(Im)mutability of Same Gender Attraction

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Absolutely not.

But really--go ahead and ignore the twin studies which don't show anything close to a 100% concordance rate between identical twins. In the meantime, just rephrase as "For all I know".

I'm not suggesting there's a gay gene literally. However, it's not inconceivable they would identify genetic disposition or element. I simply raised a rheteorical question. Is there perfect concordance between identical twins re heart disease or breast cancer?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

How does the genetic component of homosexuality not destroy the Mormon or other orthodox view of the existence of God?

How can you reconcile the two?

It poses a very difficult challenge to orthodox theology.

It does.

You can't. That's why this is so hard for many people.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

It does.

You can't. That's why this is so hard for many people.

This is why many LDS parents, whose child is gay, think that they have produced the equivalent of a serial adulterer, or someone who strips at a club, or a porn actor.

A morally flawed being, doomed to never join the rest of the family in glory with the Father.

And it is their fault for not raising them better.

How long does the church allow these parents to suffer?

I suppose the answer is: until they have paid for their sins of being flawed parents.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

No, he doesn't really think that. He is just lashing out wildly in his wrath. He also wants it to be all about this single point because it is easy ground to defend. That is why he didn't address my point other than to call me names (which I think DDD would agree is just foreplay).

Obviously, the gay case for equal rights, both morally and Constitutionally, doesn't begin and end with immutablity. Otherwise, yes, pedophiles could make the same case. The other factors you mentioned are certainly relevant. That's why I noted to Creekster that these are consenting adults, and this is the only means of meaningful romantic love and full societal recognition of the legitimcay of that love.

Unless you're guided by religious scruple to the exclusion of reason and empiricism, recognizing the gay condition is immutable ought to lead easily to an affirmative answer to the question, is gay marriage the kindo activity society wants to encourage? If heterosexual marriage regardless of fertility or children is worthy of societal facilitation and imprimitur, then why not gay marriage (ignoring the fact that many gays will want to adopt and there is no shortage of children unwanted by their birth parents, not to mention artificial insemination, etc.)?

Ignoring immutablity evades the really tough issue, and the the overwhelming evidence and common sense that will some day make this a Civil Righs issue to the U.S. Supreme Court. A scientific consensus on immutability seems to me to lead inexorably to that result.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Obviously, the gay case for equal rights, both morally and Constitutionally, doesn't begin and end with immutablity.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

P.S., it's not a "sub-theme." It's the whole ball game.

Check mark for monday, I guess. Moving on.

Originally Posted by SU

A scientific consensus on immutability seems to me to lead inexorably to that result.

What scientific consensus? All you've done here to prove a scientific consensus is loudly proclaim its existence. No citations, no other studies-- heck, you've even acknowledged the possibility of exceptions.

Nobody here has the ability to insist that something is so and have us believe them without questioning, you least of all. Give yourself something to stick your foot on or move along, as you said you would to begin with.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

Check mark for monday, I guess. Moving on.



What scientific consensus? All you've done here to prove a scientific consensus is loudly proclaim its existence. No citations, no other studies-- heck, you've even acknowledged the possibility of exceptions.

Nobody here has the ability to insist that something is so and have us believe them without questioning, you least of all. Give yourself something to stick your foot on or move along, as you said you would to begin with.

It's taken for granted based on the word of the homosexuals themselves and common sense. There aren't papers on immutabilty per se because it's passe and silly. Are you aware that most self respecting cities of any size in the U.S. have ordinances prohibiting discriminating against gays by landlords, employers, etc. Why do you think that is? The question that lacks clarity is exactly how gays are created by nature (I'm using nature very broadly).

Please don't take up space on this board any longer with this silly point. It's immutable. No one but you seems to question that.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Obviously, the gay case for equal rights, both morally and Constitutionally, doesn't begin and end with immutablity. Otherwise, yes, pedophiles could make the same case. The other factors you mentioned are certainly relevant. That's why I noted to Creekster that these are consenting adults, and this is the only means of meaningful romantic love and full societal recognition of the legitimcay of that love.

Unless you're guided by religious scruple to the exclusion of reason and empiricism, recognizing the gay condition is immutable ought to lead easily to an affirmative answer to the question, is gay marriage the kindo activity society wants to encourage? If heterosexual marriage regardless of fertility or children is worthy of societal facilitation and imprimitur, then why not gay marriage (ignoring the fact that many gays will want to adopt and there is no shortage of children unwanted by their birth parents, not to mention artificial insemination, etc.)?

Ignoring immutablity evades the really tough issue, and the the overwhelming evidence and common sense that will some day make this a Civil Righs issue to the U.S. Supreme Court. A scientific consensus on immutability seems to me to lead inexorably to that result.

I'm not ignoring it SU, I'm taking it as a given. I'm not sure what issue that evades. My point is that this is a moral question. Some people's morality is informed by religious belief and others by reason and empiricism, some by both.

I could be wrong but I don't think we will ever see that as a right in the federal constitution. I would prefer to see it stay an issue for the states to grapple with. I don't begrudge MA its desire to have it nor UT its desire not to. In fact, whatever the outcome in CA I think it has taken the right approach by putting this issue to the people.

As I say, I don't oppose it but am not rabidly in favor of it either. It is a unique issue with no analog.

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

It does.

You can't. That's why this is so hard for many people.

Oh, brother. All of the truly terrible and awful things (starvation, abuse, torture, not to mention every imaginable type of mental and physical birth defect) that an all-loving God "allows" to happen to innocent children. And the fact that God allows genetic homosexuality is supposed to be disprove His existence?

You guys have officially lost all perspective on this issue. Being gay is most definitively not the only thing that can prevent a person from getting married and living happily ever after in this life.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

All of the truly terrible and awful things (starvation, abuse, torture, not to mention every imaginable type of mental and physical birth defect) that an all-loving God "allows" to happen to innocent children. And the fact that God allows genetic homosexuality is supposed to be disprove His existence?

This is correct. It is the age old problem of pain. This is one incarnation of it and it does not at all mean that God needs to be rethought. I don't personally know why awful things are allowed to be but as I think about my own limited perspective I am inclined to believe there is a lot I can't see from where I stand.

I think it is perfectly understandable for a religion to say "this is wrong and God expects you to abstain from it." I also think it is very understandable for a human being to say "thats a nice theory, but I'm not going to miss out of the most important experiences in life on your say so;I'll take my chances."

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

Oh, brother. All of the truly terrible and awful things (starvation, abuse, torture, not to mention every imaginable type of mental and physical birth defect) that an all-loving God "allows" to happen to innocent children. And the fact that God allows genetic homosexuality is supposed to be disprove His existence?

You guys have officially lost all perspective on this issue. Being gay is most definitively not the only thing that can prevent a person from getting married and living happily ever after in this life.

Bad analogy. The proper analogy is if God said you're a bad persn and you're going to hell if you're alergic to peanuts because peanuts are a sacred food and part of the Lord's sacrament. People undertand tragedy as a part of God's plan. Not God punishing someone in the hereafter or with bad karma because of a physical trait they didn't cause. Surely you see the difference.