Zachary Amaranth said:
It's quite likely there is no genetic link to homosexuality, however. Environmental factors, yes. But there's no documented evidence of homosexuals being more likely to have gay kids, for example. There are very likely other issues at play. Hormone fluccuations in the uterus, for example.
Twin studies are generally more accurate indicators of biological factors than parent-child studies do to a significantly higher possibility of additional influences that are impossible to account for. Particularly when they correlate positively with a result. Negative biological results (studies that result in no discernable correlation) are less valid only because of the potential influence of chromosomal abnormalities (deletions, duplications, inversions of segments of genetic code) that still point to biological factors without necessarily being genetically passed down.
The twin studies on homosexuality are particularly confirming of at least some biological factors contributing due to the difference in results between identical twins and fraternal (non-identical twins that share no more common DNA than non-twin siblings) twins with regard to non-twin siblings which have the lowest occurence. This rules out the womb environment as the only factor though does not dismiss it as a contributing factor. That non-identical twins also display a higher rate of mutual occurance of homosexuality if one is homosexual then indicates one or two things: That there are additional factors in the womb and/or that being the same age relates to going through sexual development around the same time as well as being more likely to share the same food brands and such. That the occurance isn't 100% or even 50% (I believe the last study was around 24% for identical twins) indicates additional environmental factors at play, but that it's higher than the others in identical twins certainly seems to point to environmental conditions.
Wall of text below, spoilered for the sake of everyone's sanity, click to view:
I would be careful with that. Phobias, even severe ones, can be cured. To equate the two is to indicate homosexuality can be cured, despite all evidence to the contrary. Generally speaking, gays don't become gay because of experiential factors.
Phobias are not typically cured. They are managed to the point they are no longer considered phobias. For example, if a person has a phobia of spiders, they can get to the point where they don't run screaming from the room seeking a room to get naked in to search for bites. The person is still afraid of spiders but it is no longer in control of their lives. The Phobia may often times resurface later.
In a similar fashion, these crazy/ridiculous scared straight places can "condition" individuals to mitigate the external demonstration of their homosexuality to alleviate dysphoria over their sexual identity for whatever reasons (the reason usually being ignorance and discrimination, but can be a simple desire to fit in). As such, it is not incredibly uncommon for homosexuals having undergone this conditioning to pretend to be straight, sometimes quite successfully enough to even fool themselves for significant spans of time (usually blowing up in their faces years later but I don't have numbers on the failure rates aside from a generally high one). But it is to my understanding that they are and will always be homosexuals and struggle with the realities of that trait even if they manage to repress them here and there.
So phobias are not an entirely bad example when used generally. Especially not when explaining that they are combined with genetics. The context of my post should also have alleviated any concern that I may think they can be cured or something.
Christians do not have a unifying doctrine. Some even debate the nature of Christ Himself. Some believe we're all sinners and some believe that we choose to sin and some believe that something external makes us sin. There's no unified theory on sin. So even if we take the position that homosexuality is a sin (which a good chunk of Christianity does, without any real support), the nature of that sin and what should be done about it varies from Church to Church (not even from sect to sect).
Two things:
1. While almost any doctrine has some portion of people who don't follow it, there are several tenets of Christianity to which the largest groups adhere. Anything else should then be considered unorthodox in the strict definition of term even if the actual belief isn't considered salvific. For example, most of the doctrine established in the first 5 of the 7 ecumenical councils of the Christian Church are considered orthodox with significant groups disagreeing generally with the 6th and 7th council decisions as the Roman Catholic Church had begun to kick the other four members of the Pentarchy (Jerusalem, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria) out of authority, culminating in the great schism of 1053.
Likewise, original or ancestral sin is a basic tenet of Christianity. That the fall of man has resulted in sin and decay in the world. Pretty basic stuff. If there is debate on this, it falls more in the area of soteriology where the argument is moreso whether we are totally depraved (total depravity) or merely just inclined towards sin. There is no overall opponent to original sin itself or its ramifications. At least, it isn't a group that's large enough to throw off my line of reasoning here.
2. Additionally, to your comment that Christians do not have scripture condemning homosexuality. This is unfortunately not the case and it would be erroneous to try to convince them otherwise. We all generally agree that the Hebrew Bible condemns homosexuality directly, just before condemning bestiality. What people generally forget in the Christian Bible/New Testament is
Romans 1:27 "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.".
For some reason people debate over the other verse that lists the effiminate males in a list of types of sinners and pass over that one. But the most successfully vocal proponents of homosexuality being a sin use the above. While I have a lot of positive things to say about Christianity that most anyone would appreciate, the views on homosexuality are not one of them and will continue to be a point of contention on the matter for who knows how many years to come. This verse in particular is a little too direct to dismiss and sidesteps pedastry vs homosexuality in the phrasing (for example, the Greek word, "arrçn" is only male and is the only term for men used in this verse whereas the Greeks did have words and adjectives that could have meant young males if they so wanted).
I used to think, as you do, that they had no support. I have since been proven wrong as you can see. It is an uphill and dishonest battle to try to claim otherwise at this point. The best I can do is point out that Christians are called to love and embrace sinners by showing them all the love their Lord is known for. That it is not their job to force or legislate their religion and beliefs on others. Their scriptures have never supported that and the ugliness of their hate is only harming the imagine of a group that is supposed to be known by their love. And then I flip the table and start a bar fight...
The insistence that homosexuality is genetic largely comes down to the fact that it's okay to discriminate against choice and action, whereas we consider inborn traits to be a rather monstrous thing to discriminate against. It's a relatively new concept.
I agree. But that always brings me to the next point. Even if it were purely choice, why is that anyone else's damn business? As long as Christians debate along these lines they will be routinely tasked because at the end of the day, the argument always comes down to religion/culture and not an intellectually universal truth.
What you should probably take away from this above all else is that the poster in question thinks he had to choose to be straight. He (or she) is tacitly admitting to like members of the same sex. This is weirdly a position taken by a lot of Christians, that if not for it being a sin they'd be all over hot guy on guy action (or girl on girl, no need to exclude). When homophobic ministers who get caught will say they gave in to temptation, or they slipped up. That means, on some level, they really want those guys.
I don't think this is the normal state for a heterosexual. I mean, I can't talk experientially. I am a "anything that can consent sexual," so that's right out. However, I know tons of straight people who are involved in alliance programs and march with the gays in pride parades and have no problem with people calling them fags or assuming they're gay, and I've never once come across one of them that said "you know what? I really want some (insert same-sex genitals here) right now." At most, a large swathe of heterosexuals seem to be curious.
This mindset of repression, apart from being unhealthy, is something to consider when talking to people. Both because it's an insight into their own interests and because it's very likely instilled by fear itself. Doesn't necessarily mean everyone who says it is gay, but they certainly have a low opinion of their own sexuality. Because if you can choose to be straight, you can just as easily choose to be gay. Somehow, of the people who have insisted to me they choose to be straight, none have been willing to prove it by duding up.
Hmm, I've often wondered about this. I am not gay and wouldn't consider myself bisexual either but but I could see viable homosexual relationships as a possibility (e.g. I do not find the idea revolting despite not preferring them and not readily considering them. I simply prefer heterosexual interactions by far as the most desireable relation). I do wonder about the flexibility of sexuality in general. Could I have gone another route that I simply didn't consider because of social conditioning? I don't know. I can certainly believe that others are entirely rigid but I don't know if that's the default position. In my studies of philosophy and religion I have found numerous societies that behave differently regarding the subject.
Homosexuality may also be nature's way of providing foster care.
Due to the nature of the homosexuality's maladaptiveness, I wouldn't expect this to be the case. It almost has to be connected to a beneficial trait to have been successfully passed on for so long and in so many species. It doesn't necessarily have to be connected to the trait I proposed, but it should be connected to something. I only say this because genes that get passed on in significant numbers should be ones that encourage the reproduction of healthy fertile offspring. As such, homosexuality is definitionally maladaptive. I hesitate to use that term because I do not want to imply that homosexuality is inherently bad. It just isn't geared towards the passing on of genes. Two homosexual males protecting one heterosexual child would have given the child a higher liklihood of survival, yes. But it would have done nothing to pass their genes along unless the child shared their DNA.
Since non-religious marriage came first,
I reject the premise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Etymology
The word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250?1300 CE This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marîtâre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marîtâri meaning to get married. The adjective marît-us -a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for "husband" and in the feminine form for "wife."[12] The related word "matrimony" derives from the Old French word matremoine which appears around 1300 CE and ultimately derives from Latin mâtrimônium which combines the two concepts mater meaning "mother" and the suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or condition." "[13]
Marriage varies wildly according to culture. You cannot definitively say what its first form was as it likely dates back to before recorded history. What we do know is that most cultures until relatively recently based their marriage around local religious/pagan ceremonies. Customs and circumstances surrounding it may have been very different just one town over. Governments did not get into the practice of recognizing marriage officially until pretty darn recently. So in any event, marriage as the marriage license of the US presents it, is extremely new. Our marriage license only showing up after the mid-19th century.
Except that's not true. Have you looked at the claims of religious persecution in this country?
Well, I suppose it's technically true. They CAN, they just WONT.
I'm not sure what you meant here. Are gays not presently being persecuted for religious reasons anyways? I didn't say this would cure hate or solve world hunger. Just a specific issue.
That's not a "legitimate fear." It's paranoia.
Explain. Pastors cannot talk about politics from the pulpit or else risk jail time and the loss of the church's status as a not for profit. That's right now in the year 2013 in a country where freedom of religion and free speech are the rule of the land. They are concerned that there may be a day where pastors may be sued for refusing to marry homosexuals. I explain that pastors can currently still reject people on the basis of race and religion, so that shouldn't be a concern but I can at least understand their fear and wouldn't trivialize it so much as assuage it.
To my knowledge, no such case has actually been on the religious end of things. It's been people trying not to perform their CIVIL duties to CIVIL marriage.
For example:
I live in Vermont. We had civil unions, now we have gay marriage. It's perfectly legal here for a church or religious body not to marry people, but not for a Justice of the Peace to do so. And why shouldn't it be that way? If you don't want to perform the job, don't take it. If you take the job, you perform the job as-is. It's the "Amish Bus Driver" principle. a JP is a civil servant doing a government job of officiating civil marriage.
I did not say that ministers were charged. I said vendors such as flower companies or cake makers. I heard one such example of a floral company on NPR last week or the week before. While I fully agree on the similarities between them refusing services based on race or orientation, this is kind of a tricky subject and I'm merely trying to present it from their side. I am not personaly saying that companies should be allowed to refuse service to gays. FAR from it. That's horrifyingly 1960's of us. This is just how thye see it.
If the government initially used marriage licenses to prevent religious organizations from marrying people of different races, does it not follow that the reverse could also happen? That the license could be used to force people to marry individuals in the same way that governments legislate (correctly) companies to do so? Add that to the belief that the government is already altering the institution of marriage and the fear isn't paranoia. Though it is unlikely.
Lightknight said:
Except that only tells half the story, so it doesn't really properly address anything.
Oh? What half is it missing and how does the latter missing half negate the former?
Kind of illogical, as religious ceremonies were unnecessary. I mean, it doesn't pass the smell test, but who am I to argue with a two paragraph blurb on the site that locked a page insisting the Lakota Sioux had withdrawn from the US even as the Sioux themselves said it was false?
I'm sure you have more than that to back it up, right?
Edit: Hell, if we're using Wikipedia, there's no problem with marriage as-is.
First off, I have presented evidence of how the license was established and you have not. Wikipedia is merely the most convenient encyclopedia to use. I recommend you present evidence to the contrary. Also, you can view the history of the the way anti-miscegenation laws played into and even criminalized the act of interracial marriage.
Secondly, I defy you to find another source that isn't Jesush8sgays1232.com or some such nonsense. In the wake of the overturning of DOMA all the nutjobs have come out of the woodwork. I simply don't have the time to wade through all of this mess while at work. However I've known about this information for some time and thought it was common knowledge. I am quite confident in this information as well as the basic timeline. Commonlaw marriages were common up until around the Civil War and marriage licenses began to be enforced especially regarding interracial marriages. This is a sad but true history. I'm not sure why wouldn't have heard about it.
In some countries ? notably the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Norway and Spain ? both ceremonies can be held together; the officiant at the religious and civil ceremony also serving as agent of the state to perform the civil ceremony. To avoid any implication that the state is "recognizing" a religious marriage (which is prohibited in some countries) ? the "civil" ceremony is said to be taking place at the same time as the religious ceremony. Often this involves simply signing a register during the religious ceremony. If the civil element of the religious ceremony is omitted, the marriage ceremony is not recognized as a marriage by government under the law.
As Jacques Clousseau would say, ze problem is sol-ved.
[/quote] It doesn't prevent people from believing what they think. Again, my problem is not that marriage licenses are religious. They aren't. It's that people who don't know any better think they are directly related to marriage as their faith practices it. Because marriage license WERE related to them to begin with and made it illegal to marry certain individuals (a felony). You aren't solving anything as long as individuals honestly believe that their religious practice is under attack. You've got to understand that the masses are dumb and liable to mob mentalities in the extremist of forms. You've got to make things easier for them to understand because very few people are going to give this dedicated thought and research that you and I appear to have. So stop quoting people and pretending like this is what everyone knows. Individuals may understand this, but the groups as a whole do not.
