Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

07/01/2010 07:46:54 PM · #4776

Originally posted by rossbilly:

"we interrupt this broadcast..."

(wanted to share something positive)

Maybe the tide IS changing

Well the general acceptance of homosexuality was inevitable much like the civil rights movement so long as the people continue to have the ability and the resources to educate themselves.

Message edited by author 2010-07-01 19:47:19.

07/01/2010 07:49:46 PM · #4777

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If we don't consider abuse to be wrong, why would we try to remove the triggers that cause the behavior?

I already answered that. It behooves society to fix it not because abuse is morally wrong, but because society would be better off without it (i.e. more fit to survive).

You aren't going to say that "more fit to survive" is equivalent to "more likely to pass its genes onto another generation" are you?

Actually we agree on lots of stuff. I detest out prison populations as well. That's not the answer. But I disagree that somehow this will go away by not determining that such activity is wrong out of fear of offending someone.

07/01/2010 08:03:11 PM · #4778

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

For cripes sake. If someone makes this argument:

Behavior X is governed by genetics/environment, not choice.
Behaviors not chosen should be afforded moral immunity.
Therefore, behavior X should be afforded moral immunity.

Still a straw manâ�� dressed up to scare crows, and loudly humming, "If I only had a brain." Nobody made the particular argument you're claiming to refute. The position was, "Behavior X is governed by genetics, not choice, AND IS A PRIVATE MATTER THAT DOESN'T HARM OTHERS" (like left handedness or skin color). If you ignore that key factor, then you're not addressing the point at all.

Oddly enough, a favorite rallying cry of conservatives is to keep government from meddling in the private affairs of citizens when it comes to business, taxes, education and gun control, yet they're only too ready to put on the sheriff's badge if something offends their morality (gay rights, abortion, teaching evolution). The government's job is to protect the citizens and foster their well-being. Dictating rules from the moral views of a particular group or religion is sharia law.

07/01/2010 08:12:48 PM · #4779

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
For cripes sake. If someone makes this argument:

Behavior X is governed by genetics/environment, not choice.
Behaviors not chosen should be afforded moral immunity.
Therefore, behavior X should be afforded moral immunity.

Still a straw manâ�� dressed up to scare crows, and loudly humming, "If I only had a brain." Nobody made the particular argument you're claiming to refute. The position was, "Behavior X is governed by genetics, not choice, AND IS A PRIVATE MATTER THAT DOESN'T HARM OTHERS" (like left handedness or skin color). If you ignore that key factor, then you're not addressing the point at all.

Oddly enough, a favorite rallying cry of conservatives is to keep government from meddling in the private affairs of citizens when it comes to business, taxes, education and gun control, yet they're only too ready to put on the sheriff's badge if something offends their morality (gay rights, abortion, teaching evolution). The government's job is to protect the citizens and foster their well-being. Dictating rules from the moral views of a particular group or religion is sharia law.

Well, I apologize if I missed that in Jeb's post (which is what started it all off):

Originally posted by Jeb:

You seem to be missing a fundamental point, or intentionaly ignoring it again, and that harkens back to that whole choice thing and your amazing tendency to lump being gay in with bad behaviors and choices. As soon as you can demonstrate to anyone, with any kind of reasonable proof of your stance, then you're merely being incredibly insensitive to the entire gay population.

Do you really and truly believe that being gay is a choice?

I missed the words "private" or "harm" or anything like that in the post. If it was implied, it was poorly implied. The "fundamental point" which Jeb reinforced in a later post was that Nullix's list of sins were chosen behavior while homosexuality was not. (later post quote: Yes, it has been done to death, and it's NOT a choice. So what's the point of comparing being gay to being a liar, an adulterer, someone who "blasphemes", (though for this discussion we'll leave that one alone), or someone who is pro-choice, other than to be intentionally inflammatory? ) When Jeb altered his argument later, I agreed with him it was a better argument. Are you not keeping up with this?

At least I see you agree with my point that purely excusing homosexuality because it is not a choice is a poor argument. I expect you to speak up the next time it's raised. It won't be long...

Message edited by author 2010-07-01 20:16:01.

RayEthier

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

07/01/2010 08:42:03 PM · #4780

Originally posted by Nullix:

[ France passed a law aimed at Muslims to restrict religious symbols (head scarves). It backfired and now all religious symbols are banned in France.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the ban strictly relating to the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols in public schools?

Originally posted by Nullix:

What happens when California elects the first Gay Governor and criminalize "heterosexual acts"?

I think it's odd making the act of granting a marriage license a crime. What are they going to do, start arresting the governors of states that marry gay couples?

Again I may be wrong, but I thought that the law you are referring to in this instance was passed in Texas and as such would have no impact whatsoever on whatever transpires in California.

RayEthier

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

07/01/2010 08:49:25 PM · #4781

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Paul: your argument is nice, but totally tangential to what I was speaking on. I find you constantly mix up legal versus moral and in this case I was speaking to neither but rather the specifics of an argument about choice and morality.

Richard, are you for real about that? I abuse my wife because I grew up in a family of abuse. That environmental exposure link is quite strong. Free ticket? I don't think you really thought that through.

You are neglecting to consider the choice aspect of the equation.

Ray

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/01/2010 08:49:45 PM · #4782

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Perhaps that's because your arguments (or propositions) are tangential to the topic at hand, which is "gay rights and gay marriage" -- which are legal matter. It is you who seems to constantly conflate legal and moral issues inappropriately. I think that attempting to introduce a non-relevant factor into the equation is the basis of all the objections phrased as raising "straw man" arguments. In deciding whether all people have an equal right to enter into a marriage contract issues of "morality" are not germane.

07/01/2010 09:31:13 PM · #4783

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Well, I apologize if I missed that in Jeb's post (which is what started it all off)

Jeb, myself and others made that point emphatically to you during the extended discussion on choice that you referred to as being "done to death"... where you committed the same straw man fallacy repeatedly with comparisons to pedophiles and so on. He also specifically challenged you to explain how homosexuality harms others for that very reason, and you haven't offered a credible answer yet. Having made this point so many times, we shouldn't have to repeat it every time someone trots out the "choice" myth, nor should we have to play whack-a-fallacy when you try the same ploy knowing damn well he's referring to a genetic trait that doesn't harm anyone else.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

at least I see you agree with my point that purely excusing homosexuality because it is not a choice is a poor argument. I expect you to speak up the next time it's raised. It won't be long...

Jeb's post to Nullix only concerned the myth of homosexuality AS a choice. It wasn't about whether an innate trait is necessarily OK, but why it's assumed to NOT be a genetic trait in the first place and subject to sanction as an immoral "decision." We're excusing homosexuality from judgement as a choice because it isn't one.

07/01/2010 10:27:07 PM · #4784

So explain this:

You said that the argument, correctly, was: "Behavior X is governed by genetics, not choice, AND IS A PRIVATE MATTER THAT DOESN'T HARM OTHERS"

Is that argument stronger than "Behavior X is a private matter that doesn't harm others"?

In other words, if behavior X WAS a choice, but still is private and doesn't harm others, would it be on a weaker ground?

I submit that you would answer it would not be on a weaker ground in which case the first clause is irrelevant. Once again, this is merely my whole point and you can go back to count the number of times the genetic predisposition of homosexuality is brought up.

RayEthier

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

07/01/2010 10:56:45 PM · #4785

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Sadly however, you seem to forget that some misinformed people view homosexuality as something one can choose to opt out of, and that in their views the very nature of homosexuality is harmful to others... hence their resistance to any form of change or tolerance.

You are very much mistaken in your assumption that the first clause suddenly becomes irrelevant. As long as we have people who are adamant that being Gay is something that one can grow out of, the clause you speak of is of paramount importance in any discussion.

Ray

Message edited by author 2010-07-01 22:57:25.

07/01/2010 11:24:28 PM · #4786

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

if behavior X WAS a choice, but still is private and doesn't harm others, would it be on a weaker ground?

From a secular perspective it doesn't matter, but within the context of Jeb's discussion (that religious gay-marriage opponents consider homosexuality to be a sinful choice), the prospect that it's NOT a choice would be devastating to their cause. The only alternative to free will decisions in religious circles is the will of God, so the myth that homosexuality is a choice must be perpetuated to justify discrimination. How could Christians possibly reconcile an abhorrence to God if people are created gay?!?

07/02/2010 01:30:16 PM · #4787

Originally posted by scalvert:

How could Christians possibly reconcile an abhorrence to God if people are created gay?!?

This is a rephrase of the classic question of why the world isn't as it ought to be. That's been discussed. It boils down to, as you say, either God or man or both. However, we cannot yet conclude that homosexuality does not rely upon choices. We know there is most likely to a genetic component (not chosen), but we know this is not sufficient and there is most likely to be an environmental component as well. That component could be man-made and does then rely on the choices of man (although perhaps not the direct choice of the individual).

07/02/2010 02:09:47 PM · #4788

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

However, we cannot yet conclude that homosexuality does not rely upon choices. We know there is most likely to a genetic component (not chosen), but we know this is not sufficient and there is most likely to be an environmental component as well. That component could be man-made and does then rely on the choices of man (although perhaps not the direct choice of the individual).

I pretty much reject that theory out of hand simply because there are too many gays that have managed to remain gay despite the best, and worst, efforts of their environments, both real and intellectual. Why would anyone want the misery and harassment that goes with being gay? It's even a lot better now than when we were kids, yet despite all, homosexuality remains. It's strange that there isn't a massive movement from gays who want to be "cured" and not be subjected to the grief. Why do you suppose that is? Is it because they chose it and they're all sticking to their stance? Don't you think if you made a choice to be a certain way in society and you were confronted, harassed, and sometimes even physicaly assaulted that some would just pack it in as being too much trouble?

What are these choices & components of which you speak, by the way????

07/02/2010 02:45:46 PM · #4789

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
However, we cannot yet conclude that homosexuality does not rely upon choices. We know there is most likely to a genetic component (not chosen), but we know this is not sufficient and there is most likely to be an environmental component as well. That component could be man-made and does then rely on the choices of man (although perhaps not the direct choice of the individual).

I pretty much reject that theory out of hand simply because there are too many gays that have managed to remain gay despite the best, and worst, efforts of their environments, both real and intellectual. Why would anyone want the misery and harassment that goes with being gay? It's even a lot better now than when we were kids, yet despite all, homosexuality remains. It's strange that there isn't a massive movement from gays who want to be "cured" and not be subjected to the grief. Why do you suppose that is? Is it because they chose it and they're all sticking to their stance? Don't you think if you made a choice to be a certain way in society and you were confronted, harassed, and sometimes even physicaly assaulted that some would just pack it in as being too much trouble?

What are these choices & components of which you speak, by the way????

We don't know. I think you misunderstand me though. The best information we have about the genetic/environmental component come from a few twin studies. You can glean good information from comparing fraternal twins and identical twins since the latter share idential genetic makeups while the former do not. Homosexual concordance has been regularly found to be higher among idential twins than fraternal twins (ie. if one twin is gay, an identical twin is more likely to also be gay than a fraternal twin). However, we also know that the concordance is also somewhere in the range of 70% in identical twins. If the story was completely genetic, we would expect a nearly 100% concordance since their genes are identical.

What the environmental trigger is? Nobody knows. It could be something that seems to make sense, early childhood experiences, or it could be something that doesn't seem related at all, nutrients, infections, in utero exposures. The possibilities are almost endless.

07/02/2010 03:42:31 PM · #4790

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

We know there is most likely to a genetic component (not chosen), but we know this is not sufficient...

We don't know that it's not sufficient. You only assume the more unlikely conclusion because it fits your preconceived notion.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If the story was completely genetic, we would expect a nearly 100% concordance since their genes are identical.

Genetics differences don't stop at birth. You're a doctor?!?!? :-O

"Scientists have offered a new explanation for the differences between identical twins. Epigenome refers to natural chemical modifications within a person's genome (genetic material). As an article in the New York Times explains, they act on a gene like a gas pedal or a brake, marking it for higher or lower activity.... [the] study suggests that the epigenome may be involved in many [issues] that can affect identical twins differently, like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and cancer."

"A study published in the March 2008 issue of The American Journal of Human Genetics [challenged] the accepted notion that identical twins have identical genetic profiles. The research found changes in the DNA sequence between identical twins, reflected in Copy Number Variations (when a gene exists in multiple copies.) The researchdid not confirm whether these changes occur during fetal development or as twins age."

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

What the environmental trigger is? Nobody knows. It could be something that seems to make sense, early childhood experiences, or it could be something that doesn't seem related at all, nutrients, infections, in utero exposures.

Even if we accept your assumption, none of these scenarios would be a choice to be gay. Fail.

Message edited by author 2010-07-02 15:46:24.

07/02/2010 04:04:15 PM · #4791

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We know there is most likely to a genetic component (not chosen), but we know this is not sufficient...

We don't know that it's not sufficient. You only assume the more unlikely conclusion because it fits your preconceived notion.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If the story was completely genetic, we would expect a nearly 100% concordance since their genes are identical.

Genetics differences don't stop at birth. You're a doctor?!?!? :-O

"Scientists have offered a new explanation for the differences between identical twins. Epigenome refers to natural chemical modifications within a person's genome (genetic material). As an article in the New York Times explains, they act on a gene like a gas pedal or a brake, marking it for higher or lower activity.... [the] study suggests that the epigenome may be involved in many [issues] that can affect identical twins differently, like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and cancer."

"A study published in the March 2008 issue of The American Journal of Human Genetics [challenged] the accepted notion that identical twins have identical genetic profiles. The research found changes in the DNA sequence between identical twins, reflected in Copy Number Variations (when a gene exists in multiple copies.) The researchdid not confirm whether these changes occur during fetal development or as twins age."

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What the environmental trigger is? Nobody knows. It could be something that seems to make sense, early childhood experiences, or it could be something that doesn't seem related at all, nutrients, infections, in utero exposures.

Even if we accept your assumption, none of these scenarios would be a choice to be gay. Fail.

We do know it isn't sufficient because the identical twin concordance is not 100%.

You must not be up to understanding what you are reading there. What do you think triggers the natural chemical modifications? The environment. What else would you suggest triggers the differences? The environment could be in utero, ex utero, etc. Why do identical twins often not look exactly the same? It's not their genetics, it's the environment's effect on the expression of their genes. The difference would be phenotype versus genotype.

Did you ever consider I know far more about this than you do and would you ever consider that maybe YOU aren't understanding it correctly? 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.

I also quite clearly indicated that the environmental trigger may not be a choice to be gay by the individual but could perhaps be invoked by the choice (ie. action) of another (although I doubt they would realize what they were doing). Fail yourself.

Message edited by author 2010-07-02 16:04:50.

Nullix

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

07/02/2010 04:14:03 PM · #4792

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Testimonials and stories from Ex-Gays

07/02/2010 04:58:07 PM · #4793

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Did you ever consider I know far more about this than you do and would you ever consider that maybe YOU aren't understanding it correctly? This is my life and I doubt your armchair wiki education is going to simply show me I'm wrong on something so basic.

You may be better versed in the medical field, but common knowledge will suffice for embarrassing you on this point: even if the environmental factor was a case of chicken pox or overexposure to Barry Manilow during pregnancy, the resulting traits would still be genetic regardless of how the genes were modified. It also wouldn't be the "affected" individual's choice, so this doesn't help your cause anyway.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/02/2010 05:04:20 PM · #4794

Originally posted by Nullix:

Testimonials and stories from Ex-Gays

Mainstream medical organizations do not accept the anecdotal evidence offered by conversion therapists for several reasons. These include the fact that the results are not published in peer-reviewed journals, but tend to be released to the mass media and the Internet, that random samples of subjects are not used and results are reliant upon the subjects' own self-reported outcomes or on evaluations by therapists which may be subject to social desirability bias, that the evidence is gathered over short periods of time and there is little follow-up data to determine whether the therapy was effective over the long-term, that the evidence does not demonstrate a change in sexual orientation but merely a reduction in same-sex behavior, that the possibility that subjects may be bisexual and have simply been convinced to restrict their sexual activity to the opposite sex was not considered, there is often no control group to rule out the possibility that other things, such as being motivated to change, were the true cause of any change the researchers observed in the study participants, that conversion therapists falsely assume that homosexuality is a mental disorder, and that their research focuses almost exclusively on gay men and rarely includes lesbians.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

07/02/2010 05:08:41 PM · #4795

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.

07/02/2010 05:19:03 PM · #4796

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Did you ever consider I know far more about this than you do and would you ever consider that maybe YOU aren't understanding it correctly? This is my life and I doubt your armchair wiki education is going to simply show me I'm wrong on something so basic.

You may be better versed in the medical field, but common knowledge will suffice for embarrassing you on this point: even if the environmental factor was a case of chicken pox or overexposure to Barry Manilow during pregnancy, the resulting traits would still be genetic regardless of how the genes were modified. It also wouldn't be the "affected" individual's choice, so this doesn't help your cause anyway.

I could accept this with the caveat that you are using the term "genetic" in a completely blunt manner. If you would honestly like to learn I suggest the wiki for phenotype, genotype, and epigenetics.

You really mean to use the term "epigenetic" rather than "genetic". Epigenetics, in essence, is the overplay of environmental factors upon the expression of genes. Epigenetics lead to different phenotypes despite having similar genotypes. The article you quote indicates that the actual base pairs may change at times in a mutagenic way and this may be a new discovery, but in the context of this discussion no geneticist would say environment was not a factor because epigenetics had produced a stable mutation in the genetic code. Without the environmental trigger the mutation would not have occurred and the two genomes (between identical twins) would remain identical. That all being said, there is currently zero evidence that such a process would explain the incomplete penetrance of the phenotype between identical twins.

Message edited by author 2010-07-02 17:23:56.

07/02/2010 05:20:38 PM · #4797

Originally posted by scalvert:

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

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

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.

Wow.....

That wasn't much taken out of context...

07/02/2010 05:23:21 PM · #4798

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I could accept this with the caveat that you are using the term "genetic" in a completely blunt manner. If you would honestly like to learn I suggest the wiki for phenotype, genotype, and epigenetics.

You really mean to use the term "epigenetic" rather than "genetic". Epigenetics, in essence, is the overplay of environmental factors upon the expression of genes. Epigenetics lead to different phenotypes despite having similar genotypes. The article you quote indicates that the actual base pairs may change at times in a mutagenic way and this may be new information, but in the context of this discussion no geneticist would say environment was not a factor because epigenetics had produced a stable mutation in the genetic code. Without the environmental trigger the mutation would not have occurred and the two genomes (between identical twins) would remain identical.

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?

07/02/2010 05:28:29 PM · #4799

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. 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.