Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

07/02/2010 05:30:09 PM · #4801

The rest of the day is slammed so I should sign off at the very least until I get home.

Louis

Nikon D800

07/02/2010 05:31:21 PM · #4802

Originally posted by Nullix:

Testimonials and stories from Ex-Gays

Again, your bullshit is easy to call. Narth is a discredited religious organization full of bigots, racists, and ultra-right religious wackos. I've responded in some other thread, years ago, to your inclusion of this lunatic fringe organization as some kind of reliable "source". But some people aren't even part of the conversation.

07/02/2010 06:02:55 PM · #4803

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I'll freely admit that you have lost me to a point. Let me ask this......is what you're saying that some environmental trigger can "wake up" a gay gene that would otherise stay dormant?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

That would be a very simplistic view, but gets the essence of it. My trepidation with that is to call the gene a "gay" gene. It may be the gene really serves another function and manifests in a gay phenotype when triggered in a certain manner. Think about it this way, there is unlikely to be separate genes for being gay, having a foot fetish, a latex fetish, sadism, masochism, liking cheerleaders, blondes, etc. All of these are sexual phenotypes and it is unknown how much a person's genotype plays in each. We have twin studies for homosexuality, but I don't think we have them for latex fetish for example. It might exist and it could even be the same gene. At this point we understand very little. The takehome is probably to be suspicious of anybody who thinks they know what's going on.

Okay......once again, you seem to be correlating being gay with less acceptable traits, let me go tat one further and see if we can meet somewhere in the middle. Is it possible that in fact, being gay is something that is in the DNA/natural order/way things are and is merely brought about as (A.) A recessive gene, like red hair, or (B.) Like as in a particular quality like the ability to play the violin beautifully, or (C.) Something that lies dormant and is triggered by one of these factors to which you refer?

Here's kind of where I'm going with that......take obsessive compulsive behavior. It's a brain thing, right? I'm an addict, and that's generally accepted these days as a diseae, predilaction, trait, nwhat have you..... I have never met an adict that wasn't OCD, but I've met OCD people who weren't adicts. So.....doe that just mean that the OCD people I met never had the right set of environmental circumstances to turn them into full blown addicts, or is the addiction thing different and no matter what some OCD people do, they just don't have what it takes in their makeup, DNA, whatever to be addicts?

I also have an uncanny ability to be able to work on mechanical things......I don't know why I can fix some things, I just can. I can't cut a straight line across a board with a table saw with a guide, but can I ever tune a multiple carburetor engine. And nobody really ever taught me how, it just is. That served me well for the better part of four decades, earned me a living, gave me a life that I'm pleased to have lived, yet I know my father would much have preferred me to have pursued a more cerebral career. I cannot even imagine how my career would have gone had he supported and encouraged my love of cars. He didn't though, and I struggled in the early years.

So......there are two traits that have had a major influence on how my life went, and both are accepted in society, albeit the addiction part only as long as I'm not lying, cheating, and stealing to support my habit. I've seen homes wrecked because of guys who poured all their time and money into cars instead of being responsible and spending time with their families. So it seems to me that traits and characteristics are what we choose to make of them, how we deal with them, and what society dictates about them.

It's weird.....the more I chew on this through your input and the general flow of this thred, the less I understand why anyone would have a problem with anyone who is a fine example of a human being who just happens to be gay as well as being left handed, having red hair, and can.......build cabinets of great quality........8>)

Message edited by author 2010-07-02 18:23:55.

07/02/2010 06:12:20 PM · #4804

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Okay......once again, you seem to be correlating being gay with less acceptable traits...

Jeb, you're on record here as saying whatever consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their bedrooms is nobody's business but theirs (a position I totally agree with, by the way), so why are you saying that a "latex fetish" or a "foot fetish" is a "less acceptable trait"?

What they ARE, is sexual phenotypes...

R.

07/02/2010 06:26:28 PM · #4805

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Okay......once again, you seem to be correlating being gay with less acceptable traits...

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Dude, I could care less if you have a thing with an inflatable doll, in thigh high rubber boots, but I still kind of feel that Jason woud be less accepting.......unless of course the inflatable doll was a woman.......8>)

07/02/2010 07:10:04 PM · #4806

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

...but I still kind of feel that Jason woud be less accepting.......unless of course the inflatable doll was a woman.......8>)

You're the one that called 'em "less acceptable", not Jason. 8>

R.

07/02/2010 07:14:31 PM · #4807

I wasn't trying to make any such associations, that's why I had a whole range there up to merely liking blondes or cheerleaders. I was just trying to point out that there are other sexual traits we could be talking about and that I doubt there is a separate gene for each and every one. There is no "brunette gene" or "redhead gene". At least this strikes me as unlikely.

As far as your options of A) B) or C) I can pretty emphatically tell you it isn't A). If it was a simple recessive inheritance we would have easily found it by now with the technology we have available to us. It is likely to be a complex combination of multiple genes played upon by environmental triggers through epigenetics. Unfortunately for the researchers nobody promised it would be simple.

Message edited by author 2010-07-02 19:20:16.

07/02/2010 07:14:35 PM · #4808

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'll freely admit that you have lost me to a point. Let me ask this......is what you're saying that some environmental trigger can "wake up" a gay gene that would otherise stay dormant?

That would be a very simplistic view, but gets the essence of it.

Recessive or not, an environmental factor couldn't modify genes to induce homosexuality if that trait wasn't determined by genetics in the first place. Note that 20-30% of all identical twin pairs have one right handed twin and one left handed... about the same percentage as Jason's other twin example. Is handedness not genetic? Is it a choice (sinful or otherwise)?

07/02/2010 07:20:43 PM · #4809

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I wasn't trying to make any such associations, that's why I had a whole range there up to merely liking blondes or cheerleaders.

I'm not sure any of those are really comparable. Even people who prefer blondes or have a thing for patent leather can have a perfectly happy relationship with a brunette or someone who only wears sandals. With sexual orientation it's often more of a "mandate" than a mere preference just as dating guys would be totally off the menu for you or I.

07/02/2010 07:30:10 PM · #4810

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I'll freely admit that you have lost me to a point. Let me ask this......is what you're saying that some environmental trigger can "wake up" a gay gene that would otherise stay dormant?

That would be a very simplistic view, but gets the essence of it.

Recessive or not, an environmental factor couldn't modify genes to induce homosexuality if that trait wasn't determined by genetics in the first place. Note that 20-30% of all identical twin pairs have one right handed twin and one left handed... about the same percentage as Jason's other twin example. Is handedness not genetic? Is it a choice (sinful or otherwise)?

A great examples. Here's a reply from a geneticist. Is handedness genetic? If you don't want to read the link, just note this paragraph:

Remember, identical twins start out with exactly the same DNA. If something is completely determined by genetics, then if one identical twin has it, the other in the pair should as well.

When one twin is left handed, the other twin is left handed only 76% of the time. Clearly genes aren't enough. So, what else is involved?

Most likely, the environment plays a role. There are probably one or more genes that make you more likely to become left-handed. You then need some sort of environmental trigger for it to happen.

Sound like a familar argument?

Your last two questions present a false dichotomy. I never said environmental triggers were a choice by the individual. However, they could be "chosen" unwittingly by either the individual or someone else. Let's say the trigger was watching too many Broadway musicals between the ages of three and five. Someone "chose" to expose the child to that (although they very likely wouldn't have done it to "make them gay"). That's what I mean by "chose" there. Nothing more. Perhaps a better way of putting it is the environmental trigger could be an influence by human action.

07/02/2010 07:31:07 PM · #4811

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I wasn't trying to make any such associations, that's why I had a whole range there up to merely liking blondes or cheerleaders.

I'm not sure any of those are really comparable. Even people who prefer blondes or have a thing for patent leather can have a perfectly happy relationship with a brunette or someone who only wears sandals. With sexual orientation it's often more of a "mandate" than a mere preference just as dating guys would be totally off the menu for you or I.

On some of those you are wrong. Fetishes, by psychiatric definition, require the presence of whatever is in question for sexual arousal. I'm talking beyond someone who thinks high heels are hot.

Message edited by author 2010-07-02 19:35:14.

07/02/2010 07:34:23 PM · #4812

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I wasn't trying to make any such associations, that's why I had a whole range there up to merely liking blondes or cheerleaders.

My bad.....conditioned response......8>)

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I was just trying to point out that there are other sexual traits we could be talking about and that I doubt there is a separate gene for each and every one. There is no "brunette gene" or "redhead gene". At least this strikes me as unlikely.

There is still, at least in my mind, quite a difference between these minor tastes, and one's entire sexual orientation. As Shannon points out, you may ave a "thing" for blondes, but the woman that steals your heart could easily be a brunette. Not as likely to happen in the case of gender, I would asume. Though it seems to me that one camp of this discussion thinks it could happen in the case of gays "seeing the light".

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

As far as your options of A) B) or C) I can pretty emphatically tell you it isn't A). If it was a simple recessive inheritance we would have easily found it by now with the technology we have available to us. It is likely to be a complex combination of multiple genes played upon by environmental triggers through epigenetics. Unfortunately for the researchers nobody promised it would be simple.

Is this fact, or as you believe it from offered research theory. What I mean is......if it cannot necessarily be proven one way or the other, then what do we believe? Or is that hat we're back to.....belief as opposed to proof? It sure seems to me with the number and history of the gay community that there is a whole lot of evidenc to support a natural inclination toward their sexual orientation.

07/02/2010 07:36:53 PM · #4813

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

On some of those you are wrong. Fetishes, by psychiatric definition, require the presence of whatever is in question for sexual arousal. I'm talking beyond someone who thinks high heels are hot.

I call BS on that! I find certain things intensely more arousing than others, but that doesn't mean that my tastes are limited to that one choice.

ETA: I lookd it up and according to two medical sources, it *may* be required for sexual gratification, not must.

Message edited by author 2010-07-02 19:39:29.

07/02/2010 07:37:32 PM · #4814

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Well, it isn't "fact" in the sense of "we know exactly what's happening and this is how it is", but is likely "fact" in the sense that our best data makes it a very strong likelihood. An epigenetic phenomenon best describes the data we have.

07/02/2010 07:43:54 PM · #4815

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

...for handedness, sexual orientation, and even height. Whether a parent's choices or unwitting factors led to a particular trait is not the sort of choice being condemned here.

07/02/2010 07:43:58 PM · #4816

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

So......and I'm not trying to trap you here......doe that basically mean that all those gay people from so many different backgrounds, societal settings, and ways of being raised all have a certain trigger in common? How do that work when you consider all the variations in cultures like places where you can be killed for being gay.....(Like Wyoming or Uganda)

07/02/2010 08:01:25 PM · #4817

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Is this fact, or as you believe it from offered research theory. What I mean is......if it cannot necessarily be proven one way or the other, then what do we believe? Or is that hat we're back to.....belief as opposed to proof? It sure seems to me with the number and history of the gay community that there is a whole lot of evidenc to support a natural inclination toward their sexual orientation.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, it isn't "fact" in the sense of "we know exactly what's happening and this is how it is", but is likely "fact" in the sense that our best data makes it a very strong likelihood. An epigenetic phenomenon best describes the data we have.

So......and I'm not trying to trap you here......doe that basically mean that all those gay people from so many different backgrounds, societal settings, and ways of being raised all have a certain trigger in common? How do that work when you consider all the variations in cultures like places where you can be killed for being gay.....(Like Wyoming or Uganda)

No, the trigger could be different. There could be multiple possible triggers. It is unknown.

07/02/2010 08:01:58 PM · #4818

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, it isn't "fact" in the sense of "we know exactly what's happening and this is how it is", but is likely "fact" in the sense that our best data makes it a very strong likelihood. An epigenetic phenomenon best describes the data we have.

...for handedness, sexual orientation, and even height. Whether a parent's choices or unwitting factors led to a particular trait is not the sort of choice being condemned here.

I don't believe I ever said it was. I have never intimated that people "choose" to be gay.

Message edited by author 2010-07-02 20:02:55.

07/02/2010 08:16:11 PM · #4819

Can a fetish be "cured", de-conditioned, or otherwise eliminated?

07/02/2010 08:36:41 PM · #4820

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I have never intimated that people "choose" to be gay.

Then what's the basis for religious objection if it's not a choice?

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

07/02/2010 08:39:35 PM · #4821

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I have never intimated that people "choose" to be gay.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Then what's the basis for religious objection if it's not a choice?

I just heard a noise like a manhole cover being dropped onto a train rail from about ten feet up......8>)

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/02/2010 09:13:12 PM · #4822

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by scalvert:
You may be better versed in the medical field, but common knowledge will suffice for embarrassing you on this point...

Well, at least you came out and said it; your goal here is to embarrass the good doctor. Thanks for being honest. I guess...

That's an appalling statement you just made, and you know it.

R.

Perhaps this statement made by the good Doctor could be considered a trigger: "This is my life and I doubt your armchair wiki education is going to simply show me I'm wrong on something so basic. Get real. "

Perhaps I am misinterpreting the intentions of the good Doctor in this instance, but the quote does sound a tad condescending... Then again, English isn't my first language so I could be mistaken.

Ray

07/02/2010 09:26:09 PM · #4823

Originally posted by RayEthier:

That's a good point, actually; I hadn't made that connection. "Common knowledge" since the "armchair wiki education" is inadequate. I gotta take back my objection LOL.

Sorry, Shannon :-)

R.

07/02/2010 09:41:08 PM · #4824

Well look at everybody all getting along! :)