that's by some person on the fringe of the gay-rights movement, I'll find that about as representative as you would me pulling quotes from Rev. Fred Phelps.)

Is there some reason you are opposed to simply using the word "change" rather than "destroy"? It's an accurate term, and one far less likely to make people dismiss your arguments as Chicken-Little doomsaying.

I think there are good reasons why gay marriage is not wise that have nothing to do with imposing my religion on someone else.

I look forward to hearing them. I am, however, still waiting.

I've stated it, you just don't agree.

True enough -- I've yet to hear any reason from you that does not in the end boil down to either (a) a religious argument or (b) a pure assumption about how marriage is "supposed" to work and what it's "supposed" to be for. If there are no common assumptions upon which you can base your argument, then you can hardly be surprised that I'll find your arguments baseless.

I believe that gay marriage does cause harm to the value of marriage and the family in society. It does so by changing the structure upon which society is built, namely, the family. This is not just a religious conviction, it is a logical and sociological conviction.

Well, no. Actually it's only your claim that it's a logical conviction. It's actually argument from authority -- "I say this is logical, therefore this is logical." As usual, you're welcome to that conviction -- but you are not welcome to base societal policy on it.

The best defense for this conviction can be found in an essay by Orscon Scott Card:

Thanks. I've just read it.

It's ... well, let's just leave it at "unimpressive". Okay, "paranoid" works pretty well, too. Card seems to believe very strongly in the Great Lurking Gay Menace ready to carry off small children and forcibly convert them into clones of Carson Kressley (sp?). Talk of "dark secrets" and "danger" and "abduction" is stuff out of a bad Lifetime movie-of-the-week, not a serious examination of any social issue, let alone marriage.

Card makes all sorts of grand, sweeping statements that are ultimately meaningless, at least in many cases. Children need a father to help them learn what morality is? Every man apes his own father's parental behavior when he becomes a father, and every woman her mother's? Not in the families I know, my own firmly included.

Men will go into a frenzy of sexual "every man for himself" behavior if left unchecked? Geez, fella, why not quote from Jonathan Edwards, or Gen. Jack D. Ripper? Society expects that everyone keep childbearing urges under wraps as though they're shameful? Um ... what?

Basically, Card is simply asserting that all of his (and, apparently, your) assumptions about societal roles are not assumptions so much as indisputable facts. From there, he argues that since gay marriage is a threat to those assumptions, they must actually be a threat to society.

All very nice -- but ultimately not much more than self-congratulatory preaching to the choir.

If that's the "best defense" you have, then with all respect, I'd hate to see the ones you consider lousy.

(I'd like to think the days of treating "A implies B, which therefore proves A" as a valid argument are long gone, though the current political climate implies otherwise.)

I'm sorry, Jim. I know you believe as you do very deeply, and I respect that -- but you are not making a case that's remotely convincing to anyone who hasn't already bought into your premises. And quite frankly, if you really think Card's apocalyptic vision is what's best representing your views on this matter, then you've done little more here other than make me more than a little wary of letting you near my own child.

I encourage everyone to read the essay Jim linked to. It's an eye-opener for certain ... but perhaps not in the way Jim's expecting.

TWL

Ow. Okay, have just attempted to do just that, Tim. Only made it as far as the part where he starts ranting about how gay have the right to marry. As long as they choose to marry someone of the opposite sex. Y'know, someone they have no romantic or sexual interest in....

I may have been able to make it farther than that, but I'm already fighting a viral infection, so my tolerance for nonsense is lower than normal.

Jim, honestly, I've respected you in the past because you generally avoid foaming at the mouth when talking to those whose view you disagree with. (Sadly, with the state of discourse in these Divided States, that simple bit of common courtesy is enough to garner respect.) But if this is what you hold up as the best explanation of your beliefs.... Wow. I don't have words.

"[Aside: One teacher here is most definitely out, but doesn't generally bring it up unless it's relevant to the conversation. A few years ago a sixth-grade class asked him if he'd given blood that day -- we had a bloodmobile on campus and lots of teachers donated. When he said he hadn't, they asked him why. At that point he thought for a moment, and said "well, because I'm married to a man." Is that making it an issue, or simply asking a question honestly?]"

One hopes he didn't just leave it at that, lest it give the impression that gays have rotten blood or something (and I was under the impression that all blood was tested for HIV so why exclude anyone?.)

"I'm going to call bullshit on this one. Show me a reference where a gay activist is quoted as saying (or writing) that their intent is to "destroy" marriage."

"(I'd point out, by the way, that if you can come up with a single quote that's by some person on the fringe of the gay-rights movement, I'll find that about as representative as you would me pulling quotes from Rev. Fred Phelps.)"

I think though, by definition, anyone who makes that statement is instantly on the fringe. You could probably find a lot of lesbian feminists who have made such statements--I went to school with some of these nuts (and I hasten to add, one of the dearest friends I ever had there, a person I love as though she were my own sister, is a lesbian feminist. But she wasn't a nut. Good thing too, because I'd still probably love her and loving a nut is more trouble than it's worth. But I digress...)

But that's probably more a function of extremist feminism than extremist homosexuality.

Nancy D. Polikoff, respected professor, wrote an article titled "An end to all marriage" with the tagline "Critics of gay marriage say we'll destroy the entire institution. Maybe they're right, and maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing." I think she is arguing for taking all the legal rights of marriage out and letting pretty much anyone set up any kind of partnership they choose and get full rights. I guess it's close to the "make all unions civil unions" idea that you and Jim favor.

To me, that seems far more damaging to marriage than just letting gays marry. Seems like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Is it me or has the level of discourse here gotten a whole lot better now that the election is behind us?

First, wecome back, TIM! It is an extremely interesting discussion taking place here.
I have been itching to join the fray, so here goes:
CRAIG RIES

Iowa Jim Said:
"You have to provide scientific proof a gay gene does not exist. And the overwhelming scientific evidence is that it does not, at least not in the way most think of it. The lie that there is a gay gene s just that, a lie."

YOU said:
"Interesting. Yet, there is no "burden" to prove that there is in fact a god. Go fig."

Actually, it isn't that hard to "go fig"ure out, if you're actually somebody who is interested in making sense and having an intelligent discussion rather than being sarcastic and determined to shoehorn an anti-religious comment in your "argument", regardless of how awkward it "fits".
If we are to acept the notion of a "gay gene", it must, like other SCIENTIFIC hypotheses, bear up under scrutiny before we accept it as fact.
No burden is necessary for those who believe in GOD/god/Yahweh/etc. because it is by definition something taken on FAITH. If there was a burden of SCIENTIFIC proof that indicating that there was in fact a god, that would take FAITH pretty much out of the equation, and end a heck of a lot of arguments to boot.

PAD SAID: "The notion that ten percent of the populace is gay stems from the Kinsey report in which one out of ten people interviewed admited to having participated in homosexual activities. The percentage is, of course, aggressively disputed by conservative groups."

IOWA JIM THEN SAID: "You fail to mention that other reputable scientists who are not conservative also dispute the methodology and accuracy of these figures. And that other studies have failed to duplicate Kinsey's results. But heaven forbid that real science should ever enter into the debate. Let's just assume that conservatives are idiots who have never even done 10 minutes of research in the subject."

YOU SAID: "Well, conservatives are idiots."
MY REPLY:Are you determined to be a troll? Is there any subject/thread/ comment in which you cannot call someone (Bush, Cheney/ conservatives/Giuliani) idiots? Are you capable of actually having a conversation that implies you're not stuck at fourth-grade level intelectually and emotionally?

YOU SAID: "I wonder how much research some of them have actually done"

MY REPLY: "Well, there is no way to actually answer such an open-ended question, is there? But that is the whole point, isn't it? You've already made up your mnd, as your following statement shows"

YOU SAID: "Regardless, they'll go for whatever results are skewed in their view"

MY REPLY: "Really? Ignoring, for the moment, that you are trying to group all of "Them" as some monolith (since I admittedly fall into that trap myself), this is a perfect example of you doing what you accuse others of."
You ignore Jim's points, because it is so much...what? Easier? Fun? Lazier?....to simply bash conservatives as idiots than try to engage in an enlightened discussion on the topic.
But you have made a pattern of this recently. Shame, really.

TIM LYNCH and IOWA JIM,
Okay, I read Card's bit, too, and....let's just say thought it was a BIT harsh. Hell, I love bare knuckled arguments (which is why I love Ann Coulter) but this kind of column makes Coulter's look like Maureen Dowd's
I would not choose this as an example of my "best" argument, but then I am libertarian and feel it is not the government's place to outlaw sodomy - I just feel gay marriage is a bad idea that IS being rammed down a lot of people's throats. So e don't think alike. Fine. This does give me a bit more insight into your psyche, though.
Tim, I feel you may be overreacting a bit. While I would not use such harsh words or concepts in discussing the matter, I feel if you look past the tough "shell" and try to get the meat of what Card is trying to say, it is at the very least thought-provoking.
Having said that, I feel your response is equally over-the-top, Patrick. Your response that includes stating that someone not foaming-at-the-mouth being while explaining their views is so rare that the absence of said "foam" is enough to garner respect illustrates this.

Craig J. Ries:
"And this goes back to the point that marriage is an entity that evolves.

I would agree that, at one time, marriage was done for children (particularly heirs), for convenience, for money."

Hi again Craig,

I can't disagree with you there. Marriage evolves, indeed. I still want to know: Where's the sacred part of marriage? I'm not asking you specifically, Craig. But I am asking anyone who is solidly of the belief that marriage is sacred.

Having said that, I feel your response is equally over-the-top, Patrick. Your response that includes stating that someone not foaming-at-the-mouth being while explaining their views is so rare that the absence of said "foam" is enough to garner respect illustrates this.

And you are free to feel so. I can only proceed from my own experiences, as can you.

Then again, your liking for Coulter could be interpreted to say that you *like* foam with your arguments... ;)

Tim Lynch:
"That's why you've named yourself after a fictional character who does nothing but stir up trouble."

You don't know that it's not my real name. Just like I don't know whether or not you're really a former member of the Flamin' Groovies. None of which makes any difference to the conversation.

"Peter's already addressed the 10% question"

Which he wouldn't have had to do if you answered me the first time.

I figured you were referencing the Kinsey Report, but I didn't want to assume you were relying on that bogus and biased "study" which has been blown out of the water too many times to count (the Leuchter Report might even be more reputable). The US Census Bureau reports the real figure between 1 and 2 percent, and gay couples only represent 0.5 percent of all couples living together.

"and as for "evidence", you can read back through the thread, as the grownups involved have actually had some real discussions."

Who says there's no civil discourse on the Internet? Still no evidence presented.

"I look forward to hearing [the reasons why gay marriage is not wise]"

Because they can't keep it together, that's why. Gay relationships only last on average 1-1/2 years. More male gay relationships than not feature illegal drug use issues. Women in lesbian relationships are more likely to become victims of domestic violence. Gay unions that include children in the household are almost always the products of prior broken and trougbled relationships. Unless gays can provide a reasonable quantity of solid role model relationships, there's no reason why they should be endorsed.

Not even getting into the likelihood that millions of non-gays would take advantage of same-sex marriage simply for undeserved financial gains.

Because they can't keep it together, that's why. Gay relationships only last on average 1-1/2 years. More male gay relationships than not feature illegal drug use issues. Women in lesbian relationships are more likely to become victims of domestic violence. Gay unions that include children in the household are almost always the products of prior broken and trougbled relationships. Unless gays can provide a reasonable quantity of solid role model relationships, there's no reason why they should be endorsed.

To quote a wise man--Still no evidence presented. Over 50% of gay male relationships involve illegal drugs? That's a new one to me. Lesbian domestic violence has become a topic of interest but where are the stats saying it occurs at greater frequency than in hetero relationships?

And isn't it possible that these problems--IF they are true--might be alleviated by conferring some societal legitimacy on the relationships?

Not even getting into the likelihood that millions of non-gays would take advantage of same-sex marriage simply for undeserved financial gains.

You have GOT to be kidding. If anyone wants to get financial gain through smae-sex relationships they could already be a part of the lucrative male prostitution business. Any takers? Didn't think so.

Tim,

I will try to respond later. But let me give one quick statement: I don't agree with everything Card writes. (For that matter, I disagree with him about Mormonism.) But I do feel the basic points he makes are valid and worded better than I could (if at moments a little more strongly). So I do stand by the article as being a good and valid defense of traditional marriage. If that makes you think less of me, so be it.

Iowa Jim

Bill, I knew there was a reason I liked you... *g*

Bill, I knew there was a reason I liked you... *g*

Yeah, that's the fever talking.

Bill, I knew there was a reason I liked you... *g*

Yeah, that's the fever talking.

Well, there is that...

Must be why you're just so damn cute right now... ;)

The best defense for this conviction can be found in an essay by Orscon Scott Card:

Which is comparable to getting an unbiased opinion on Bush from Michael Moore.

Card is quite the homophobe.

but this kind of column makes Coulter's look like Maureen Dowd's

That's some talent then on Card's part. :P

If there was a burden of SCIENTIFIC proof that indicating that there was in fact a god, that would take FAITH pretty much out of the equation, and end a heck of a lot of arguments to boot.

Oh, obviously, because science has put 'to boot' alot of those faith arguments about evolution, haven't they?
Or does that also come back to accepting what you want to believe, discard the rest as long as you have a non-existant being to fall back on?

Where's the sacred part of marriage?

Well, it's not in the 50% of those marriages, between a man and a woman, that end up in divorce.

Which is another reason I fail to see the "gay marriage destroys marriage" argument - divorce already sent marriage crumbling long ago.

Bill,

[Aside: One teacher here is most definitely out, but doesn't generally bring it up unless it's relevant to the conversation. A few years ago a sixth-grade class asked him if he'd given blood that day -- we had a bloodmobile on campus and lots of teachers donated. When he said he hadn't, they asked him why. At that point he thought for a moment, and said "well, because I'm married to a man." Is that making it an issue, or simply asking a question honestly?]

One hopes he didn't just leave it at that, lest it give the impression that gays have rotten blood or something (and I was under the impression that all blood was tested for HIV so why exclude anyone?.)

As to the latter -- that's the policy of the Blood Centers of the Pacific, which is the group running the bloodmobile: if you're a male who's had sex with another man even once in the last N years (where N is some reasonably large value, though I don't recall specifics), then you're out. I think it's a somewhat extreme policy, but there we are.

As to the former -- this was a few years ago, so I don't remember the rest of the conversation very well. He certainly at least emphasized that it meant he wasn't allowed to, not that he chose not to -- beyond that, I'm not sure.

On "destroying marriage":

I think though, by definition, anyone who makes that statement is instantly on the fringe.

Not if they're in sufficient numbers. Ten years ago anyone who wanted to abolish Social Security was considered on the fringe. Now it's mainstream GOP policy.

I see your larger point, but I still think claiming "gay activists want to destroy marriage, muhahaha" is being needlessly and counterproductively over the top. (Of course, if you're a politician and it's the only way you get publicity ... well, you're Alan Keyes.)

Nancy D. Polikoff, respected professor, wrote an article titled "An end to all marriage" with the tagline "Critics of gay marriage say we'll destroy the entire institution. Maybe they're right, and maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing." I think she is arguing for taking all the legal rights of marriage out and letting pretty much anyone set up any kind of partnership they choose and get full rights. I guess it's close to the "make all unions civil unions" idea that you and Jim favor.

I wouldn't say Jim favors it -- he'd reluctantly go along with it, but that's all.

If that's what she means, and that's what "destroying marriage" would mean, then frankly you can count me in as well. But that also means something significantly different than "kill them all."

Jerome:

Thanks for the welcome back.

On the Card essay:

Tim, I feel you may be overreacting a bit.

So noted -- but obviously, I don't. I'd heard in the past that Card was known for somewhat extreme views on homosexuality, but this is the first time I've read them -- and frankly, I found them halfway between laughable and appalling. (And that does mean the "meat", not just the phrasing. For example, I do not buy into the "a nuclear family with one mommy, one daddy, 2.45 kids and 1.38 beagles is the absolute ideal that everyone should always strive for" hypothesis. Never have, never shall. Card clearly takes it as an axiom.)

I'm left to wonder if Card (and some others on this thread who shall remain fictitious) actually knows a single gay person.

TWL

Comment from Tim Lynch:
"[Aside: One teacher here is most definitely out, but doesn't generally bring it up unless it's relevant to the conversation. A few years ago a sixth-grade class asked him if he'd given blood that day -- we had a bloodmobile on campus and lots of teachers donated. When he said he hadn't, they asked him why. At that point he thought for a moment, and said "well, because I'm married to a man." Is that making it an issue, or simply asking a question honestly?]"

Response from Bill Mulligan:
One hopes he didn't just leave it at that, lest it give the impression that gays have rotten blood or something (and I was under the impression that all blood was tested for HIV so why exclude anyone?.)

Bill, obviously you haven't heard the Red Cross' official policy concerning gays and donating blood.
Red Cross guidelines currently prohibit any male who has had sex with another male EVEN ONCE since 1977 from being accepted as a blood donor. This has been policy since 1985.
From the Red Cross' website (more info at http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_557_,00.html):

HIV, AIDS
Those who are at increased risk for becoming infected with HIV are not eligible to donate blood. According to the Food and Drug Administration, you are at increased risk if:

you are a male who has had sex with another male since 1977, even once;
you have ever used a needle, even once, to take drugs or steroids that were not prescribed by a physician;
you have taken clotting factor concentrates for a bleeding disorder such as hemophilia;
you were born in or lived in Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Niger, or Nigeria since 1977 (This requirement is related to concerns about HIV Group O. Learn more about HIV Group O.)
you have taken drugs or money in exchange for sex since 1977;
you have ever had a positive test for HIV virus;
you have symptoms of HIV infection including unexplained weight loss, night sweats, blue or purple spots on or under the skin, long-lasting white spots or unusual sores in your mouth, lumps in your neck, armpits, or groin that last more than a month, fever higher than 99 degrees that lasts more than 10 days, diarrhea lasting over a month, or persistent cough and shortness of breath;
Wait for 12 months after close contact with someone who is at an increased risk for HIV infection. This occurs when paying to have sex, as a result of rape, or when having sex with an IV drug user.

On the other hand, if you have herpes, policy allows blood donation "as long as you are feeling well". And, you only have to wait 12 months after syphillis or gonorrhea. (Of course, if any of these were the result of male/male sex, you can't donate.)

Card is quite the homophobe.

Because he disagrees with homosexuality? What makes him a homophobe?

This accusation is rather amusing to me since until 3 months ago, I thought Card did not have a problem with homosexuality. Two of his novels have a gay character, and it was not a negative portrayal. They were not flamboyantly gay, but neither were they weak straw men to easily bash. They were very engaging characters and the novels never made clear Card's personal view on the subject. (His portrayal is not inconsistent with his beliefs, but the portrayal was very realistic.)

I'm left to wonder if Card (and some others on this thread who shall remain fictitious) actually knows a single gay person.

Not assuming you are including me, but let me see: I have a male family member who definitely had a homosexual orientation, but who is now happily married to a woman. I have another friend who was in the Air Force for 20+ years who is gay and very conflicted about it. I worked with another man who was gay who left a gay lifestyle and is now happily married with two kids and just adopted a third kid from another country. I have 3 aquaintances at another job who were very openly gay. Two of them were in a relationship. Their family made life very miserable for them (yes, they talked to me and shared some of these issues). But they were very proud to be a gay couple. I know of another late teen at my church who was also gay, believed God made him that way, and felt no need to change.

Just in case you were wondering. I have no idea if I am the norm, but I have had extensive conversations with those who are happily gay, those formerly gay but happily married now, and those who are just plain screwed up right now.

Iowa Jim

This accusation is rather amusing to me since until 3 months ago, I thought Card did not have a problem with homosexuality. Two of his novels have a gay character, and it was not a negative portrayal.

Implicit in that statement is surprise that a gifted writer can competently and accurately write points of view he or she disagrees with. Considering whose site we're on, I'm more than a little surprised by that surprise.

Not assuming you are including me, but let me see:

I wasn't, but thanks for the information.

TWL

I'm left to wonder if Card (and some others on this thread who shall remain fictitious) actually knows a single gay person.

I actually get along famously with gay people. Two of my best friends are or have been gay.
Best frined in the world is a lesbian in New York, and when I'm there I hang out with her and her lesbian friends. They know I'm conservative and at least to my face have expressed no problem with that.

Interestingly enough, though, they can't stand gay men, at least the feminine ones. I gotta admit that info kinda messed with my head until I got into a flame war with a hard core lesbian attorney who was coming down pretty hard on gay men. The flame war was because I was defending the gay men.

Although I will say this about that "debate" It led me to suspect that there's a fair amount of "gender jealousy" going on between some masculine lesbians and feminine gay men.

The homosexual marriage question is a very small tributary of the Congo-sized river question of Society. To try to do any justice to the answer while divorcing it from the Societal question is to invite disaster.

What is our Society? What should it be? What will it be? What is it becoming (through agenda, lack of attention, what have you)?

Until these questions are answered, the tributary questions truly can't be answered well.

Gay marriage (and homosexuality) harms the society I desire. It does no harm to the society that, for example, Tim wants. Tim's solution of removing "marriage" from legal definition promotes a society with no boundaries (despite this, I tend to agree with his solution).

A 'boundary-less society' should be able to accept within it societies that do have boundaries (Canada's does not, since speaking against homosexuality is punishable by law), and therefore should probably be the answer... a bit hard for me to say, since I would view things 'outside' my society to be harmful... but that way everyone would have the right to try and find their own 'society'. The problem is the overlap can be difficult to navigate...

You can see why it's easy to throw one's hands up and just forget about it all; the answers are out of reach. I have strong feelings about right and wrong, but I can't make others live by those as long as they don't impact my rights. I'm equally uncomfortable with the government "validating" what I consider wrong... but I can live with being uncomfortable. I have very Libertarian leanings despite conservative feelings.

For what it's worth, while the sixth grade teacher's reaction was a tactful one, my answer tends to be "their rules say I can't" and leave it at that (in my pre-Christian days I was intimate with a girl from the Cameroon, which denies me the ability to give blood at all - no time limit. In a classroom setting, such personal issues don't need to be clarified).

I am one of those Christian conservatives that many of you consider an idiot. Rather unflattering considering the amount of time I do try to reconcile these issues...

Gay marriage (and homosexuality) harms the society I desire.

In what way?

It does no harm to the society that, for example, Tim wants. Tim's solution of removing "marriage" from legal definition promotes a society with no boundaries (despite this, I tend to agree with his solution).

The only challenge I'd make here is that (a) it's more a society with FEWER boundaries than none at all, and (b) it would be fewer boundaries *on this particular issue*. I agree with your overall point -- I just want to be cautious of overstatement.

I have strong feelings about right and wrong, but I can't make others live by those as long as they don't impact my rights.

And that, I'd say, is why far fewer people consider you an idiot than you might think. I certainly don't.

I think we all have strong feelings about right and wrong -- it's the recognition that our feelings aren't universal ones that lets society function.

TWL

Rather unflattering considering the amount of time I do try to reconcile these issues...

Well, it's meant to be unflattering when you automatically consider that gay marriage must be harmful to society.

Btw, there's a wonderful article about Ann Coulter, a part of which I'm going to post here, just to show that anybody who takes that woman seriously needs a lobotomy:

WASHINGTON, 2 March 2005 — Arab bashing reached a new low in Washington last week when Ann Coulter, a loudmouthed, mean-spirited, pro-Bush columnist, decided to defend the White House press pass controversy over faux-reporter James Guckert (a.k.a. Jeff Gannon) by writing in her syndicated column: “Press passes can’t be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president.”

Thomas, whose Hearst column is distributed by King Features Syndicate, is of Lebanese descent. The former United Press International reporter has been a journalist for nearly 60 years, and has covered every president since John F. Kennedy. She was the first female president of the White House Correspondents Association.

Robbnn: "I am one of those Christian conservatives that many of you consider an idiot."

Hi Robbnn,

For what it's worth, I don't consider you an idiot. You've demonstrated thoughtfulness ofen enough to be outside the idiot camp.

People have a tendancy to paint "Them" ("Them" being the oposing voices on any given topic) with a wide brush. Because of that wide brush generalizations tend to get progressively more hostile and so on...

I prefer to think of you and Iowa Jim as "Us" with a different point of view. I think that way because this is a microcosm in which the totality of who we are is not fully represented here and to label someone as "Them" based on a few snippets on a small variety of subjects is as prejudicial as anything else.

Besides, I like having my point of view challenged.

Craig J. Ries: "Which is another reason I fail to see the "gay marriage destroys marriage" argument - divorce already sent marriage crumbling long ago."

Hi Craig,

Unfortunate, but true. There are no easy answers to to the question of divorce, either, but that's another topic for another time...

Robbnn: "I am one of those Christian conservatives that many of you consider an idiot."

I don't consider Christian conservatives idiots. I consider idiots to be idiots. Tragically, there's a lot of idiots who happen to be Christian conservatives. I'm not saying there aren't idiots in other walks of life; there most certainly are. And I'm not saying that are all Christian conservatives are idiots; that is certainly not the case. But the idiots in the Christain conservative wing are certainly accomplished in getting the most notice.

PAD

Implicit in that statement is surprise that a gifted writer can competently and accurately write points of view he or she disagrees with. Considering whose site we're on, I'm more than a little surprised by that surprise.

Tim,

I am not surpirsed that he could write a view he doesn't agree with. But since that was the *only* thing I had read by Card on the subject, I was surprised at him being called a homophobe on various talkbacks when he was announced as the new writer for Ultimate Iron Man. Frankly, after reading "Postwatch," I also was surprised he supported the war in Iraq.

I don't usually do much research on an author. I just enjoy the books and look for ones that tell a good story. I try not to assume the author's views, but when you read a story, it is easy to wonder if the author is laying out his view. I did not assume Card was pro gay rights or against the war in Iraq because it didn't really matter, I still enjoyed the story.

Side note: While watching Babylon 5, I was very impressed with how religious figures were portrayed. I was very surprised to learn that JMS was an atheist since I saw a lot of religious themes. It is one thing for an author to not write against something he doesn't believe (such as by making all Catholic priests crooks and perverts). Most authors are professional enough to avoid that mistake. But few can absolutely nail a character to the degree that you would think the author knows first hand what it is to be a Mormon or a Jew or gay, etc. That is why I appreciate PAD, JMS, Card, and others.

Iowa Jim

I don't consider Christian conservatives idiots. I consider idiots to be idiots. Tragically, there's a lot of idiots who happen to be Christian conservatives.

Ok, can't argue with you there.

Iowa Jim

Dude, just give the baby for adoption. What gives the right to any human being to abort a fetus like it was a faulty chicken?

My God says homosexuals are going to rot in hell. And so are all that are sexual immoral, liars, murderers, greedy, egotistical, or filled with hatred. Unless they repent. Sorry. I don't make the rules, God does.

"It is detestable," the Lord says. If you accept the Bible, you gotta accept the whole thing.

Of course I don't expect anyone who lives as if they are their own gods to understand this.

Of course I believe anyone should be left free to make their own choices, this is, after all, our God-given right.

But we all gotta give an account to the Big Guy in the end.

"When gay groups were trying to ram down this "born gay" crap in the 80's..."

As is often the case, I'm coming in very late on this topic and much of what I might have said has already been said shorter and better. One point which does not appear to have been made explicitly, however, is the difference between born gay and genetic.

If someone says, "I was born gay", it does not necessarily mean there is something in their genes that led to them being gay. There are many non-genetic pre-natal influences that could be responsible. While evidence of a genetic component to homosexuality would confirm that some people are born gay, the absence of such a genetic component does not mean people are not born gay. It would just mean they were born gay for non-genetic reasons.

I believe I was born straight. I have friends who were born gay. I have no more reason to doubt their self-evaluation than I have to doubt my own.

I also have friends who believe they made a choice as to their sexuality. I'm inclined to believe them, too -- which indicates to me that they were born such that they could be attracted to both sexes, and that the strength of those attractions is non-compelling enough that they are able to choose which sex to engage (or not engage) in sexual relationships with.

I suspect there are many, many types of people -- that not all gay people are gay in the same way, that not all straight people are straight in the same way, that not all bi people are bi in the same way. Some people may be born with a kind of sexuality that allows them to choose either homosexual or heterosexual relationships. Others, it seems clear to me, are not. How many people are born with such an ability to choose, I do not know, but to assume either that everyone is able to make such a choice, or that everyone is not able to make such a choice, seems to me a foolish assumption.

Considering how many prominent conservatives, and children of prominent conservatives, have turned out to be gay, I am a little surprised how eager some on the right are to say that no one is born gay. If it is true that no one is born gay, wouldn't it make sense for those who believe homosexuality is evil to do research into what Phyllis Schlafly, Alan Keyes, and the Cheneys have in common in their method of child-raising?

UX-Gal

>My God says homosexuals are going to rot in hell. And so are all that are sexual immoral, liars, murderers, greedy, egotistical, or filled with hatred. Unless they repent. Sorry. I don't make the rules, God does.

The amazing thing about all of this is that neither the Old or New Testament was handed down directly by God. The Catholic Church is responsible for deciding what books constituted both books. Old Tesament was determined once and for all in approximately 100AD and the New Testament was in the year 482AD (If I'm remembering correctly.) This leaves us with the Church deciding "making the rules". You are welcome to believe, but don't be surprised when anyone takes exception with you dictating your god/church or absolute morality on us when our choices don't directly affect you, taking nothing away from you.

>"It is detestable," the Lord says. If you accept the Bible, you gotta accept the whole thing.

Which makes my stance on gay marriage so much easier. Again, you accept the Bible as the word of God, that is your right to believe. I simply don't agree.

>Of course I don't expect anyone who lives as if they are their own gods to understand this.

Wow... so anyone who doesn't believe in your god must fall in this category?

>Of course I believe anyone should be left free to make their own choices, this is, after all, our God-given right.

Nope, God had nothing to do with it. I gave myself that right when I educated myself and made a choice. Others who educate themselves and remain one of the flock have given themselves that choice.

>But we all gotta give an account to the Big Guy in the end.

..... in your opinion. Where is your proof?

Fred

"..... in your opinion. Where is your proof?"

Religious fanatics don't need proof, they have faith.

The same faith that convinces PLO terrorists to strap bombs to themselves and board public busses or enter restaraunts and dentonate.

The same faith that drove a set of whackos to fly planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and attempt to do so to the White House... (you'd think the terrorists would've planned better and at least made sure the Prez would be home on Sept. 11, 2001 instead of visiting am elementary school)

Jim,

I am not surpirsed that he could write a view he doesn't agree with. But since that was the *only* thing I had read by Card on the subject, I was surprised at him being called a homophobe on various talkbacks when he was announced as the new writer for Ultimate Iron Man.

Okay, that seems sensible enough. I appreciate the clarification.

And I completely share your opinion of B5. I knew JMS was an atheist when I started watching the show, but I too was very impressed at how sympathetic and how well-rounded many of his religious characters were. The moment at the end of "Parliament of Dreams" where Sinclair introduces the whole line of people is still one of my favorite moments from the first season.

TWL

Considering how many prominent conservatives, and children of prominent conservatives, have turned out to be gay, I am a little surprised how eager some on the right are to say that no one is born gay. If it is true that no one is born gay, wouldn't it make sense for those who believe homosexuality is evil to do research into what Phyllis Schlafly, Alan Keyes, and the Cheneys have in common in their method of child-raising?

Actually, if we want to be truly scientific, the answer is yes. For instance, there is a very high number of gays who report they had emotionally and/or physically absent fathers. If their father was emotionally distant, was that a factor in leading them to have gay desires, or did latent gay desires cause them to perceive the dad as distant, or did their latent desires cause the dad to withdraw and thus be distant? There is a pattern, but until research is done, you can't say if any of the above are true.

As mentioned above, the extreme on both sides would be reluctant to have such research done.

Iowa Jim

The amazing thing about all of this is that neither the Old or New Testament was handed down directly by God. The Catholic Church is responsible for deciding what books constituted both books.

This is not an historically accurate statement. This lie has been repeated often, but it is not true.

Concerning the Old Testament, there is ample evidence that the books of the Old Testament were widely agreed upon long before the church began. The LXX (Septuagint) Greek translation is proof of this, as are contents found in the so called "Dead Sea Scrolls." The even in 100 AD was simply an acknowledgment of what had been true, not a determination of what books were included. You must keep in mind history. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. The Jewish nation was obliterated by the Romans. The decision in 100 AD was not done by the church, but was made by Jews wanting to make sure they did not lose their traditions while in exile.

There is also plenty of evidence that the books in our New Testament today were in circulation from virtually the beginning. You have to remember, there was no printing press, Barnes and Noble, internet, or book publishers. Scrolls had to be copied by hand. So it was understandable that some areas did not have all of the same books that others did. The surprising reality is how quickly and how widespread the current 27 books of the New Testament were circulated.

Keep in mind that for the first 200+ years of Christian history, it was NOT a recognized religion. On the contrary, there were times of very strong persecution where people were executed. You had to be very confident that a book was "holy" to be willing to die for possessing it. The books we have today were the same ones people were willing to die for, long before any official church began or rose to power. We know this from a very large body of writings of early Christians, often called the church fathers. They quoted these books and debated whether they should be included. In fact, there are objections to these books that we only know of today because they are preserved for us in the Church fathers' writings as they wrote to refute those same objections.

The first list of the current 27 books was made by Athanasius in 367 AD. It was confirmed at the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 and 419 AD). All of these councils simply affirmed the same books that everyone was using. They did not exclude any book that was already widely accepted, and they did not add any book that was previously widely rejected.

Of course, none of this "proves" that the Bible actually is the word of God, etc. But to say the Catholic Church chose and imposed the current books of the Bible on the church is totally without any historical warrant.

Iowa Jim

If you accept the Bible, you gotta accept the whole thing.

And you gotta admit that you're a hypocrit, because for those that "accept" it, very few, I'm sure, follow it to the letter.

The same faith that convinces PLO terrorists to strap bombs to themselves and board public busses or enter restaraunts and dentonate.

The same faith that lead Bush to tell people that God told him to attack Iraq, to kill innocent civilians, to trade American and Iraqi blood for money and oil.

Craig:

>>If you accept the Bible, you gotta accept the whole thing.

>And you gotta admit that you're a hypocrit, because for those that "accept" it, very few, I'm sure, follow it to the letter.

... not even getting into the multiple interpretations of the same passages, the changes of intent when translated from language to language, the inconsistancies from book to book, or the scores of holy books that were dropped from the Bible.

Fred

"... not even getting into the multiple interpretations of the same passages, the changes of intent when translated from language to language, the inconsistancies from book to book, or the scores of holy books that were dropped from the Bible."

And if the Bible truly was the word of "God" (there is no such entity however), then there would be nothing to interpret and it would be crystal clear...

Iowa Jim:

>>The amazing thing about all of this is that neither the Old or New Testament was handed down directly by God. The Catholic Church is responsible for deciding what books constituted both books.

>This is not an historically accurate statement. This lie has been repeated often, but it is not true.

Just as much as continuing to deny it and label it a lie does not make it so.

>Concerning the Old Testament, there is ample evidence that the books of the Old Testament were widely agreed upon long before the church began. The LXX (Septuagint) Greek translation is proof of this, as are contents found in the so called "Dead Sea Scrolls." The even in 100 AD was simply an acknowledgment of what had been true, not a determination of what books were included. You must keep in mind history. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. The Jewish nation was obliterated by the Romans. The decision in 100 AD was not done by the church, but was made by Jews wanting to make sure they did not lose their traditions while in exile.

The Church closed the canon, determining what books would be included in the Old Testament at the Senate of Jamnia in 100AD.

>There is also plenty of evidence that the books in our New Testament today were in circulation from virtually the beginning. You have to remember, there was no printing press, Barnes and Noble, internet, or book publishers. Scrolls had to be copied by hand. So it was understandable that some areas did not have all of the same books that others did. The surprising reality is how quickly and how widespread the current 27 books of the New Testament were circulated.

Certainly in circulation via verbal storytelling from early on, but the books of the New Testament were decided upon by the Senate of Rome under Pope Damasus in, I stand corrected after looking it up, 382AD. The earliest printed version we see today was in circulation somewhere in the 10th century AD, if I am not mistaken.

>Keep in mind that for the first 200+ years of Christian history, it was NOT a recognized religion. On the contrary, there were times of very strong persecution where people were executed. You had to be very confident that a book was "holy" to be willing to die for possessing it. The books we have today were the same ones people were willing to die for, long before any official church began or rose to power. We know this from a very large body of writings of early Christians, often called the church fathers. They quoted these books and debated whether they should be included. In fact, there are objections to these books that we only know of today because they are preserved for us in the Church fathers' writings as they wrote to refute those same objections.

Minus the books that were destroyed due to inaccruacies or statements that the church did not want included.

>Of course, none of this "proves" that the Bible actually is the word of God, etc. But to say the Catholic Church chose and imposed the current books of the Bible on the church is totally without any historical warrant.

I'm sorry that I was not able to respond sooner, but I wanted to check on some dates before replying and even now time does not allow me to build a more comprehensive response. As I said, I have no disrespect for anyone who calls themselves Christian, although I am disturbed at the aggressive nature of many in that group to label and attempt to dictate morality based on documents that have no factuall basis other than faith.

Alan Watts is a pretty article speaker on these issues and he made a very solid point regarding the Christian movement in this direction, making a comparison with our legal system and that those who are the strongest advocates are also placing themselves up as the judges determining these absolutes.... we certainly wouldn't want our judicial system set up this way.

Though there are thousands of sites online, one that appears pretty reliable and succinct is:

http://www.thesower.org.za/Boodskap/origin_of_the_bible.htm

Thanks for the conversation, Jim.

Fred

The Church closed the canon, determining what books would be included in the Old Testament at the Senate of Jamnia in 100AD.

It was NOT a church senate, it was a group of rabbis. The church barely existed at this point. To suggest that the church had the ability to override over a thousand years of Jewish tradition and customs is beyond absurd. The church in no way determined the 39 books contained in what we now consider the Old Testament. To argue that they did is to say the church rewrote Jewish history and Jews today still accept it. Your comment ignores the fact that a Greek translation was made over 100 years BEFORE the senate to which you refer, and the contents of that translation are the same books that were affirmed at the senate. The senate did not choose the books, they simply agreed that they had the correct books.

It is also inaccurate to say the church closed the cannon. They did not arbitrarily say no more books could be included. What they said was that no other books met the commonly agreed upon tests for it to be included. These tests included the book being widely circulated and accepted, its consistency with other accepted books of the Bible, and it having been written under apostolic or prophetic authority. The second test, consistency with other books, was not just a test to exclude a particular teaching. Instead, it looked at the book as a whole. If you compare some of the current books that some suggest were deliberately excluded, even a casual reader today reading a translation of the work can easily see the differences.

Certainly in circulation via verbal storytelling from early on, but the books of the New Testament were decided upon by the Senate of Rome under Pope Damasus in, I stand corrected after looking it up, 382AD. The earliest printed version we see today was in circulation somewhere in the 10th century AD, if I am not mistaken.

On the contrary, they were not just verbal storytelling. Scholars date a fragment of the Gospel of John to at least as early as 150 AD. And we have partial manuscripts of many other books from a very early date. We have nearly complete written manuscripts from the 4th and 5th centuries. Codex Sinaticus is a complete copy of the Greek New Testament in uncial script, and it comes from the 4th century. The Bible is without parallel in ancient literature. No other work even comes close to the number of existent copies and how close the date of the copies are to the orginal documents.

Compare this to the Koran. History is quite clear that there was a very organized effort to "correct" and edit the contents, and that any copy that varied was destroyed. There is absolutely no history of this happening by the church. On the contrary, you find an unheard of diversity in the documents that still exist.

The reality is, the early church often took pains to include anything that might be part of the original text. That is why the story in John 8 and the longer ending to Mark 16 still exist. That is why there are some very minor differences between the King James version and current translations. They use different original manuscripts. The changes are very minor, and are overwhelmingly obvious copying errors, such as repeating the same phrase in the next line because the copier lost track of where he was on the page or scroll. In later years, others kept in the obvious copying errors (making note of the errors in the margin) rather than accidentally deleting anything that should have been there to begin with.

Minus the books that were destroyed due to inaccruacies or statements that the church did not want included.

Again, you are making an assumption for which there is absolutely no evidence. As noted above, history actually testifies the opposite is true. Name a single book that was widely accepted and that the church destroyed because it did not agree with it. There are books that were rejected, yes, but they were rejected by virtually everyone, not just a small group of powerful church leaders.

There are numerous scholarly works that lay out the evidence for all of this. Perhaps the best is "The Text of the New Testament" by Bruce Metzger (Oxford Press). He is a world renown and respected expert on the topic, having studied the actual manuscripts for years.

(To be fair, I have not just read a little on this subject. My college and masters degrees are on this topic. That is not to "pull rank" and say I am right, but to simply say I have done a lot of research on this and am not just repeating what I heard a pastor say once when I was a kid. I fully admit that there are some who disagree with my view, but the research is so overwhelming that few who have studied the matter make such claims.)

Iowa Jim

One more thought on the origin of the current books of the Bible:

It is a mistake to believe the Roman Catholic Church was such a powerful force in the 4th century. There was actually at least 4 powerful bishops at the time who considering themselves the equal (if not the superior) of the others. You did not have a Pope who was seen as infallible and supreme. In some ways, it more resembles current Christianity with its diverse denominations. For all of them to agree on something was a rather great accomplishment. That is why this myth that "the church" chose the books in the Bible and destroyed any they did not like is just plain impossible in light of history. There was no monolithic "church" that had the power to do so.

Iowa Jim

Jim, I bow to your apparent knowledge and will readily admit that I am no expert. I base my points on articles I have read as well as transcripts from scholors in the field. I mentioned Alan Watts, who seemed to me to have some pretty firm credentials. If I blatantly spoke mistruths, than I apologize and say it is out of my own ignorance or misunderstanding of materials.

Thanks for the information from your end. I look forward to having some free time this weekend and exploring these topics again more thoroughly for my own further education.

Fred

Fred,

The article you posted was actually fairly conservative and did not seem to support the view you mentioned. I won't have time right now, but I am curious to find out more about Alan Watts and his writings. If you have another link to his stuff, I would be glad to read it.

While believing the Bible is the Word of God is a matter of faith, my beliefs about its transmission, etc., is not. So I welcome any evidence for other viewpoints. But having done so much research, short of another "Dead Sea Scroll" type discovery, I doubt there is anything currently out there I have not at least heard about on this issue. Unlike science, history has a way of staying the same once most of the evidence is on the table.

Iowa Jim

I live at 21088 Commonwealth in Seattle. Been up here before?

I live at 21088 Commonwealth in Seattle. Been up here before?