LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Well, it's not just biology. There's also several psychiatric institutes that have conducted and published research. I linked to a few earlier.

edited 19th Jan '13 9:23:58 PM by Lascoden

"See that's why I'm not getting. The Church didn't use the truth to deny gays rights. They used deception, manipulation, and copious amounts of vile slander. "Gays are insane", "Oh yes, subjecting them to the Ludovico treatment will totally work, " "They all just want to molest boys." Heinous, evil shit."

Yeah they lied something awful to to hold people down. The difference is the gay lobby wouldn't be trying to slander anyone or put them in treatment if they lied. They would be doing it for their benefit yeah, but their not trying to keep anyone in a horrible position. Intention and results are important here.

Okay, then you have read the studies. Good for you. Because if you do, you must see the same quotes I do saying the same things I'm saying since I'm, y'know, reading the words off the page.

And just so we're clear, you being a gay rights activist and a gay man have as much bearing on the rightness of your assumptions as me being Christian has to do with the truth of the Bible. As in...nothing. The truth is the truth. Nobody has special claims on it.

I'm not right because I'm a hetero Christian. I believe my position is right because I'm repeating what the actual studies say. That's what my rightness is based on.

Nope.

Your post is exactly what I'm talking about. Every single human inclination has a genetic aspect, that's always been assumed. A genetic correlation does NOT automatically mean it can't be changed or controlled, as some here are trying to suggest.

How is there strong support, quote unquote, when every study says "We don't know WHAT impact this has on choice. If any," ??

You're repeating what the studies say, but you don't seem to understand what the words mean in the greater context of the papers and in the general parlance of scientific speech.

Except some genetic aspects can't be controlled. For example, you have no conscious control over your hair color (to give an often used but imperfect example). You can dye it, but that only hides the color, not change it.

edited 19th Jan '13 9:42:55 PM by Lascoden

Well I was told that the general scientific consensus was that homosexuality was biologically determined. I would be lying if I said I actually brothered to read the studies in question in great detail to comfirm the statement I'm happy just to take the word of the good people at Tv Tropes.

edited 19th Jan '13 9:44:03 PM by joeyjojo

Okay, Shima, you tell me. Take the link DG posted. The study says it set out to determine a genetic link to male sexual orientation. Is there a different meaning to that? Some nuance I'm missing?

And perhaps you can tell me where I've erred in saying it's generally assumed and understand that there's a genetic aspect to all human inclinations?

And perhaps you can show me where I'm wrong in saying that study, like so many before it has done nothing to change the actual fact that we have no idea what impact any of this has on choice if any.

I'm listening.

@Starship: if you are trying to get people to admit that science never knows anything 100%, fine. That's true. But it seems a poor justification for oppressing people.

Besides, whether homosexuality is or is not a choice is completely irrelevant to any discussion related to their rights. Denying them legal rights based on their homosexuality violates the First Amendment - because some religions welcome homosexuality as not sinful, that means the government cannot attempt to regulate it. Any extant law which prohibits rights based on homosexuality is unconstitutional - and therefore illegal, thanks to the Equal Protection Clause.

So this whole discussion about choice is fascinating, but not germane to the rights of homosexuals as a group of people.

Now, with regards to whether it is or is not a choice...yes, there is a conscious aspect to any form of sexuality. I am straight. I cannot "choose" to become gay, but I can choose to have sexual relations with a man if I want. One is just the way I am, the other is an action. I can also choose, for example, to be celibate.

So what? I'm wondering why we should care.

edited 19th Jan '13 9:52:08 PM by drunkscriblerian

What I've gathered is that there is no scientific consensus as to the cause. However, most major scientific institutes agree that it is determined by genetics, environment, and/or hormones. What combination of these three is up in the air.

Well, for one thing, you seem to be conflating "genetically inclined" and "genetically determined". You can be more likely to be an alcoholic due to genes. You are determined to be a redhead, however (that is, of course, simplified). Also, the study does reach a fairly solid conclusion, as I pointed out above.

@Starship: Okay, lets start with this one first.

No, it's not generally assumed that there's a genetic aspect to human inclinations. That's why the nature vs. nurture debate happens in psychology. Generally it's assumed that something is either genetic, or caused by the environment, or some combination of both. A schoolyard bully might be a bully because he's naturally inclined to being the "alpha" type, or because his parents are abusive and he's taking it out on people, or both. Generally speaking, if someone has a "genetic determination" it means that they cannot change it. The bully may stop bullying people, but will always be inclined to be the "alpha", therefore he needs to channel his tendencies into other areas. This is what most forms of therapy do.

Ergo, gay people are genetically determined to being gay. They may be able to channel their attraction into other areas, or repress their attraction, but they don't stop being gay.

edited 19th Jan '13 9:52:34 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

Scrib, contrary to what Shima tries to say, I'm not arguing for 100% accuracy. I'm really getting frustrated as to why people can't simply say "The current evidence says there's a genetic aspect and doesn't seem to tell us anything else." It's like everyone would rather pass kidney stones than admit that.

As for germane to the debate; well it wasn't us who said "We can't deny us rights because we have no choice." The gay rights lobby (c.) made this about choice. We didn't. Perhaps you should tell them that.

Well, not really. The "it's not a choice" thing came about because people were being oppressed under the idea of "well, just stop being gay and we won't".

@Starship: the reason they don't is it opens them up to the vicious argument that "because it is a choice we have the right to force you to choose something different" bullshit that the religious right uses - and you might not respect that argument, but a good many people do.

Also, if there is a genetic component to homosexuality, that would indicate that it is at the least part of the natural world - so attempts to call it "unnatural" are likewise bullshit.

Finally, with the genetic thing...science has established elsewhere that genetics play a large role in our decision making - someone made the comparison to alcoholism...and while I hesitate to draw this parallel because of Unfortunate Implications, in terms of behavior it is accurate.

Whether an alcoholic drinks or not is irrelevant to them being an alcoholic. Whether a gay person has gay sex or not is irrelevant to them being gay. The difference of course is that acting on an alcoholic predisposition is physically harmful -there's no safe way for an alcoholic to drink in most cases - there is a safe way to act on homosexual urges, through the extant rules (written and unwritten) of courtship and romance.

edited 19th Jan '13 9:59:41 PM by drunkscriblerian

Again it's attraction versus action thing.

Some people may be born with a predisposition towards members of the same sex. Just as people may be born with a predisposition towards violence, adultery alcohol ect.

But it's the action not the urge that is considered immoral.

edited 19th Jan '13 10:06:07 PM by joeyjojo

I get that. It's just that being gay is defined by "having only homosexual urges".

That's why it's different from assault, since simply having the urge to strangle someone doesn't make you an assaulter.

DG - Well finally! The truth.

Yes, I agree with you that someone can be genetically predisposed to being a bully. I don't think I ever argued that. And yes, the bully will never reach inside his own brain and rewrite the basic command prompt so to speak. But....as you yourself point out, he can learn to stop bullying. Depending on the quality of the therapy and his dedication, he might do it with ease.

That's ALL I've been saying for what feels like the last 150 pages. But the problem herein is this, when scientists, politicians, activists, lobbyists, and gays themselves talk you just throw out this line about "Well, it can't be changed and we KNOW this," the implication is that it's unreasonable to expect someone can change. Not change like change hair color as Lasco points out, but change their behavior.

I know, I know, "So who cares about such hairsplitting Starship?" Well the thing is, like I said earlier, if I say I disagree with your lifestyle, you can bitch and tell me to go a hike. If I disagree with something you can't change, that's like me disagreeing with you for having cerebral palsy, to go back to an earlier example of mine. Now, I'm a bigot. And that bigot label now affects everything I say.

But, to switch from a Starship-centric view, what if you have a gay person who genuinely, honestly wants to stop engaging in homosexual behavior? Not because Starship said so, not because he'll be fired, but because he determines he wants to? In his head, it makes a difference to say "No, it's pointless you can't change!" rather than "Well, we really mean, you'll never fully change, we meant."

These are significant differences. And that's all I've said since last millennium.

Homosexuality is also the acts. I'm sure I'm going to get chewed out for pointing that out, but what the hell.

edited 19th Jan '13 10:07:54 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

@joey: in legal terms, yes. Most Christian sects preach that the urge itself is immoral...and while that's a valid system of belief, they aren't allowed (because of America's legal structure) to write it into law because of what I talked about earlier.

@Starship: also, research into psychology would indicate that repressing homosexual urges actually damages a person mentally...and before you say it, no the evidence isn't conclusive. But I ask you; shouldn't a responsible society look at that evidence and err on the side of caution?

EDIT: yes, homosexuality shows in what you do. Anyone can choose to be celibate after all. I don't think the law has the right to force people to either be celibate or have sex they don't want.

edited 19th Jan '13 10:09:02 PM by drunkscriblerian

@Starship: Like I said, being gay is determined by sexual attraction to the same sex, not having gay sex. Even if you remain celibate all your life, you're still gay.

Just like even if you remain celibate until you die, you're still straight.

edited 19th Jan '13 10:09:39 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

Yes, I'm aware people use that argument. But that still sounds like this popular train of "So what it's not fully the truth? So what it's not nearly the truth? As long as we get rights....."

Huh?

edited 19th Jan '13 10:13:34 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

@Starship: Okay, if you look at the journals, all of them use "homosexual attraction" to mean gay.

That's why we're saying that being gay is a genetic predisposition, and not a conscious decision. It's not "nearly true" it is true.

edited 19th Jan '13 10:13:06 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

@Starship: Most religious arguments against gay rights don't just twist the truth...they toss it right out the fucking window and have for years, claiming everything from "homosexuality is completely choice-driven and we have the right to demand you choose otherwise", to "all homosexuals are pedophiles". And you know what? People are still saying that shit despite science repeatedly finding it untrue. So I for one am not really going to quibble with that little "distortion". Especially because everyone distorts the truth for their own ends - even you.

Also, you are misunderstanding their argument - possibly because its being expressed poorly. It boils down to this; "Your straightness is no less valid than my gayness. You have urges and act on them responsibly and I want the same right to do likewise."

@DG - I've got quibbles, but at this point I'm too tired to argue the point anymore. So I'll just say, yes, I agree with you.

I'll point out, again, I never really disagreed to begin with.

edited 19th Jan '13 10:17:13 PM by TheStarshipMaxima

So calling us a bunch of fucking liars is the way you agree? What the fuck?

@Starship: Actually, you're not cutting hairs enough, as you're still combining inclination and determination. If it is determined, it is a fixed characteristic that it unchangeable. It is not behavior, it's more then that. I said this earlier, but it's range of all behavior possible. Something you can change no more then you can learn to fly under your own power. Or, like said, change your hair color. You can hide it, make it look like another, but it's nothing more then that.

As for the alcoholic thing: many addicts will tell you that you never stop being an addict. You simply abstain from alcohol. Orientation is much the same way.

@DG - What the hell are you talking about?

So, you don't see how my experience of watching the Church distort truth for their own ends would make me less than sanguine about your movement doing it?

And I believe you're mistaken. All people have their assumptions and hold to them for dear life, me included. I go out of my way to make sure the things I say are factually correct. When I'm putting forth an opinion, supposition, assumption, gut feeling, faith-based statement, I say so. And if someone points out that I'm confusing one for the other and they're correct, I admit it.

It seems some on this thread aren't willing to do the same.