Homosexuality as a choice/genetics.

[UdoKier]

I don't care whether or not it's a choice.

The very question seems to stem from the notion that if it's a choice, it's a sin, and if it's genetic, it was planned by "god" and therefore okay.

But should anyone, gay, bi or straight need proof that it's "part of the divine plan" in order to express their sexuality as they please with another consenting adult?

And isn't it sad that some families' love for a gay child would be CONDITIONAL, based on the approval/disapproval of a church?

This endless researching for the "origins of homosexuality" as though it were some kind of disease bugs me, personally.

Seems to me that it's a normal variant of sexuality that also occurs commmonly among animals, but whether it's nature or nurture seems irrelevant to me.

Personally, I don't want any church's approval. They don't have the moral authority on anything, IMO.

[David__77]

1. You don't choose homosexuality or for that matter...

...does one choose other sexual orientations. One can choose to be gay or straight though, because those are identities and not orientations. The important thing is that being homosexual or being gay is not a bad thing in the very least.

[msmcghee]

2. Stacking the deck on your poll?

How about a third answer:

It matters, because the more we know about things like biology and evolution and human behavior, the more likely we'll become a mature society where prejudice and supersition are not such a big part of the important decisions we make.

Perhaps a society that respects scientific inquiry and objective discourse would not be as likely elect half-brained-politicians who tell us that God speaks through them.

[UdoKier]

6. To a point, you're right

Learning more about who we are and what we are made of, as well as the universe around us is crucial, but the way this research is used disturbs me. It's as though these people want to be acceptted and co-opted by the religious right, with their right to be married being conditional - predicated on the approval of a church or a deity.

I say that under no circumstances should ANY church have ANY say over the lives of people who are not MEMBERS of that church.

Even if homosexuality could be proven to be a 100% conscious choice and nothing more, gays would be ENTITLED to equal rights under the constitution, including the right to marry, no matter what some church might say. And since sex between consenting adults is a good thing, regardless of the gender of the participants, it shouldn't be somehow less wholesome simply because it's a "choice".

[msmcghee]

12. You're attacking the wrong enemy . .

. . and you're hurting your own (and all liberal's) cause in the process.

Scientific research should not be undertaken with any religious (or anti-religious) bias. It's in another category call "reality based".

Once, you start restricting research on religious grounds (pro or anti), then all research loses it's credibility because it is no longer science or rational. You will never know the results of research that could have been done - but wasn't, for pro or anti relgious reasons.

Science and rationality are the only tools that socially liberal people have in our defense. It is the defense of honesty. You are trying to cripple it with the attitude you are spreading.

[UdoKier]

14. When did I say anything about restricting anything?

I simply refuse to validate the argument that someone's religion should have ANY say over anyone else's exercise of their RIGHT to love another as they please.

Sorry, but I do NOT accept ANY church's edicts over MY life. I am an atheist and I have a right to live free from religious dogma, thank you.

And how is INSISTING on the preservation of the separation between church and state anti-liberal?

[msmcghee]

17. No, you said . .

"I don't care what the findings are. I question the motives of such studies."

If you were to get a few hundred people to sign a petition agreeing with you that such studies are conducted for the wrong motives - then I believe you could have a very immediate effect on the board at your local university (that depends on public funding) the next time a proposal for research into the genetic factors of sexual orientation is made.

That would be restricting.

[UdoKier]

19. I never said I intended any such thing

I would never want to restrict scientific advancement in any way.

I think I've made the reasons for my objection to the way the research is used pretty clear.

But I don't have a problem with the research itself as a scientific point of interest. My gripe comes in when its used to validate religious control over the general secular public.

[Dancer]

18. The prejudiced and superstitous mind

is devious and sly in its rationalizations.

It will argue that while, scientifically, homosexuality is not a choice, neither is cancer and yet one will choose to seek treatment.

As we know, "your mind can drive you crazy." Sometimes, when confronted with craziness, the most we can do is to look out upon it with awe.


A crazy story:

The patient tells the therapist that he, the patient, is in reality a pair of curtains. The therapist replies, "Nonsense. Pull yourself together."

[msmcghee]

20. People believe what feels good . .

. . they only use their brains to justify it.

[progdonkey]

3. it's like any other reason for attraction

Some guys like larger breasts, some like small. Some guys like brunettes, some like blondes. Some like tall women, others prefer short. Some guys like women, some like men. Do the reasons for any preference need to be validated by others? Do I like one type of woman because of a genetic predisposition to certain qualities or because I have fond memories of women who fit that profile? Does it matter? Hell, no!

[Jon8503]

4. Have Never Understood The Homophobia

I would rather have a sincere gay friend, brother, neighbor, co-worker or whoever than a hetrosexual obnoxious unsincere repuke or whatever any day of the week.

It has really pissed me off the way the repukes have handled the gay issue in this election and then had the nerve to try and critize Kerry for mentioning Cheney's daughter in a very sincere and honest way. The repukes are the dishonest ones on this issue as all the other issues.

I do not believe gay is a choice but as you say why should anyone need proof.

[Selwynn]

5. It is absolutely irrelevant. However, a gay friend stunned me...

..and said something I hadn't thought of. He said he hopes that is homosexuality is never traced back to some kind of "gay gene" for two reasons: one, because he felt like it almost devalued what he considered to be a personal choice to embrace a lifestyle for which he should feel no shame and two, because he was afraid that gay haters would not "accept" that it was "God's will" but instead call the genetics of homosexuality a "defect" or deformity or desease...

I don't think it should matter at all whether homosexuality is unchangeably biologic or of it is more socially contextually contructed or a bit of both or something different. It is irrelevant to how we should treat other people.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Doesn't matter.

I'm straight. I am more attracted to tall brunettes (I married one) than short blondes. Soooooooo............?????????

I also prefer chocolate chip cookies to boiled turnips. Sooooooooo..???

It's about civil rights not genetics.

[Selwynn]

8. I think that's what I said.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. I know. Hit the key without looking.

Post was actually directed to the first post. Apologies.

[Selwynn]

15. Yay! Other people make mistakes besides me!

:toast:

[msmcghee]

16. Everything any human being does . .

. or ever has done - is because evolution gave her that capacity.

Then societies get all upset, wringing their hands over the propriety of it all.

Societies should tune their laws and moral codes for the greatest happiness for the greatest number - and to eliminate oppression of all - instead of spreading their prejudices and fears from between the words of a very ancient book.

[bloodyjack]

9. what is "choice" anyway?

even if homosexuality were a decision, why wouldn't one be disposed to 'choose' homosexuality if one hadn't an attraction to—a natural preference for—the same sex in the first place?

[UdoKier]

10. That ignores the huge numbers of people who can be attracted to either sex

For them, there is an element of choice involved.

[TwentyFive]

11. God teaches us to Love one another....unconditionally

Christians are not supposed to judge people. "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

When it comes to gays and gay families....government should stop being part of the problem...and be part of the solution.

I think gay marriage should be discussed in the context of civil rights, and not somebody's political/religious power agenda. It's disgraceful that gays can't have some kind of national recognition for their relationships. Gays pay taxes and contribute to society....we should stop excluding them.

When it comes to the issue of kids...we need to address discrimination their kids may face in school. Certainly, psychological research should play some role in helping gay parents raise healthy kids...for example, does extra effort need to be made to introduce kids to opposite gender adults...or are kids doing this automatically.

[Jon8503]

21. Yeah, absolutely, you know I really think that unfortunately gays

are being used as the repukes are using them today. You mention Christians whom I would think be the most tolerant of all but yet seems that they are really the most intolerant people. I know that is not true of all Christians but I have found from time to time they are only tolerant of their own kind, such as only tolerate Protestants not catholics or Jews or Muslims, only tolerate whites not blacks or other ethnic groups, etc. Anyway, I guess what I am saying it seems sometimes the Christians are the most unchristian.