Janszoon

Conan, your bizarre presumption that your opinions are facts is the main reason why I can't take your comments seriously.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

someonecompletelyrandom

I was afraid this was the misunderstanding. I don't want to come off that way. I'll explain - I mean what I said about the specific sanctions for slavery found in the old testiment really are a summary of the sanctions. It was my personal point of view that they are less severe than what most people think of as "slavery".

I'm sorry for the miscommunication.

Spike*Spiegel

It depends on who you're talking to. Devout Pentecostal Christians do not believe in letting women cut their hair, wear cosmetics or pants. It's all about how you interpret what's written in the Bible.

All I'm trying to say is that there will always be ignorant, closeminded individuals around that pick and choose between sins, saying one is worse than the other (although, according to the Bible itself, all sin is equal), because it makes them uncomfortable to be around something different. With an attitude of holier-than-thou self-righteousness, they single out the homosexual lifestyle as the end-all sin of sins and at the same time, they draw a crowd of like-minded individuals that are teaching their families to hold these same beliefs.

We've been focusing primarily on Christian intolerance of homosexuality, but it's important to note that their's is not the only religion that speaks against this lifestyle. 1/5 of the world's population is Muslim, another religion that presents homosexuality as a sin. The Jewish Torah shares a similar view.
Now, all of these religious texts give guidelines for living one's life. It is true that they all include passages naming homosexuality or sodomy as a sin; however, what people so often seem to forget, is that they also name many, many other activities (things people engage in almost thoughtlessly) as sins. I think homosexuality is singled out so often, because there are still many people who are uncomfortable with it, so they attack what makes them uncomfortable. To put it bluntly, there will always be idiots in society; those with a lot of misplaced anger and a perverted view of right and wrong according to even their own religion. It is this type of person, in my opinion, that perpetuates the idea that "God Hates Gays".

Flower Child

If anyone wants to know what a backwoods hillbilly thinks about this here queerosexual matter, read on at your own risk.

I feel people who consider themselves gay deserve all the same rights anyone else does yay rah rah rah. If you want to be gay, be gay, by all means. Get married, adopt children, do the whole works.

But MY PROBLEM: as a naturalist, is that I totally fail to see how it is possible to be 'born' gay as many claim. I am definitely on the outside looking in on the issue, but I feel people aquire (lack of a better word) this feeling at some point in their life. A person's natural instinct is to desire the opposite sex, its just a matter of science, and I feel a person has to go through something after they are born to change this.

I am not doubting the fact that people really are truly gay, I'm just doubting the fact that they were born that way.

Freebase Dali

I dunno... I'm pretty sure if there is some genetic "setting" that predisposes people to be attracted to the opposite gender (which is both obvious and necessary for survival of the species) then it stands to reason that there could be a "malfunction" (for lack of a better, less offensive word) in that process that has more to do with biology than it does with anything else.

If you don't deny the fact that there is an abundance of biological anomalies, flaws, and mutations (which there are) regarding every aspect of human beings then you can't rightly deny the possibility that if sexual attraction is a biological mechanism, that it can't "malfunction" biologically.

Assuming that homosexuality is strictly a social/environmental construct is to contradict the fact that sexuality is biological to begin with.

emostreetguitar562268

well the way i look at it is this:

when babies are first born, they are asexual, they dont have romantic feelings for anything or anyone. BUT they can be born with the WIRING to be straight, bi, or gay/lesbian, ex (for lack of a better example that i can think of) no baby girls are born with breasts, but they have the wiring to get them later. see what im saying?

__________________

Flower Child

I haven't heard of any scientific study that suggests this.

I would definitely reconsider my opinion if there was some evidence of course, but personally I have yet to hear of any.

I do not think any biological changes happen when a person decides or discovers they are gay. I think their mindset changes and that is all, yet I also feel like that is enough. No biological or instinctual changes needed.

I fail to see how that contradicts.

EDIT:
TO MAKE MY POINT MORE CLEAR
I feel like a mindset change is enough for a person to feel they are gay and to want the same sex, ultimately smothering out their instinctual feelings.

Paedantic Basterd

It's a completely reasonable theory. People are born with all kinds of anomalies in their systems, loss of senses, loss of limbs, genetic diseases, genetic benefits; why couldn't sexuality be subject to the same potential for genetic mutation?

Freebase Dali

@ Emo:

You're on the right track here. The "wiring" you're talking about is a reference to hard-coded biological data. Even if we never isolate a gene that determines sexual preference, it's hard to refute the evidence that there is a biological constant at work regarding sexual preference. It is evident in all species that reproduce, and sexuality itself is dictated by chemicals in the body. It is biologically imperative for opposite sexes to be attracted to each other for purposes of reproduction and propagation of species. This is all obvious.

Now, when humans are developing, their sexuality is obviously not in [major] play until they reach a certain stage (puberty). This is probably because the developing person simply won't be able to "do anything about it anyway" so to speak. AKA, the body isn't ready for reproduction until then. But like you say, the "wiring", or more specifically the "biologically coded" instructions that exist in us all along are only then switched on. We are conceived with all the DNA we carry throughout our lives, but during development, certain genes come into play. It stands to reason that if a sex gene or sequence of genes do not do what they are supposed to do, then there will be a different outcome. This is evident in evolution itself, where it's obvious under observation the differences between biological entities where certain genes differ.

Even scientists don't fully understand the entirety of the genome, but we can draw some further reaching conclusions based on what we currently know. And currently, it's pretty obvious that homosexuality is a genetic thing. It's just not provable at the moment. But saying that homosexuality is a product solely of molestation, rape, or some other traumatic environmental occurrence is even less so. Especially considering all the gays out there who have lived perfectly normal "occurrence-free" lives.

Flower Child

Because I have yet to hear any evidence that supports that.

Besides the various people who claim they were born in the wrong body on Oprah every once in a while.

EDIT:
I feel like a mindset change is enough for a person to feel they are gay and to want the same sex, ultimately smothering out their instinctual feelings.

EDIT #2
Even human society has taught dogs to smother their instinctual feelings. (not comparing gays to dogs of course) But I feel society and environment is the reason for these lost instincts, and the dog example is proof, unlike the sexual mutation theory