"They just want the right to marry the person they love!!!"

[CNYCacher]

Buried in our genetic code, AS A SPECIES. If it wasn't there, if it was "nurture instead of nature", it WOULD die off.  It hasn't. There MUST (in this layman's opinion) be a genetic component, and a relatively strong one, given that 1) the gay population stays roughly stable, as far as I've heard, and 2) straight couples at least occasionally have children who turn out to be gay. I'm pretty sure that straight parents generally don't aspire for their kids to become a member of a persecuted group like that, and make every effort to raise them to become such. Also pretty sure that they do not, by and large, "turn them gay" via mistreatment or some such nonsense.

  As far as I can tell, you are speaking backwards.

Being gay can not possibly be genetic because if it was, evolution would have removed it.  Evolution is aggressive enough to remove traits that simply aren't necesary for survival, much less traits that are detrimental to passing on your genes. 

[MicroBalrog]

Being gay can not possibly be genetic because if it was, evolution would have removed it.  Evolution is aggressive enough to remove traits that simply aren't necesary for survival

Need I point out the many, many rudimentary organs various animals have?

Besides, sexual orientation isn't an on/off button. There's actually a whole pile of levels between "gay" and "straight".

[makattak]

Me, I'm just puzzled as to why the whole thing is such a big deal to so many. So Joe wants to marry Jim, or Karen wants to marry Kimberly.  So what?  Persecuting any of them for that, attempting to infringe on their liberties, is just as wrong as wrongful persecution and infringement against any other group or individual.

Should churches be FORCED to marry them?  IMO, no, no more than I should be forced to... attend a football game, or something similarly-inane. Though why they'd WANT, say, the Catholic Church to conduct a ceremony for them is beyond me.  Should they be ABLE to get married, after finding someone to conduct the ceremony (and to the best of my knowledge there are such individuals and organizations out there, to whom sexual orientation is not especially relevant)?  Yes, and that marriage should be respected in exactly the same manner as a straight marriage.  Granted, we need to get the government out of STRAIGHT marriages, too, but if we have to suffer their interference in the one, the other needs to be covered by the same blanket.

I wonder why it is a big deal. Joe, Jim, Karen, and Kimberly can already get married to any of the others. (Unless it is Joe, Karen AND Kimberly.) Any persons can get a ceremony and called themselves married. Except in the case of polygamy, the government will not step in.

What you seem to want is to use the force of government to make others recognize marriages. First, that is a very odd position for so-called "libertarians" to be in favor of more government coercion. Secondly, there are very specific reasons for the encouragement of heterosexual marriage through government policy, and none of those reason have to do with the welfare of the two persons engaging in that marriage. Homosexual marriage lacks the positive externalities that a stable heterosexual family has. Why should homosexuals recieve the government "benefits" without even the possibility of providing those externalities?

(Now, if you prefer the government to stop its encouragement of marriage, that is at least consistent with the libertarians' claimed position against the use of force. But, strangely, that's not what libertarians argue. They want more force used on the citizens.)

[CNYCacher]

Need I point out the many, many rudimentary organs various animals have?

Besides, sexual orientation isn't an on/off button. There's actually a whole pile of levels between "gay" and "straight".

So you are making an argument against evolution?

[MicroBalrog]

I wonder why it is a big deal. Joe, Jim, Karen, and Kimberly can already get married to any of the others. (Unless it is Joe, Karen AND Kimberly.) Any persons can get a ceremony and called themselves married. Except in the case of polygamy, the government will not step in.

Clearly coercion.

So you are making an argument against evolution?

I am making an argument for a complex system with influence of both nature and nurture.

For example: Simon carries some component of the genes (not necessarily all) that make a person trend slightly more towards homosexuality. He's still not strongly enough gay (I'm sure there's psychological terms to describe this, I just don't know tthem) as to not have heterosexual sex, ever-ever-ever, so he has children with Martha. One of Martha's ancestor's carries some other gene that, when interbred with Simon, causes one of his five children to be completely gay and entirely not interested in girls. And so on.

[BryanP]

As far as I can tell, you are speaking backwards.

Being gay can not possibly be genetic because if it was, evolution would have removed it.  Evolution is aggressive enough to remove traits that simply aren't necesary for survival, much less traits that are detrimental to passing on your genes. 

If this were true then pretty much all major genetic abnormalities (especially those that kill people young) would breed out of the population over time.  They don't.  Genetics isn't quite that simple.

[AmbulanceDriver]

So......

Here's something for ya to think about..... 

The argument that homosexuality (complete homosexuality, not bisexuality) is not a lifestyle choice, but rather genetic.... Essentially says that homosexuality is a genetic disease.

I'll pause here while some go get a nice soothing beverage and relax for a few until you have calmed back down...

Now here's my reasoning behind that statement: 

If homosexuality is genetic, then that means that sexual orientation in general is encoded in our genes.  Survival of the species requires reproduction. 

Reproduction can only occur between the male and female of the species, regardless of what species (at least in the Kingdom Animalia).  Therefore, the [attraction/instinct/urge to reproduce] with the opposite gender of the species is somehow ingrained in our genes.  Additionally, the fact that reproduction also requires a female and a male gamete (egg and sperm) establishes that "heterosexual" is genetically "normal".  

So.  We've now established what the "normal" gene expression is in regards to sexual orientation.  Something that differs from the normal, in genetics, is a mutation.  Some mutations may actually improve the species. Other mutations are detrimental, and those usually result in the death of the organism, or at least the inability to pass on said genes.  While homosexuality doesn't kill the organism, it does prevent passing on of said genes.  

The logical progression then places homosexuality as a genetic disease.

I'll go don the asbestos underoos now....




Bryan, some genetic mutations *do* breed out in rather short order.  Those are usually dominant mutations that affect the first generation to have those genes.  Recessive genetic mutations are not that easy to breed out because they're not expressed if you only have one copy of the bad gene - however they can be expressed if you cross with another carrier.  But even then, there's an average of only a 25% chance of the offspring of that cross getting a double dose of the bad gene.

[BryanP]

Bryan, some genetic mutations *do* breed out in rather short order.  Those are usually dominant mutations that affect the first generation to have those genes.  Recessive genetic mutations are not that easy to breed out because they're not expressed if you only have one copy of the bad gene - however they can be expressed if you cross with another carrier.  But even then, there's an average of only a 25% chance of the offspring of that cross getting a double dose of the bad gene.

Considering that homosexuals (depending on whose #'s you want to believe) constitute somewhere between 2% and 10% of the population (I know, the 10% number is largely discredited, but enough people still quote it that I'll include it for this purpose), then it would seem to fit your description quite nicely.

[MicroBalrog]

The logical progression then places homosexuality as a genetic disease.

The problem with this idea that homosexuality - like gender - is neither fully genetic nor fully psychological.

And of course the concept of "disease" is also somewhat mutable.

[MillCreek]

I fully predict that if a reliable genetic/biochemical marker for homosexuality can be found, and tested for in prenatal diagnosis, some people will opt to abort a fetus that will most likely be gay.  

I also fully predict that the logical loop of 'abortions are bad, but are they still bad if they are preventing the gayz' will cause some people's heads to explode.

And I go on record as not opposing neither abortion nor homosexuality.  My church condemns neither and I am not God's Instrument to oppose them.

But I do lie awake at night, thinking of Tallpine's exhortation to me once: God hates Methodists. Uh oh. 

[mtnbkr]

I also fully predict that the logical loop of 'abortions are bad, but are they still bad if they are preventing the gayz' will cause some people's heads to explode.

Yeah, I've had that same thought too.  I'll enjoy watching folks go through that thought process.

"Do we abort the queer baby or let the queer baby be born because it's God's will?".  What kind of life would that child have at home with parents who hate who he/she is, but were forced by their beliefs to have that child anyway.  What will that say about them once they find out they were carrying the ghey genetic material all along.  

Chris

[makattak]

Yeah, I've had that same thought too.  I'll enjoy watching folks go through that thought process.

"Do we abort the queer baby or let the queer baby be born because it's God's will?".  What kind of life would that child have at home with parents who hate who he/she is, but were forced by their beliefs to have that child anyway.  What will that say about them once they find out they were carrying the ghey genetic material all along.   

Chris

Funny. I fully expect it to be the so-called "tolerant" liberals to be murdering gay babies, should such a mythical gene ever be found.

I do not support murdering gays, whether in the womb or not. I find their lifestyle to be sinful, just as I find the hook-up lifestyle to be sinful.

I don't support murdering pick-up artists, either.

[MicroBalrog]

I don't support murdering pick-up artists, either.

Dueling will deal with them quite easily. :D

[Tallpine]

...

But I do lie awake at night, thinking of Tallpine's exhortation to me once: God hates Methodists. Uh oh. 

I wish I could remember what you're talking about 

It must have been one of my off the wall snarky jests. :)

[MillCreek]

I wish I could remember what you're talking about 

It must have been one of my off the wall snarky jests. :)

The context was hilarious, and as you can see, I have made an effort to remember it.

[MillCreek]

Funny. I fully expect it to be the so-called "tolerant" liberals to be murdering gay babies, should such a mythical gene ever be found.

Well, that makes perfect sense, since it is generally the tolerant liberals and moderates who do not oppose abortion.  So that will mean that the new gays will be supplied by the conservative breeders.

[MicroBalrog]

It needs to be understood modern social democrats ("liberals") are not tolerant at all. Even in the world of sexual tolerance they're only tolerant of a select few (the LGBT). Their hatred of open relationships, plastic surgery, the fashion industry, and so forth are clear evidence of what is actually a pretty puritan mentality.

[roo_ster]

Buried in our genetic code, AS A SPECIES. If it wasn't there, if it was "nurture instead of nature", it WOULD die off.  It hasn't. There MUST (in this layman's opinion) be a genetic component, and a relatively strong one, given that 1) the gay population stays roughly stable, as far as I've heard, and 2) straight couples at least occasionally have children who turn out to be gay. I'm pretty sure that straight parents generally don't aspire for their kids to become a member of a persecuted group like that, and make every effort to raise them to become such. Also pretty sure that they do not, by and large, "turn them gay" via mistreatment or some such nonsense.

Good luck proving genetic causation WRT homosexuality (or any complex human behavior).  I ran the numbers a while back and the sample size would need to be in the hundreds of billions.

Suffice to sat that barring some great & revolutionary mathematical/statistical breakthrough, no one can say, "homosexuality is caused by genetics" without being either ignorant or a liar.

I fully predict that if a reliable genetic/biochemical marker for homosexuality can be found, and tested for in prenatal diagnosis, some people will opt to abort a fetus that will most likely be gay.  

I also fully predict that the logical loop of 'abortions are bad, but are they still bad if they are preventing the gayz' will cause some people's heads to explode.

Yeah, I've had that same thought too.  I'll enjoy watching folks go through that thought process.

"Do we abort the queer baby or let the queer baby be born because it's God's will?".  What kind of life would that child have at home with parents who hate who he/she is, but were forced by their beliefs to have that child anyway.  What will that say about them once they find out they were carrying the ghey genetic material all along.  

Chris

Methinks ya'll know too few pro-lifers in the flesh, rather than the caricatures you have drawn. 

Funny. I fully expect it to be the so-called "tolerant" liberals to be murdering gay babies, should such a mythical gene ever be found.

I do not support murdering gays, whether in the womb or not. I find their lifestyle to be sinful, just as I find the hook-up lifestyle to be sinful.

I don't support murdering pick-up artists, either.

Ayup.

Well, that makes perfect sense, since it is generally the tolerant liberals and moderates who do not oppose abortion.  So that will mean that the new gays will be supplied by the conservative breeders.

Your contention is supported by the case of babies with Downs Syndrome.  If a prenatal genetic test comes back Downs positive, most pro-choicers can't abort fast enough and present pro-lifers with a challenge to their faith.  Thus, the number of Downs-positive babies born has dropped precipitously, most being born to parents who are ignorant/poor (and do not get the test) or those with religious conviction who carry on despite the test results.

Of course, your contention relies on homosexuality being genetically caused, which is not proved and won't be proved in the forseeable future.

[MillCreek]

Your contention is supported by the case of babies with Downs Syndrome.  If a prenatal genetic test comes back Downs positive, most pro-choicers can't abort fast enough and present pro-lifers with a challenge to their faith.  Thus, the number of Downs-positive babies born has dropped precipitously, most being born to parents who are ignorant/poor (and do not get the test) or those with religious conviction who carry on despite the test results.

[/drift]
As I think I have mentioned before, I used to do medical malpractice defense for a living.  Cases involving infants born with birth defects, Downs or neurological damage were a specialty of mine.

I have seen far too many devastated children with profound defects or injuries, and seen their quality of life and the impact it has on the family as a whole.  I cannot find it in my heart to be critical of or condemn those parents who learn of these problems prenatally and choose to end the pregnancy.  And I admire those parents and families who when dealt a bad hand like this, can handle the needs of the child with love and grace and the family unit remains intact.  I have often wondered if I would have the strength to do as they have.  Perhaps you never know for sure until confronted with such a situation.
[drift]

[Perd Hapley]

I also fully predict that the logical loop of 'abortions are bad, but are they still bad if they are preventing the gayz' will cause some people's heads to explode.

Yeah, I've had that same thought too.  I'll enjoy watching folks go through that thought process.

"Do we abort the queer baby or let the queer baby be born because it's God's will?".

Now that is You-tube comment/Yahoo answers stupid.

But I guess it's just a variation on the old, tired saw: "I bet you won't be so pro-life when your teenaged daughter is knocked up by a black illegal alien Democrat hippy argle-bargle!!!11"

[mtnbkr]

Methinks ya'll know too few pro-lifers in the flesh, rather than the caricatures you have drawn.

You would be wrong.  I'm married to one.  However, she's not rabidly anti-gay (the other half of the picture I was painting), so she wouldn't be affected by that dilemma.

Your contention is supported by the case of babies with Downs Syndrome.  If a prenatal genetic test comes back Downs positive, most pro-choicers can't abort fast enough and present pro-lifers with a challenge to their faith.  Thus, the number of Downs-positive babies born has dropped precipitously, most being born to parents who are ignorant/poor (and do not get the test) or those with religious conviction who carry on despite the test results.

Wifey and I had this very discussion before our first child was.  Well, the discussion was more along the lines of "we aren't going to have the test because we're going to have the child regardless".  She worked with disabled children while in school and knew exactly what she would be getting into.  My mom and aunt both worked with disabled and mentally retarded children professionally, so I had a good idea of what we would be getting into as well. 

My own beliefs on the subject are a bit less pro-life than hers, but mainly because I don't trust the govt to get it right if they tried to ban abortion as birth control (ie no medical complications, no rape, etc, just straight up "I don't want to be preggers").  I can see plenty of scenarios where having an abortion may be justified, but the govt is, in general, too stupid to capture the nuances in legislation.

Now that is You-tube comment/Yahoo answers stupid.

But I guess it's just a variation on the old, tired saw: "I bet you won't be so pro-life when your teenaged daughter is knocked up by a black illegal alien Democrat hippy argle-bargle!!!11"

Dunno about MillCreek, but my statement is borne from knowing people so rabidly anti-gay that they would reverse any other belief rid themselves of the scourge.  Just like the folks who are so anti-black or whatever that they would disown a daughter who was knocked up by the same.

Chris

[Perd Hapley]

Ok, then. Who are these "rabidly anti-gay" people, and can you describe the species? I daresay I've never spotted one in the wild; only heard stories about WBC.

[mtnbkr]

Ok, then. Who are these "rabidly anti-gay" people, and can you describe the species? I daresay I've never spotted one in the wild; only heard stories about WBC.

Are you being obtuse or can you not imagine the likes of WBC without the conviction to actually picket funerals and such?  I've heard straight from these types they would kick their kid out if they ended up gay, or would be the gay out of them, etc.  I apologize for not being to provide mug shots and bios, you'll have to use your own imagination.

Chris

[Perd Hapley]

Did you not read what I said? I haven't met any people like that, and no, I can't imagine the WBC crowd as regular folk because they aren't. They are a special breed of specially-warped nutcase.

[Strings]

Most of the rabidly gay (like Chris is describing) that I've met have been the type to quote scripture at the drop of a hat. And do so to justify their hatred of homosexuals.

Of course, when you start pointing out how the same book declares them wrong in their actions, they have problems...

This is NOT meant to disparage anyone here: I have yet to see that attitude amongst APSers. Nor is it all that widespread: I've met maybe 20 such in my life. But the ones I've met have NO compunctions about use of force against these "sinful abominations"