Gay Marriage and the Social Issues Surrounding It

[Bradski]

Just a note on definition of the word “theory.”

I’m pretty certain that anyone who uses the word ‘theory’ in regard to evolution knows full well the scientific meaning of the word. But thanks anyway Julia for reminding those who keep playing the same worn out joker.

I’m sure you meant the APA, obviously the American Medical Association as a whole doesn’t vote, but the reason the majority of the APA didn’t vote is because the majority never does, just those who attend the APA convention.

My bad on the APA – typo…And I agree that the majority doesn’t vote. They are not voting on, for example, whether homosexuality should be classed as a disorder. The decision had been made and they were simply asked to rubber stamp it. Despite Socradides trying to drum up support to oppose the findings, he was unable to do so.

Bradski ma man…Science?

Ma man? Anyway, let’s agree that Psychiatry is far from a pure science. If you make decisions based on evidence (or lack of it), then you can use another term if you prefer. But what you are asking me to believe is that that the APA made a bad decision and that homosexuality is a disorder. I should point out that even people who support you disagree.

I don’t think homosexuality is a disease…

Although I’m not sure that anyone has actually termed it a disease. And you are asking me to believe that every organisation in all countries that you’d class as civilised have been fooled into doing exactly the same as the APA?You really have to stretch crdulity to accept that.

… if humans came from apes are there still apes producing humans?

Good grief. I didn’t know that people still used that argument. This is Crocaduck stuff.

Same sex attraction…is a theory, not fact. Like the notion of left handedness…

So a woman is only ‘theoretrically’ attracted to her partner? And left handedness is a theory? Tell me that was a typo.

 

[atheistgirl]

…well then maybe I should say…get real Julia if humans came from apes are there still apes producing humans?

If you knew anything at all about evolution, considering you have a BS in Zoology (or does the BS stand for something else ) you would know we didn’t ‘‘come from’’ apes. We are apes

Our common ancestor was a monkey

*warning: The following video is very informative and educational, however, unfortunately the author includes clips from shows that include swearing. Do not watch is this offends.

youtube.com/watch?v=Pn7NpDFELmI&feature=related

Sarah x

 

[Bradski]

I’ve heard the argument before,that homosexuality is genetically determined. If so, it is obviously a disadvantageous trait, since it contributes nothing to the survival of the species- quite the contrary.

It’s not disadvantageous. It’s entirely neutral from an evolutionary perspective. If a few percentage of people born are genetically determined not to be able to produce offspring, then it doesn’t affect the survival of the population as a whole.

If being gay was disadvantageous in evolutionary terms and genetically determined then same sex attraction wouldn’t exist.

If you knew anything at all about evolution, considering you have a BS in Zoology (or does the BS stand for something else ) you would know we didn’t ‘‘come from’’ apes. We are apes

Zoology /zoʊˈɒlədʒi/, occasionally spelled zoölogy, is the branch of biology that relates to the animal kingdom, including the structure, embryology, evolution etc

Maybe the evolutionary aspects were optional.

 

[Faithdancer]

If you knew anything at all about evolution, considering you have a BS in Zoology (or does the BS stand for something else ) you would know we didn’t ‘‘come from’’ apes. We are apes

Our common ancestor was a monkey

*warning: The following video is very informative and educational, however, unfortunately the author includes clips from shows that include swearing. Do not watch is this offends.

youtube.com/watch?v=Pn7NpDFELmI&feature=related

Sarah x

We are not “apes” and we did not come from “monkeys.” The taxonomy of hominids is completely at variance with these statements.

 

[Faithdancer]

If being gay was disadvantageous in evolutionary terms and genetically determined then same sex attraction wouldn’t exist.

There are all sorts of deletorious traits which are passed from one generation to the next: hemophilia, Tay-Sachs disease, Downs syndrome…and when those who “carry” the genes for these genetic disorders reproduce, their offspring have a statistically higher probability of inheriting the deletorious gene. These genes can be phenotypically expressed, just as “same sex attraction” is expressed in the overt behavior of the homosexual. These diseases are always “caused” by recessive genes.

But wait…are you arguing that homosexuality is not genetically determined? Homosexuality is either genetically determined, or it isn’t. If it is, it is either disadvantageous to the survival of the species, or it is advantageous. There is no “neutral” since homosexuality directly correlates with reproduction. That is not to say that with the current low percentage of the population that is homosexual, there is danger of extinction due to homosexuality. But what level of incidence of homosexuality in the population would begin to threaten survival of the species? And, directly addressing the topic of this thread, will gay “marriage” increase the incidence of homosexuality in the population, either due to inheritance of the recessive “homosexual gene” or due to the environmental influence of homosexuals raising children (if one denies the inheritability of homosexuality)?

 

[Acrossthedesert]

Across,

I think you might want to spend some time reading Veritatis Splendor…John Paul II disagrees with you…

I can see nothing contradictory to what I stated with Catholic teachings. Please, clarify.

Man is able to recognize good and evil thanks to that discernment of good from evil which he himself carries out by his reason, in particular by his reason enlightened by Divine Revelation and by faith, through the law which God gave to the Chosen People, beginning with the commandments on Sinai.

Man is able to recognize good and evil. However, when man denies divine revelation he is lost. He has no compass. As Adam and Eve denied the perogative of God, so goes sin… so goes his ego, blinding him from seeing the truth, from objectively discerning good from evil.

Here is a good example of modern day pride which echoes back to Adam and Eve.

Supreme Court-Planned parenthood vs. Casey: At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.

God made the universe. God defined marriage. God is at the heart of liberty. Taking on the perogative of God, the centrality of God, is the defintion of sin itself. Don’t you agree?

 

[atheistgirl]

We are not “apes” and we did not come from “monkeys.” The taxonomy of hominids is completely at variance with these statements.

sigh

Sarah x

 

[Acrossthedesert]

Your first point is contradictory. You say that we are not equal in rights (I’d agree that there is little equality - it depends where you are born, to whom etc) but then you quote the Declaration of Independence to show that we are indeed equal.

Reformulation: 1) People are “equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” For example, we have a natural right to speak, to religion, to assemble etc.

Your second point, that a marriage license is not an automatic right, is correct. Certain people can’t get married. But that point doesn’t follow from your first. It can stand alone whether we have equal, inalienable rights or not. That’s what the debate is about.

Reformulation 2) People do not have a natural right to a marriage licence. Licenses are given by governments (men) to bestow benefits.

Your third, that people wanted to encourage marriage because of their Christian beliefs, is irrelevant, whether it is correct or not.

Your last statement, that ‘voting’ for gay marriage is promoting homosexuality behaviour has nothing at all to do with any of the preceding points and is not a valid argument in itself. Let’s be clear: I am not promoting homosexuality. I am not supporting a gay ‘lifestye’. I am not encouraging any type of sexual behaviour.

1. The laws concerning marriage licenses and the associated benefits were written to encourage/promote marriage according to society’s Christian beliefs.

Reformulation 4) Therefore, gay marriage is not about equality. Gay marriage is about promoting the acceptance of the “gay lifestyle”.

1. People are righteous not to support gay marriage in that promoting this “lifestyle” is contrary to their beliefs.

For example, Catholics are righteous to oppose gay marriage because promoting a “gay lifestyle” is contrary to the mandates of their Church, its Sacred Tradition, and the natural law.

What is my business, because it affects people I know and family members, is whether they should be denied the opportunity to get married simply because of their gender.

Yes, your family, your friends, and others are definitely your business. I have family and friends as well. And they are my business. They want to be accepted… I get that. I accept them as sinners just like the rest of us.

"if you want to corrupt a culture, first corrupt their language"

By the way, there are two definitions for diatribe. The first is 'a bitter or abusive piece of writing’. The second is ‘ironic or satirical criticism’. I used to be guilty of the first but I’d agree with you that I am, occasionally, guilty of the second.

I do try my best not to let it descend into sarcasm.

I have already been read the riot act by my fellow Catholics on the sarcasm of my reply. Uncharitable to say the least. I guess I felt a bit put off by your initial response.** I apologize. ** You are a bigger man than I. Thank you for your thorough reply…

 

[Acrossthedesert]

It’s not disadvantageous. It’s entirely neutral from an evolutionary perspective. If a few percentage of people born are genetically determined not to be able to produce offspring, then it doesn’t affect the survival of the population as a whole.

If being gay was disadvantageous in evolutionary terms and genetically determined then same sex attraction wouldn’t exist.

Does the argument go like this?

1. People are born genetically gay.
2. Being gay means that they are attracted to the same sex.
3. Therefore, gay marriage is just.

How about an analogous argument…

1. People are born genetically with tendencies.
2. Experience and genetics are so intertwined that nobody can determine if either is the more determinable cause.
3. Therefore, no argument for or against predetermination can be verified.
4. Corrolary: Therefore discussions concerning predetermination is irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage.

An argument from the ethical side…

1. People are born with tendencies.
2. God has never asked us to follow our tendencies
3. God has always asked us to follow him
4. Therefore, to follow God does not necessarily mean we should follow our tendencies

My brother has a tendency toward violence but we expect him to…
I have met little kids who have a strong tendency to lie, but we expect them to…

Some people have a tendency to addiction, but we hope and pray that they…

 

[Bradski]

Yes, your family, your friends, and others are definitely your business. I have family and friends as well. And they are my business. They want to be accepted… I get that. I accept them as sinners just like the rest of us.

No problem that you want to class them as sinners. You can argue gay marriage from that perspective.

I have already been read the riot act by my fellow Catholics on the sarcasm of my reply. Uncharitable to say the least. I guess I felt a bit put off by your initial response.** I apologize. ** You are a bigger man than I. Thank you for your thorough reply…

No need for an apology. We all let off steam at times…

And in response to your post above, can I presume that you are attracted to members of the opposite sex? I’ll also assume that you feel that it is an entirely natural tendency on your part. That you din’t make a conscious decision in this regard.

You must appreciate that someone who is gay also feels exactly the same way. Whatever the reasons.

 

[Acrossthedesert]

No problem that you want to class them as sinners. You can argue gay marriage from that perspective.

We are all sinners. I don’t think it can be a classification if there only exists one class. right?

And in response to your post above, can I presume that you are attracted to members of the opposite sex? I’ll also assume that you feel that it is an entirely natural tendency on your part. That you din’t make a conscious decision in this regard.

You must appreciate that someone who is gay also feels exactly the same way. Whatever the reasons.

I think I sent this to you earlier. In any case I would appreciate your opinion.

Does the argument go like this?

1. People are born genetically gay.
2. Being gay means that they are attracted to the same sex.
3. Therefore, gay marriage is just.

How about an analogous argument…

1. People are born genetically with tendencies.
2. Experience and genetics are so intertwined that nobody can determine if either is the more determinable cause.
3. Therefore, no argument for or against predetermination can be verified.
4. Corrolary: Therefore discussions concerning predetermination is irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage.

An argument from the ethical side…

1. People are born with tendencies.
2. God has never asked us to follow our tendencies
3. God has always asked us to follow him
4. Therefore, to follow God does not necessarily mean we should follow our tendencies

My brother has a tendency toward violence but we expect him to…
I have met little kids who have a strong tendency to lie, but we expect them to…

Some people have a tendency to addiction, but we hope and pray that they…

 

[Acrossthedesert]

No problem that you want to class them as sinners. You can argue gay marriage from that perspective.

We are all sinners. I don’t think it can be a classification if there only exists one class. right?

And in response to your post above, can I presume that you are attracted to members of the opposite sex? I’ll also assume that you feel that it is an entirely natural tendency on your part. That you din’t make a conscious decision in this regard.

You must appreciate that someone who is gay also feels exactly the same way. Whatever the reasons.

Yes, I understand because I am a sinner. There is three was of dealing with sin:

1. Moral-Subjectivism, I am good, I did this, so this must be good.
2. Moral-Exclusionary, yes that is good, but I am a pig and pigs can’t help being pigish.
3. Moral-Redemption, I have done wrong but I want to do right, so with divine help, I will try to do better.

When immersed in sin, #3 seems insurmountable/impossible and even tortuous. Pick up your cross and follow him. Blessed are they who mourn, for they will be comforted.
This is very difficult for outsiders to grasp, but the video may help:Father Barron-> youtube.com/watch?v=N4Bb4UDypi0

I think I sent this to you earlier. In any case I would appreciate your opinion.

Does the argument go like this?

1. People are born genetically gay.
2. Being gay means that they are attracted to the same sex.
3. Therefore, gay marriage is just.

How about an analogous argument…

1. People are born genetically with tendencies.
2. Experience and genetics are so intertwined that nobody can determine if either is the more determinable cause.
3. Therefore, no argument for or against predetermination can be verified.
4. Corrolary: Therefore discussions concerning predetermination is irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage.

An argument from the ethical side…

1. People are born with tendencies.
2. God has never asked us to follow our tendencies
3. God has always asked us to follow him
4. Therefore, to follow God does not necessarily mean we should follow our tendencies

My brother has a tendency toward violence but we expect him to…
I have met little kids who have a strong tendency to lie, but we expect them to…

Some people have a tendency to addiction, but we hope and pray that they…

 

[Bradski]

In regards to the above, I think it’s probably genetic. Most of what I’ve read emphasises this, but it’s not my area of expertise.

 

[PRmerger]

In regards to the above, I think it’s probably genetic. Most of what I’ve read emphasises this, but it’s not my area of expertise.

Genetics as an explanation for why we are not quite as we intend ourselves to be (or, from the Believer’s POV: why we are not as God intended us to be) is very Catholic.

For there certainly has to be some sort of explanation for why we are like this!

One need only look at the newspaper to prompt the question, “Why, oh why, are we like this? Surely this is not how it was supposed to work out!”

 

[PRmerger]

And why do you put the word atheist in quotes? If I said: I’m not trying to tell “Christians” how to live their life it would come across as mildly insulting. Do you do that thing with your fingers when you say the word?

Edit: just saw your post explaining this. To be honest, it doesn’t wash. Most Catholics don’t follow all the teachings of the church and I would still be adverse to describing them as “Christians”. ‘Atheist’ is such a simple term but a lot of Christians seem to have a problem with it. If you were doing a crossword and the clue was: Someone who doesn’t believe in gods (7 letters), would you put it in quotes, thinking: well, it should be agnostic, but there’s too many letters in that?

The distinction between atheist and agnostic is important.

For you to be atheist, as I understand it, is to declare: There is no god.

To be an agnostic is to say: I don’t know if there is a god or not, but so far there is no evidence that compels me to believe.

Now, unless you can say definitively “There is no god!” you must be an agnostic, yes?

(And how is it that you could know this “truth”: “there is no god” unless you were, well, omniscient, right? And if you were omniscient then…
you are a god, and your premise fails. )

 

[Julia_Mae]

I’ve heard the argument before,that homosexuality is genetically determined. **If so, it is obviously a disadvantageous trait, since it contributes nothing to the survival of the species- quite the contrary. **Allowing gay couples to reproduce either via surrogates or in vitro could increase the prevalence of the trait in the population. How could this be a good thing for Homo sapiens sapiens?

I want to address the bolded part. You probably have heard the phrase “survival of the fittest.” That doesn’t mean “the biggest and baddest win.” It actually means the ones who have the most offspring who have the most offspring" have the greatest “Darwinian fitness.” That is: they *fit *better into their environments and succeed at living.

Now we add genes to the mix. To have a high fitness level, your genes have to survive and spread through the population. How can that happen if you don’t have offspring? Your genes are the same, in very large part, as your siblings. So,** how does same gender attraction make evolutionary sense so strongly that we see it in almost every vertebrate species we have studied?**

Your genes won’t survive to the next generation if the children that carry them don’t survive. Let’s take a model of a large family living on a farm. In this family there is a “bachelor” uncle. His genes are in every one of the children his sister has. It is to his biological advantage to help those kids survive. Does he know that? Nope. But nature does. It’s his family group. He is an extra hand helping produce more food for everyone. If he has a job, he increases resources in that way. If there is an attack, he is another adult to defend the homestead. If the father dies, he is there to protect and preserve the family and make sure the kids grow up.

But what if he is not a bachelor? What if he marries? If he stays, and she has many children there might not be enough resources. Less food can mean weakness and vulnerability to disease in children and miscarriage in the women. Or he might leave and the family loses the advantages he gives. In socially organized species, like chimps and humans and others, you see this in the successful family clans within the tribe or troop: “gay” members who stay with the family and make it stronger and increase the fitness of the individuals in it. Including themselves.

“Gayness” is a trait nature selects for because it increases fitness and greatly contributes to the survival and growth of a species.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I’m pretty certain that anyone who uses the word ‘theory’ in regard to evolution knows full well the scientific meaning of the word. But thanks anyway Julia for reminding those who keep playing the same worn out joker…

I don’t think they do. They think it means “guess.” Maybe I’m wrong, I’ve been fighting this kind of misunderstanding online for almost twenty years now.

OTOH, there was one fundamentalist who was around the old AOL forums and he kept repeating things I knew very well he knew were not true. I PMed him and asked how he could be a Christian and lie on purpose like that. He responded that it’s fine to lie for Jesus Who is the greatest Truth.

How can that possibly relate to the topic? What is the Church doing in this fight over civil law? The social issues are going to include more of a shift away from the Church, and not just ours, if moral decisions aren’t based first and most thoroughly in compassion and charity and not legality.

The social implications of widespread acceptance of same sex union and the integration of the formerly vilified, attacked, marginalized people are staggeringly positive.

We can’t keep being mean and rigid because Jesus is the greatest kindness. WE have to become that, it’s our job.

 

[rossum]

I want to address the bolded part. You probably have heard the phrase “survival of the fittest.” That doesn’t mean “the biggest and baddest win.” It actually means the ones who have the most offspring who have the most offspring" have the greatest “Darwinian fitness.” That is: they *fit *better into their environments and succeed at living.

Now we add genes to the mix. To have a high fitness level, your genes have to survive and spread through the population. How can that happen if you don’t have offspring? Your genes are the same, in very large part, as your siblings. So,** how does same gender attraction make evolutionary sense so strongly that we see it in almost every vertebrate species we have studied?**

Your genes won’t survive to the next generation if the children that carry them don’t survive. Let’s take a model of a large family living on a farm. In this family there is a “bachelor” uncle. His genes are in every one of the children his sister has. It is to his biological advantage to help those kids survive. Does he know that? Nope. But nature does. It’s his family group. He is an extra hand helping produce more food for everyone. If he has a job, he increases resources in that way. If there is an attack, he is another adult to defend the homestead. If the father dies, he is there to protect and preserve the family and make sure the kids grow up.

But what if he is not a bachelor? What if he marries? If he stays, and she has many children there might not be enough resources. Less food can mean weakness and vulnerability to disease in children and miscarriage in the women. Or he might leave and the family loses the advantages he gives. In socially organized species, like chimps and humans and others, you see this in the successful family clans within the tribe or troop: “gay” members who stay with the family and make it stronger and increase the fitness of the individuals in it. Including themselves.

“Gayness” is a trait nature selects for because it increases fitness and greatly contributes to the survival and growth of a species.

You make some good points, however there is more to add. Some research in Italy, Why Gays don’t go Extinct, has indicated that there are genes, call them “he’s hunky” genes, which tend to result in women having more children and homosexuality in men.

The findings may help solve the puzzle of why, if homosexuality is hereditary, it hasn’t already disappeared from the gene pool, since gay people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals.

A team of researchers found that some female relatives of gay men tend to have more children than average. The scientists used a computer model to explain how two genes passed on through the maternal line could produce this effect.

rossum

 

[Julia_Mae]

Does the argument go like this?

1. People are born genetically gay.
2. Being gay means that they are attracted to the same sex.
3. Therefore, gay marriage is just.
   .

I think the argument goes like this:

1. Marriage in the US confers many tangible benefits on those who are married
2. Those benefits were only ascribed to people based on gender.
3. That’s discrimination.

 

[Julia_Mae]

You make some good points, however there is more to add. Some research in Italy, Why Gays don’t go Extinct, has indicated that there are genes, call them “he’s hunky” genes, which tend to result in women having more children and homosexuality in men.
The findings may help solve the puzzle of why, if homosexuality is hereditary, it hasn’t already disappeared from the gene pool, since gay people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals.

A team of researchers found that some female relatives of gay men tend to have more children than average. The scientists used a computer model to explain how two genes passed on through the maternal line could produce this effect.
rossum

Thanks very much for linking this. It dovetails with what I was saying, but I didn’t include the fact that “gayness” is most commonly found in large sibling sets. That is, women who have many children are most likely to have a child who has same gender attraction. Her female offspring are more likely to have more offspring.

Cool, isn’t it?