Homosexuality

[Daystar]

Italy's nominee to become the European Union's Justice and Home Affairs commissioner failed on Monday to win the backing of the European Parliament's Justice Committee, days after testifying that he considers homosexuality a sin.

The panel narrowly failed to endorse Rocco Buttiglione, who is currently Italy's European Affairs minister, said Jean-Louis Bourlanges, chairman of the Justice Committee.

Buttiglione said that he would fight for the rights of homosexuals, but would not back away from his statement that the lifestyle is sinful.

Isn't this the way it should be? Fight for the rights of homosexuals, but individuals, but define their lifestyle as sinful (Lev. 18:22).

[TQWcS]

Why does it have to be a conscious choice?

[perfessor]

Why does it have to be a conscious choice?

Wellll - it seemed to me that you were denying that homosexuals were "built that way" -

The fact is that no one knows if there is a cause or if they choose it.

So if you think it might be a choice, I'm trying to challenge you to provide your basis; because to me, it doesn't seem to be a choice. And those who are most in a position to know, also deny that it was a choice.

And now, having re-read your initial quote above, I will add: there is no such thing as an "unconscious choice".

[TQWcS]

Sorry, I wasn't getting at the whole subconsious choice thing. I was trying to say that there isn't any conclusive evidence that shows they were born to have a certain prediliction to be gay or straight. I meant that they could be a product of their environment. I'm kind of in between on this issue, I don't believe they were born homosexual and I don't believe that they one day wake up and make a choice. I do, on the otherhand, think that it is a sin for a homosexual to have sex with another homosexual.

[Jose]

On the other hand, homosexuality is built into homosexuals. For them, it is natural for men to desire men, and for women to desire women. For them, heterosexuality perverts that natural act. Since it was God's decision (according to the Christian doctrine) to direct their embryological develop so as to have them come out homosexual, it seems only fair to allow them to live their lives as God seems to intend for them to--without the rest of us sticking our noses into their private business.

Oh come on Jose, I know you don't believe that. The only evidence that even remotely points to it being inborn is that they have an enlarged hypothalamus. However, one could argue that it is the lifestyle of the homosexual that causes the size of the hypothalamus to increase. The fact is that no one knows if there is a cause or if they choose it.

Hey, I can believe 5 impossible things before breakfast! But you're right, I don't believe that God has anything to do with it. I presented it in that way to make the point for those who do believe that God makes us who we are. What I actually believe is that it's a result of basic chemistry, as is everything else about Life.

About a year ago, there was a very nice paper in Science or Nature (I can't recall which) that looked at brain activity by that snazzy imaging technique that is now possible. They compared one of the characteristics in which males differ from females--something like blinking when there's a loud noise, that has nothing to do with sexual preference. In this analysis, straight men showed different brain activity than straight women, as had been previously known. Gays and lesbians, however, had brain activity that was intermediate between the two. This is definitely a neurological difference (that is not the hypothalamus) that demonstrates that homosexuality involves masculinization of the female brain, and feminization of the male brain.

As I have said in an earlier post, sexual dimorphism is based partly on the SRY gene on the Y chromosome, and partly on hormones. This is certainly the case for the development of the genitalia. It is probably also true for neural development that occurs later. It doesn't take much to interfere with embryonic development, especially where hormonal cues are involved. We refer to such interferences as "congenital abnormalities," and don't pay much attention to their sinfulness if they merely affect a person's health.

With sexual development, whether of the genitalia or the brain, environmental chemicals can interfere with hormonal control. There are lots of "endocrine disruptors." My favorite is the anti-androgen in the plasticizer of fingernail polish. Another is the female hormone, progesterone. At high concentrations, it binds to the androgen receptor, and masculinizes the fetus. This was discovered when progesterone was given to pregnant mothers to relieve some symptom or other, and their daughters were born with masculinized genitalia.

It turns out that masculinization of female genitalia, and feminization of male genitalia, are remarkably common. Doctors usually counsel the parents to have the "abnormality" corrected surgically...with the idea that it's easier to turn a boy into a girl than to turn a girl into a boy. Some of these children who were "adjusted" at birth, and made to live a life that is not that of their brain's sex, have problems--because they can't choose to have the sexual feelings of the sex they have been living. They have the sexual feelings of the brain they were born with.

It seems to me that the evidence is overwhelming that sexual preference is not a choice. As perfessor notes, heterosexuals don't conscsiously make a choice; they just happen to like the other sex. Why should we think it's any different for homosexuals?

As I've said before, we may not like what we see when we imagine the behaviors homosexuals engage in when we aren't looking. So, why not just stop imagining it? It seems that a lot of the definition of "sin" revolves around sex, and the overly-active imaginations of those who talk the loudest about others' sinfulness. Just stop thinking about it. There are lots of real problems in the world that we should be trying to find solutions for, without wasting our time thinking about what other people might be doing when we aren't there.

[TQWcS]

Jose said

About a year ago, there was a very nice paper in Science or Nature (I can't recall which) that looked at brain activity by that snazzy imaging technique that is now possible. They compared one of the characteristics in which males differ from females--something like blinking when there's a loud noise, that has nothing to do with sexual preference. In this analysis, straight men showed different brain activity than straight women, as had been previously known. Gays and lesbians, however, had brain activity that was intermediate between the two. This is definitely a neurological difference (that is not the hypothalamus) that demonstrates that homosexuality involves masculinization of the female brain, and feminization of the male brain.

We have to remember correlation does not prove causation. Just because we can relate the correlation of the different brain activity involved in blinking does not mean that homosexuality is the cause of this. A good many variables could have been involved. I remember a good sociological piece that showed a group of scientists standing around a instrument panel and getting excited saying, "that is exactly what we expected the dials are moving just as our calculations predicted." Everyone watching the movie could tell the dials did not move at all. Scientists are just like everyone else sometimes their biases shine through their experiments.

[Daystar]

JOSE WROTE:
On the other hand, homosexuality is built into homosexuals. For them, it is natural for men to desire men, and for women to desire women.

[Day] What is built into homosexuals is the same thing that is built into all of us: The nature to sin (Ps. 51:6, Rom. 5:12). Homosexuality is only one manifestation of that nature. Like any sin, through the power of God, we are able to repent and overcome any sin. Man's problem is that his sin has more appeal to him than the righteousness of God.

[Daystar]

It is only natural for men and women to desire each other and reproduce. It is built into us. Homosexuality perverts that natural act.

On the other hand, homosexuality is built into homosexuals. For them, it is natural for men to desire men, and for women to desire women.

Because of sin, they have been deceived into believing this. "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." (Prov. 14:12)

For them, heterosexuality perverts that natural act. Since it was God's decision (according to the Christian doctrine) to direct their embryological develop so as to have them come out homosexual, it seems only fair to allow them to live their lives as God seems to intend for them to--without the rest of us sticking our noses into their private business.

You, too, are deceived if you believe that

I guess it's hard to tell when we are deceived, because it all seems so real.

[Day] right, that's why I cited prov. 14:14: "There is a way that SEEMS RIGHT to a man, but its end is the way of death.

The question is whether it's Satan deceiving me, God deceiving me, or, perhaps, absolute faith in the stories of ancient people deceiving you...we'll never know in this life, will we? I'll take my chances, though, because my understanding is based on reading the book of God's Creation, rather than reading the word of Man, which another Man tells me is the word of God.

[Day] You believe the Bible is God's word and think that it's possible for God to deceive? When you say the book of God's creation, are you talking about the Bible?

What seems so odd to me is why God would change the neural connections of an embryo, just to make the child come out with the natural urges of someone of the opposite sex.

[Day] "Therefore just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men because all sinned." (Rom. 5:12) There were no neural changes in anyone. Man has the nature to sin and homosexuality is just one manifestation of that nature. The same applies to any sex outside of marriage.

Does God hate these people so much that he chooses this life for them,

[Day] You have it bass ackwards. Man naturally hates God and chooses to sin against him until he is born again, which Jesus said you must to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Are you exempt from the laws of speeding just because you don't believe in them?

Not a good analogy, since I know these laws exist.

[Day] The Ten Commandments don't exist?

Better, perhaps, to ask if you are exempt from the laws of evolution, just because you don't believe in them?

[Day] Evolution is not a law; it is a fable One well known evolutionist called it a "fairy tale for adults."

But what Jesus did on the cross and the tomb are a matter of history. Why is that cultures around the world celebrate Christmas and Easter? Are they empty celebrations? Why is it that our currency has "In God we trust" printed on it? What is the reference point of dates? 2004 means that this many years ago, Jesus Christ came into the world. Are all these just figments of the imagination?

They aren't all figments of the imagination. As you noted in the founding fathers thread, there has been a long tradition of people believing in this particular religious doctrine. Our founding fathers did; our initial currency designs reflected this, and continue to do so. Prior to scientific understanding, there really was no other way to interpret much of the natural world. Religion was it. That different cultures came up with different religions is interesting, and supports my proposal that they are all the invention of Man.

[Day] Keep this thought in mind. The devil always tries to derail God, and keep men from believeing in him. He does tempting them to believe things like evolution. Within the timeline of life, evolution found its place in the heart of decieved men. And they took it hook, line and sinker

Still, Christianity has been extremely powerful over the years. Christianity happened to be the religion of the major seafaring nations at the time of The Conquest, and was thus spread across the world, usually by force.

[Day] did you know that nowhere in the Bible is Christianity defined as a religion. Man has placed that definition on it.

It's no surprise that we use the calendar defined by this religion. But, that doesn't make it better than other religions, or more right.

[Day] My only point was the credibility of Jesus Christ.

Still, that's all a side issue for this thread. The question is homosexuality. In the tradition of one culture, it was defined as "sin."

[Day] Is God a culture? "You shall not lie with a man as he lies with a woman. It is an abomination." (Lev. 18:22)


The rise of this tradition into a powerful religion,

[Day] Is God a religion, or the Creator who has set down absolutes for his creation?

and the ability of that religion to sustain people over the millenia, has led to a general belief in our country that it is a "sin." It has led to the belief that it is a lifestyle choice. Now that we know that it is more like having blonde hair, or more like being born with a hypospadic penis (but unlike hypospadia, impossible to "correct" surgically), it seems that it's time to abandon this idea.

[Day] Science has never proven homosexuality to be genetic even though many sware by it.

[Jose]

We have to remember correlation does not prove causation. Just because we can relate the correlation of the different brain activity involved in blinking does not mean that homosexuality is the cause of this. A good many variables could have been involved.

Excellent reasoning! You are absolutely right.

The question is, what variables are relevant here? We seem to have maleness and femaleness as the basic norms. Something causes their brains to be different. From evidence from other species, where we can do the experiments, we know that there are specific genes involved in sexually-dimorphic behaviors and sexually-dimorphic brain development. We know that sex hormones are involved in sexually-dimorphic brain activity. Are humans like these other species? The more we learn about gene sequences and the functions of specific proteins, the more similar we seem to be. Genes that have been found in Drosophila turn out to be primary players in the same kinds of processes in mammals. So, there is no reason to say "maybe so, but it won't be true in humans." There is much more reason to say "these findings provide a precedent, so maybe it will turn out to be similar in humans."

So, did homosexuality cause the brain differences that the researchers documented? Or, did the brain differences result from an underlying sexual ambiguity in the brains of the subjects? The only way to tell is to do longitudinal studies--follow many individuals from a young age, and see if their brain patterns change when they "decide to become gay." This would be tricky, since it would mean enrolling youngsters, and might result in identifying pre-puberty individuals who have sexually-ambiguous brains, but have not yet developed sexual urges. Do you tell the parents? Do you tell the parents and the children, at the outset, that you are studying homosexuality? You'd have to explain what the study is, and what the risks are. What if several children in the study grow up to be gay? The study data might be 100% conclusive that they were gay to begin with, but the parents might sue the researchers, claiming that their intervention made the children decide to become gay.

My point is not that we've proven how homosexuality develops. Rather, my point is that there is now reasonable doubt that homosexuality is a choice (as most gays and lesbians will tell you from experience), as well as enough information to develop plausible mechanisms for how it could develop. Rather than continue to rant about "sin" and close my mind to the increasinly-plausible alternatives, I've decided that it makes more sense for me to accept that the alternatives are possible--and, consequently, treat gays and lesbians with the same respect that I treat everyone else.

[ENIGMA]

Better, perhaps, to ask if you are exempt from the laws of evolution, just because you don't believe in them?

[Day] Evolution is not a law; it is a fable One well known evolutionist called it a "fairy tale for adults."

Christianity isn't true, it's a fable. One well known Christian called it "a pile of horse-crap that was then digested and reprocessed by birds and finally packaged in a nice and neat little box for all the peoples of the world to spread unto their children like a plague.".

Man, I never before realized how fun it was to extract poorly attributed "quotes" out from my nether regions before. Thank you for enlightening me to this practice.

[Day] Keep this thought in mind. The devil always tries to derail God, and keep men from believeing in him. He does tempting them to believe things like evolution. Within the timeline of life, evolution found its place in the heart of decieved men. And they took it hook, line and sinker

The bit about having various Christian groups struggle for dominance and kill each other was a good one too...

Still, Christianity has been extremely powerful over the years. Christianity happened to be the religion of the major seafaring nations at the time of The Conquest, and was thus spread across the world, usually by force.

[Day] did you know that nowhere in the Bible is Christianity defined as a religion. Man has placed that definition on it.

Did you know that there is no reality in the Bible?

Source

It's no surprise that we use the calendar defined by this religion. But, that doesn't make it better than other religions, or more right.

[Day] My only point was the credibility of Jesus Christ.

....and of the Norse deities in fact. You believe in them so much that you reference the days of the week after them. How funny.

Still, that's all a side issue for this thread. The question is homosexuality. In the tradition of one culture, it was defined as "sin."

[Day] Is God a culture? "You shall not lie with a man as he lies with a woman. It is an abomination." (Lev. 18:22)

Come now there is no need to give God more credit than is due. I mean, the bacterial samples actually exist...

The rise of this tradition into a powerful religion,

[Day] Is God a religion, or the Creator who has set down absolutes for his creation?

Absolutes which seem to change depending upon what era you live in.

...Or should we bring slavery back... it was something of a charming biblically supported institution.

[Daystar]

[Day] did you know that nowhere in the Bible is Christianity defined as a religion. Man has placed that definition on it.
[/quote]

Did you know that there is no reality in the Bible?

[Day] Really! I'm sure you don't think that the nation of Israel is a fable and yet half the Bible is about her. And I'm sure you believe that the Roman Empire invaded Israel in 70AD and destroyed her just as Jesus said would happen? And are you not aware of the secular historians who confirm the existance and death of Jesus Christ? No reality in the Bible??

Source

It's no surprise that we use the calendar defined by this religion. But, that doesn't make it better than other religions, or more right.

[Day] My only point was the credibility of Jesus Christ.

....and of the Norse deities in fact. You believe in them so much that you reference the days of the week after them. How funny.

[Day] Norse deities had nothing to do with our calendar. Where do you find such nonsense.

Still, that's all a side issue for this thread. The question is homosexuality. In the tradition of one culture, it was defined as "sin."

[Day] Is God a culture? "You shall not lie with a man as he lies with a woman. It is an abomination." (Lev. 18:22)

Come now there is no need to give God more credit than is due. I mean, the bacterial samples actually exist...

[Day] Homosexuals only imagine they exist. And yes, I give credit to God for saying that the lifestyle is an abomination. He said it, believe it.

The rise of this tradition into a powerful religion,

[Day] Is God a religion, or the Creator who has set down absolutes for his creation?

Absolutes which seem to change depending upon what era you live in.

[Day] Man changes, but God is the same yesterday, today and forever. His commandments are just as binding today as they were back then.

...Or should we bring slavery back... it was something of a charming biblically supported institution.[/quote]

[Day] Where does the Bible support slavery?