Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[Dr.Who]

Clinging to this obviously false assertion makes you look foolish, Who, you're smarter than that I think.

If you are going to use the "children" as the litmus test for marriage, then I'm okay with that as long as it is equally applied to all people. Sterile marriages would be annulled, old people who could no longer have children would be denied marriages too.

I fail to see why a rational person such as yourself is taking this stance. Marriage is about love and committment according to the vows, it's about legal rights and responsibilities that add stability to our culture. Denying these benefits to one group of people on the basis of nothing but religious dogma seems beneath you.

If there were some practical way for the government to accomplish that then I would agree.

But couples previously thought infertile do sometimes have children, old people also have children. The state cannot predict which hetero couples will or will not have children and it would be impractical for them to try. They simply apply the law unevenly and sociologically. Which is another good reason to get them out of the business of peoples bedrooms rather than including another whole group of people under the authority of gov.

With gay couples, at present, there is no uncertainty. Sociologically the gov can predict that they will not produce any children since they are incapable of sexual reproduction. As fertility treatments advance this will no longer be the case.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If there were some practical way for the government to accomplish that then I would agree.

But couples previously thought infertile do sometimes have children, old people also have children. The state cannot predict which hetero couples will or will not have children and it would be impractical for them to try. They simply apply the law unevenly and sociologically. Which is another good reason to get them out of the business of peoples bedrooms rather than including another whole group of people under the authority of gov.

With gay couples, at present, there is no uncertainty. Sociologically the gov can predict that they will not produce any children since they are incapable of sexual reproduction. As fertility treatments advance this will no longer be the case.

What a stunning denial of reality! What planet do you live on? See the citation below from Medscape, between 1 and 6 MILLION children in the US alone are being raised by gay couples. Hello? And they get NONE of the rights guaranteed to all the other kids in the US. Is that Christian?

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514477

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

The reason that the religious right are committed to the view that homosexuality is a choice rather than genetic is that if they accepted it was genetic they would then have to accept that god made gay people gay and their homophobia would be even harder to justify.

They cannot produce a shred of credible evidnce to prove that it is a choice and nor can they find anyone who woke up one day and said 'you know what, I'm going to be gay from now on'.

The idea that homosexuality is a threat to the human species is a great example of the nonesense that homophobic christians like the pope spout in a vain attempt to legitimise their nasty prejudice even though the human species is already too successful with homosexuality.

Their arguments are no different to the pseudo science that was spread by racists not that long ago who claimed it was a scientific fact that black people are less intelligent than white people.

 

[Dr.Who]

What a stunning denial of reality! What planet do you live on? See the citation below from Medscape, between 1 and 6 MILLION children in the US alone are being raised by gay couples. Hello? And they get NONE of the rights guaranteed to all the other kids in the US. Is that Christian?

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514477

And virtually none of those unions produced any of those children. There is zero reason to regulate the marriages that do not produce children.

But somewhere denied yourself the ability to read what I wrote. The fact that gay couples are raising children in no way changes what I said when I said that they do not produce the children.

Of course the adoptions should be regulated. And the arrangements between two the two adults who did produce the children should be regulated. As well as the regulations between those that produced the children and those they gave the children to to raise.

Now, I would love to talk about a right, as opposed to a restriction, that a gay couple does not have. As far as I know we have not talked about this yet, or barely touched on it. You pick your favorite denied right and then we can talk about it.

 

[Dr.Who]

The reason that the religious right are committed to the view that homosexuality is a choice rather than genetic is that if they accepted it was genetic they would then have to accept that god made gay people gay and their homophobia would be even harder to justify.

Homosexuality it a choice because no matter how God made you, you get to decide how you will act. Now the question of sexual orientation is a different question. But even if homosexual orientation is genetic, and even if God made some people gay it would be no harder to accept that they are people first. Really I see a lot more false accusations of homophobia than I see real one's. Of course there are real ones but they seem much more to be cultural than to be religious.

They cannot produce a shred of credible evidnce to prove that it is a choice and nor can they find anyone who woke up one day and said 'you know what, I'm going to be gay from now on'.

There are actually a lot of scientific studies, some of which show that it (the orientation) is partly a choice and and some that show that it is partly genetic. Some show all choice and some show all genetics. The best show a combination. Ask Mare, she will tell you this is true.

Why wait, here is one:

"One study on Swedish twins suggested that there was a moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the non-shared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior.[57]"

Furthermore:

"The American Psychiatric Association has stated that, "to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified,[]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_orientation

I would say that that looks like a shred to me.

Has anyone woke up and said "you know what I'm going to be gay from now on".

Firstly, there are tons of people who have struggled for a long time and then just made the choice to stop struggling and "be gay from now on" But that refers to actions and not to orientation. And of course the actions are 100% choice. As far as the orientation goes read this:

The American Psychiatric Association has stated "some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime."[34] In combination with other major American medical organizations, they have put out a statement which said: "Sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime—different people realize at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual."[35] A report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health states: "For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time."[36] One study has suggested "considerable fluidity in bisexual, unlabeled, and lesbian women's attractions, behaviors, and identities."[37][38]

"However, they have said "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."[39] American medical organization have further stated therapy cannot change sexual orientation, and have expressed concerns over potential harms.[35] The director of the APA's LGBT Concerns Office explained: "I don't think that anyone disagrees with the idea that people can change because we know that straight people become gays and lesbians.... the issue is whether therapy changes sexual orientation,"

and in a weaker study:

"In a survey of 882 people who were undergoing conversion therapy, attending ex-gay groups or ex-gay conferences, 22. 9% reported they had not undergone any changes, 42.7% reported some changes, and 34.3% reported much change in sexual orientation.[43]"

The idea that homosexuality is a threat to the human species is a great example of the nonesense that homophobic christians like the pope spout in a vain attempt to legitimise their nasty prejudice even though the human species is already too successful with homosexuality.

Source?

Because Pope Benedict XVI specifically said that gay orientation was not a sin. That does not sound homophobic. He does oppose gay marriage because he thinks the straight institution of marriage is Gods plan for marriage. That is his opinion. You have a different one. When two people have different opinions it does not mean that they fear or hate each other. If they do happen to hate or fear each other it could be for many other reasons. So do you have any evidence that the pope fears or hates gays? Or will you just assume that any difference of opinion is automatically hate?

 

[Dr.Who]

And virtually none of those unions produced any of those children. There is zero reason to regulate the marriages that do not produce children.

But somewhere denied yourself the ability to read what I wrote. The fact that gay couples are raising children in no way changes what I said when I said that they do not produce the children.

Of course the adoptions should be regulated. And the arrangements between two the two adults who did produce the children should be regulated. As well as the regulations between those that produced the children and those they gave the children to to raise.

Now, I would love to talk about a right, as opposed to a restriction, that a gay couple does not have. As far as I know we have not talked about this yet, or barely touched on it. You pick your favorite denied right and then we can talk about it.

I have to amend that.

You were talking about the kids rights and I said the couples rights. So I am changing that last paragraph to read:

Now, I would love to talk about a right, as opposed to a restriction, that a kid produced by a gay couple does not have. But since gay couples don't produce kids they would all be imaginary.

Let's expand that to include the rights denied to kids raised by gay couples. You pick a right denied to a child raised by a gay couple and we can talk about it. But to be fair we need to compare that to rights of children raised by straight couples who did not produce the child.


As far as I know we have not talked about this yet, or barely touched on it. You pick your favorite denied right and then we can talk about it.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

And virtually none of those unions produced any of those children. There is zero reason to regulate the marriages that do not produce children.

But somewhere denied yourself the ability to read what I wrote. The fact that gay couples are raising children in no way changes what I said when I said that they do not produce the children.

And why do you assume that the gay people did not "produce" their children? Most lesbians who have children bore them just like heterosexual women do. Many gay men work with lesbian women as surrogate mothers to "produce" children. Your assumption that they are all adopted in very wrong--some States don't even allow gay people to adopt.

Of course the adoptions should be regulated. And the arrangements between two the two adults who did produce the children should be regulated. As well as the regulations between those that produced the children and those they gave the children to to raise.

So, are you saying that you support marriage for any couple with adopted or "produced" children?

Now, I would love to talk about a right, as opposed to a restriction, that a gay couple does not have. As far as I know we have not talked about this yet, or barely touched on it. You pick your favorite denied right and then we can talk about it.

Fair enough, below you will find the first page of 23 pages of Federal laws that grant rights and privileges to legally married people ONLY. Please note that the Government Accounting Office did this at the behest of Congress and the list I have is currently about 300 laws short. An accurate update will be available at the address below:
From the GOA: (http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf)
Tables of Laws in the United States Code
Involving Marital Status, by Category
CATEGORY 1—SOCIAL SECURITY AND RELATED PROGRAMS, HOUSING, AND FOOD STAMPS
Title 7—Agriculture
Chapter 5—Food Stamp Program
§ 2012 Definitions
§ 2014 Eligible households
§ 2020 Administration
§ 2030 Washington Family Independence Demonstration Project
§ 2031 Food stamp portion of Minnesota Family Investment Plan
Title 42—The Public Health And Welfare
Chapter 7—Social Security
Subchapter II—Federal Old-Age, Survivors, And Disability Insurance Benefits
§ 402 Old-age and survivors insurance benefit payments
§ 403 Reduction of insurance benefits
§ 404 Overpayments and underpayments
§ 405 Evidence, procedure, and certification for payments
§ 409 "Wages" defined
§ 410 Definitions relating to employment
§ 411 Definitions relating to self-employment
§ 413 Quarter and quarter of coverage
§ 415 Computation of primary insurance amount
§ 416 Additional definitions
§ 422 Rehabilitation services
§ 423 Disability insurance benefit payments
§ 425 Additional rules relating to benefits based on disability
§ 426 Entitlement to hospital insurance benefits
§ 426-1 End stage renal disease program
§ 427 Transitional insured status for purposes of old-age and survivors benefits
§ 428 Benefits at age 72 for certain uninsured individuals
Subchapter IV—Grants To States For Aid And Services To Needy Families With Children
And For Child-Welfare Services
Part A—Aid To Families With Dependent Children [Effective until July 1, 1997]
§ 602 State plans for aid and services to needy families with children; contents; approval by Secretary;
records and reports; treatment of earned income advances
§ 606 Definitions
§ 607 Dependent children of unemployed parents
§ 615 Attribution of income and resources of sponsor and spouse to alien
Part A—Block Grants To States For Temporary Assistance For Needy Families
[Effective on July 1, 1997]
§ 601 Purpose
GAO/OGC-97-16 Enclosure II
CATEGORY 1—SOCIAL SECURITY AND RELATED PROGRAMS, HOUSING, AND FOOD STAMPS
§ 604 Use of grants
§ 607 Mandatory work requirements
§ 608 Prohibitions; requirements
§ 611 Data collection and reporting
§ 613 Research, evaluations, and national studies
Part D—Child Support And Establishment Of Paternity
§ 651 Authorization of appropriations
§ 652 Duties of Secretary
§ 653 Federal Parent Locator Service
§ 654 State plan for child and spousal support
§ 659 Enforcement of individual's legal obligations to provide child support or make alimony payments
§ 661 Regulations pertaining to garnishments [Public Law 104-193 provides for repeal of this section,
effective February 22, 1997.]
§ 662 Definitions
§ 664 Collection of past-due support from Federal tax refunds
§ 665 Allotments from pay for child and spousal support owed by members of uniformed services on
active duty
§ 666 Requirement of statutorily prescribed procedures to improve effectiveness of child support
enforcement
Part E—Federal Payments For Foster Care And Adoption Assistance
§ 679a National Adoption Information Clearinghouse
Subchapter V—Maternal And Child Health Services Block Grant
§ 710 Separate program for abstinence education
Subchapter VII—Administration
§ 907a National Commission on Social Security
Subchapter XI—General Provisions, Peer Review, And Administrative Simplification
Part A—General Provisions
§ 1319 Federal participation in payments for repairs to home owned by recipient of aid or assistance
§ 1320a-6 Adjustments in SSI benefits on account of retroactive benefits under subchapter II
§ 1320b-1 Notification of Social Security claimant with respect to deferred vested benefits
§ 1320b-9 National Commission on Children
Subchapter XVI—Supplemental Security Income For Aged, Blind,
And Disabled
Part A—Determination Of Benefits
§ 1382 Eligibility for benefits
§ 1382a Income; earned and unearned income defined; exclusions from income
§ 1382b Resources
§ 1382c Definitions
§ 1382d Rehabilitation services for blind and disabled individuals
§ 1382g Payments to State for operation of supplementation program

I will be happy to post the other 20+ pages if anyone is interested.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

But since gay couples don't produce kids they would all be imaginary.

False premise, lots and lots of gay people produce children biologically, you really need to check your facts before posting them.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Because Pope Benedict XVI specifically said that gay orientation was not a sin. That does not sound homophobic. He does oppose gay marriage because he thinks the straight institution of marriage is Gods plan for marriage. That is his opinion. You have a different one. When two people have different opinions it does not mean that they fear or hate each other. If they do happen to hate or fear each other it could be for many other reasons. So do you have any evidence that the pope fears or hates gays? Or will you just assume that any difference of opinion is automatically hate?

I'm just guessing here, but might it be the hundreds of years of persecution, murder, rape, and beating? I have been unable to locate a single example of a group of gay men or lesbians waiting in the darkness outside a straight bar to beat the sh1t out of some "straight".

No gay church ever burned people at the stake for being straight. When someone like the Pope condemns a group of people IN GOD'S NAME that is a very different thing than you and I not agreeing about what's right. Condemning others in God's name is hateful and puts us all in danger.

 

[Dr.Who]

False premise, lots and lots of gay people produce children biologically, you really need to check your facts before posting them.

I did not say that gay people don't produce children. I said that gay couples don't produce children.

I already recognized that gay people produce children and said that the actual relationships that produced the children should be regulated.

 

[Dr.Who]

I'm just guessing here, but might it be the hundreds of years of persecution, murder, rape, and beating? I have been unable to locate a single example of a group of gay men or lesbians waiting in the darkness outside a straight bar to beat the sh1t out of some "straight".

No gay church ever burned people at the stake for being straight. When someone like the Pope condemns a group of people IN GOD'S NAME that is a very different thing than you and I not agreeing about what's right. Condemning others in God's name is hateful and puts us all in danger.

Concluding that the actions of one person are hateful based on the actions of other people is a classic example of prejudice.

 

[Dr.Who]

And why do you assume that the gay people did not "produce" their children? Most lesbians who have children bore them just like heterosexual women do. Many gay men work with lesbian women as surrogate mothers to "produce" children. Your assumption that they are all adopted in very wrong--some States don't even allow gay people to adopt.

Because when Tom divorces Jane and unioned with Fred Tom and Fred will not produce any children regardless of what Tom and Jane did.

When Tom and Jane got divorced and Jane coupled with Trish, Jane may very well have born a child in her marriage with Tom in the normal way but that child is not a product of her coupling with Trish.

So all the children that Fred and Tom raise or that Jane and Trish raise must be adopted or they are legally parented only by one part of the couple. This is the same situation if Tom marries Lisa or if Jane marries Joe.

So, are you saying that you support marriage for any couple with adopted or "produced" children?

I am saying that any couple that may produce children could be regulated. I am also saying that any couple (gay or straight) that adopts children should have that adoption regulated. While adopted children were obviously produced at some point they were not produced by the couple that adopts them.

Fair enough, below you will find the first page of 23 pages of Federal laws that grant rights and privileges to legally married people ONLY. Please note that the Government Accounting Office did this at the behest of Congress and the list I have is currently about 300 laws short. An accurate update will be available at the address below:
From the GOA: (http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf)
Tables of Laws in the United States Code
Involving Marital Status, by Category
CATEGORY 1—SOCIAL SECURITY AND RELATED PROGRAMS, HOUSING, AND FOOD STAMPS
Title 7—Agriculture
Chapter 5—Food Stamp Program
§ 2012 Definitions
§ 2014 Eligible households
§ 2020 Administration
§ 2030 Washington Family Independence Demonstration Project
§ 2031 Food stamp portion of Minnesota Family Investment Plan
Title 42—The Public Health And Welfare
Chapter 7—Social Security
Subchapter II—Federal Old-Age, Survivors, And Disability Insurance Benefits
§ 402 Old-age and survivors insurance benefit payments
§ 403 Reduction of insurance benefits
§ 404 Overpayments and underpayments
§ 405 Evidence, procedure, and certification for payments
§ 409 "Wages" defined
§ 410 Definitions relating to employment
§ 411 Definitions relating to self-employment
§ 413 Quarter and quarter of coverage
§ 415 Computation of primary insurance amount
§ 416 Additional definitions
§ 422 Rehabilitation services
§ 423 Disability insurance benefit payments
§ 425 Additional rules relating to benefits based on disability
§ 426 Entitlement to hospital insurance benefits
§ 426-1 End stage renal disease program
§ 427 Transitional insured status for purposes of old-age and survivors benefits
§ 428 Benefits at age 72 for certain uninsured individuals
Subchapter IV—Grants To States For Aid And Services To Needy Families With Children
And For Child-Welfare Services
Part A—Aid To Families With Dependent Children [Effective until July 1, 1997]
§ 602 State plans for aid and services to needy families with children; contents; approval by Secretary;
records and reports; treatment of earned income advances
§ 606 Definitions
§ 607 Dependent children of unemployed parents
§ 615 Attribution of income and resources of sponsor and spouse to alien
Part A—Block Grants To States For Temporary Assistance For Needy Families
[Effective on July 1, 1997]
§ 601 Purpose
GAO/OGC-97-16 Enclosure II
CATEGORY 1—SOCIAL SECURITY AND RELATED PROGRAMS, HOUSING, AND FOOD STAMPS
§ 604 Use of grants
§ 607 Mandatory work requirements
§ 608 Prohibitions; requirements
§ 611 Data collection and reporting
§ 613 Research, evaluations, and national studies
Part D—Child Support And Establishment Of Paternity
§ 651 Authorization of appropriations
§ 652 Duties of Secretary
§ 653 Federal Parent Locator Service
§ 654 State plan for child and spousal support
§ 659 Enforcement of individual's legal obligations to provide child support or make alimony payments
§ 661 Regulations pertaining to garnishments [Public Law 104-193 provides for repeal of this section,
effective February 22, 1997.]
§ 662 Definitions
§ 664 Collection of past-due support from Federal tax refunds
§ 665 Allotments from pay for child and spousal support owed by members of uniformed services on
active duty
§ 666 Requirement of statutorily prescribed procedures to improve effectiveness of child support
enforcement
Part E—Federal Payments For Foster Care And Adoption Assistance
§ 679a National Adoption Information Clearinghouse
Subchapter V—Maternal And Child Health Services Block Grant
§ 710 Separate program for abstinence education
Subchapter VII—Administration
§ 907a National Commission on Social Security
Subchapter XI—General Provisions, Peer Review, And Administrative Simplification
Part A—General Provisions
§ 1319 Federal participation in payments for repairs to home owned by recipient of aid or assistance
§ 1320a-6 Adjustments in SSI benefits on account of retroactive benefits under subchapter II
§ 1320b-1 Notification of Social Security claimant with respect to deferred vested benefits
§ 1320b-9 National Commission on Children
Subchapter XVI—Supplemental Security Income For Aged, Blind,
And Disabled
Part A—Determination Of Benefits
§ 1382 Eligibility for benefits
§ 1382a Income; earned and unearned income defined; exclusions from income
§ 1382b Resources
§ 1382c Definitions
§ 1382d Rehabilitation services for blind and disabled individuals
§ 1382g Payments to State for operation of supplementation program

I will be happy to post the other 20+ pages if anyone is interested.

Pick one.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Because when Tom divorces Jane and unioned with Fred Tom and Fred will not produce any children regardless of what Tom and Jane did.When Tom and Jane got divorced and Jane coupled with Trish, Jane may very well have born a child in her marriage with Tom in the normal way but that child is not a product of her coupling with Trish.So all the children that Fred and Tom raise or that Jane and Trish raise must be adopted or they are legally parented only by one part of the couple. This is the same situation if Tom marries Lisa or if Jane marries Joe.

Utter twaddle, you're making the rainbow black and white. Your basic premise is wrong. If you wish to continue posting this falsehood it will only make you look foolish. Unless you can prove it--which you can't because it's false.

I am saying that any couple that may produce children could be regulated. I am also saying that any couple (gay or straight) that adopts children should have that adoption regulated. While adopted children were obviously produced at some point they were not produced by the couple that adopts them.

Pretty vague, Who, what do you mean by "regulate"? Is legal marriage "regulation"?

Pick one.

Social Security.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Concluding that the actions of one person are hateful based on the actions of other people is a classic example of prejudice.

This might be true if there were no evidence to the contrary. You are confusing prejudice with bias. Bias means that one has reasons for one's position. The Pope colluded with the Nazis during the Second World War, he's the head of a church organization that has a long and violent history of condemning people in God's name and murdering or torturing them (for their own good, of course). The persecution of gay people continues today with the full support of the Rat-Pope and his condemnation of gay people in God's name.

Condemning a person in God's name is hateful, it's something that you will never hear me say. It is the "judgment" denied to Christians in their own holy book, but conveniently ignored by them when they wish to hurt others.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I did not say that gay people don't produce children. I said that gay couples don't produce children.

I already recognized that gay people produce children and said that the actual relationships that produced the children should be regulated.

You have yet to explain "regulation". We can't go any further with this until we have a definition.