TheFaithfulStone Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 No, no, I got it. His point is not without merit. In The Forever War the futuristic soldier comes back to find that everyone on earth is gay. In Far From Heaven the gay husband leads a double life. HB's point is that there is no way of knowing what (if any) incidence of "gayness" is biologically driven and what is socially constructed. But of course, this is easy to turn on it's head - what level (if any) of straightness is biologically driven vs. socially constructed? If the 10% figure that gets thrown around for homosexuality is one half "social" and one half "genetic", then why can't the same be true of hetero's? That is of the 90% of straight people, half are biologically straight, and half are following the herd. If we assume that both are true, this it comes out to half gay/half straight! Is the "natural" state of things bisexuality? It is for bonobos and dolphins, the other two smartest critters on the planet. So, while it's an interesting theoretical point, it also doesn't really matter in the execution. You can only discriminate based upon real choices or on the principle of preventing harm. (And that last one is tricky.) Two points can be agreed upon. 1) There is at least some incidence of biologically motivated homosexuality.2) We shouldn't discriminate against people for things they can't help, insofar as not doing so doesn't endanger others. (We don't let the blind drive, for instance.) There is no argument for denying gay people equal rights, that I can see, that doesn't either argue with the premise, or degenerate into a begged question. TFS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 So we are now looking at how to restrict social behavior of specific types? Can we add the behavior of wearing those pants that hang down around the knees?? I think that behavior should be restricted as well;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 Does anyone have any PROOF that homosexuality is a behavior as opposed to a trait? Is it OK to ASSUME either until we know for sure? Do gays deserve the benefit of a doubt until we know for sure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFaithfulStone Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 It's a wash. Doesn't matter. Although I could challenge you to choose to be gay for a while - which I suspect you would find difficult. The "proof" that there is at least some biological component of sexual orientation comes from twin studies. If identical twins are born, the chances are about 50% that if one is gay, the other will also be gay, and 30% or so for fraternal twins. (Archives of General Psychiatry, December 1991, via Wikipedia.) Only 9.2% of non twin brothers or siblings are. So there is at least SOME component of genetics involved. The question of course is "Which component?" and it's a question without an answer. You are never going to know which half of the gay people in the world are "really" gay and which half are "socially" gay, so you must accept that at least the "really" gay people should not be penalized for an accident of biology. The problem is that you don't know which half are genetically motivated, or what the other half of the equation really is. You are left proving that overwhelming harm is being done by allowing some people to exist as they were born, even if some who may have not been born that way are existing that way. This is akin to saying that only who were born deaf can speak sign language. Everyone who lost their hearing at age 3 or up had better learn to read lips. (Only, there's no way of telling who's who!) TFS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 Although I could challenge you to choose to be gay for a while - which I suspect you would find difficult.Which "you" are you posting to? Your post seems ambiguous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFaithfulStone Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 Any you. The generalized "you." You, personally, if you like. Some other you if you don't. Anybody feel like taking on the challenge? I can't do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 I'll take the challenge. But here is my problem. I am already married. I am not going to forsake my vows for the sake of being gay to prove a point. Second, I am a traditionalist. I won't even hold another man's hand until we are married. Other than that I am as gay as you can want. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 I'll take the challenge. But here is my problem. I am already married. I am not going to forsake my vows for the sake of being gay to prove a point. Second, I am a traditionalist. I won't even hold another man's hand until we are married. Other than that I am as gay as you can want. BillSo you are saying that you can actually choose to be sexually attracted to and aroused by another man at will? I couldn't if I wanted to. I never chose to be attracted to women, it just came naturally.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFaithfulStone Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 Okay, dropping that for a minute, when did you choose to be straight, BD? TFS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 So you are saying that you can actually choose to be sexually attracted to and aroused by another man at will? I couldn't if I wanted to. I never chose to be attracted to women, it just came naturally....I was not aware that I had to be held to a burden of proof. Why is my word that I am gay not good enough? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted October 31, 2006 Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 I was not aware that I had to be held to a burden of proof. Why is my word that I am gay not good enough? BillWhat else would you expect in a science forum? I'm not convinced than any man that feels like I do, repulsed at the thought of gay sex, can just choose to be attracted to other men, I sure know it's beyond my ability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted October 31, 2006 Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 What else would you expect in a science forum? I'm not convinced than any man that feels like I do, repulsed at the thought of gay sex, can just choose to be attracted to other men, I sure know it's beyond my ability.How does one go about proving they are gay or not gay? For a person to say they are being discriminated against because they are gay, do they have to actually be gay, or can they just say they are gay and that is why they are being discriminated against? Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted October 31, 2006 Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 How does one go about proving they are gay or not gay? That's the point, we have no proof at this point in science that someone is or is not gay, chooses to be gay or is biologically programmed to be gay. IMO, they deserve the benefit of a doubt that there claim is true instead of assuming it's a sham and discriminating against them. I do tend to believe there is at least some biological reason they are born with based on my own experience, that I'm naturally attracted to women, it wasn't just a choice I made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leuv21 Posted October 31, 2006 Report Share Posted October 31, 2006 I would suggest homosexuality is either a cultural choice, a biological imperative or possibly some of each. I don't believe that any law should discriminate against people that are homosexual.i sincerely believe that they have been consciously making their sexual preferences based on their choices so let assume what they want to do.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Igby Posted November 1, 2006 Report Share Posted November 1, 2006 My favourite part of the same-sex marriage debate is the slippery slope argument. Nothing says "I'm a homophobic swine!" like comparing homosexuals to polygamists or pedophiles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HydrogenBond Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 Some time back, maybe in a different gay topic, someone used a quote from a gay person who observed how gays changed when they were let out of the closet. By this I beleive the person meant that when there was a gay prohibition they gay population could spot each other almost like a separate race of people. After its legalization gays have a harder time making the same distinctions since gay/straight is not so clear cut. What is new to the blend are socially created gays that talk the talk but are more pychological gay than biological gay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Igby Posted November 2, 2006 Report Share Posted November 2, 2006 So, what are you saying? Some gays are to homosexuality as Ali-G is to black? You still haven't explained how you've managed to come to the conclusion that there are counterfeit gays running around. I fail to see what that has to with the law, regardless of the validity of your claim. I think it's a foil for homophobia. TheFaithfulStone 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.