Homosexuality as sexist

[ManOnFire]

The part I bolded is not true. Even concerning traits nobody disputes are genetic, a 100% coincidence rate is absent. Genetics is far more complex than simply having a gene and displaying a phenotype.

Identical twins have identical genotypes. Let’s flip the argument the other way. If there exists a gay gene, then both twins would have the gay genotype. If 80% of the second twins are heterosexual as the large Australian study found, then that would mean that the hetero phenotype overpowered the gay genotype, which supports your point that pheno might be more important than geno, but then that would also apply if there’s no gay gene. Your argument about phenotype is correct, but in my example of a gay gene, since concordance among twins is not 100%, then your claim that phenotype changes the genotype would still be correct: except the results would support my point: that the sexual behavior of either twin was due to phenotype, not genotype. For the sake of objectivity, the point could be argued in both directions. I wish we knew. It would improve understanding.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Of course, I suggest it is unconscious. Men who become homosexuals have an unconscious fear of women. Similarly, men who are chauvinist have an unconscious fear of women.

I think a lot of homosexuals are conservatives, or at least social conservatives. Wasn’t J Edgar Hoover one?

Do you have any proof of this?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I have seen some subcultures within the homosexual community that definitely are sexist. I’ve seen radical feminist lesbians who have no problem using anonymous sperm donors to conceive children, but whine and squeal about how men objectify women. I’ve seen men who are so repulsed by women that they believe that men should behave as radical feminists say they do, and that they should be treated preferentially to women as radical feminists say they are. I don’t think this answer was exactly what the person who started this thread was looking for, but I think it says a lot about the motivations of the homosexual community.

Honestly, if hating and despising women made a man homosexual then we would have a lot more gay men. And the reverse is true of women.

If hating men makes a woman a lesbian then why aren’t most radical Feminists gay?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

No, that is pretty much hitting the nail on the head- that homesexuality is contrary to gender equity.

How?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Sure- It is genetically programmed in us to be attracted to members of the opposite sex. An orientation or action contrary to this implies a movement (conscious or unconscious) to disempower those of the opposite sex.

A homosexual may say and think they are not interested in people of the opposite sex, but biologically and at the deepest level of mental and physical hardwiring, they still are.

For a person to say the are not interested in the opposite sex, is like someone saying they have no desire or interest at all in eating food. It is contrary to physical and biological reality.

According to your logic the Virgin Mary was prejudiced against men since she never lusted (i.e. felt physical desire) for a man

Moreover, what about all the Catholic saints who supposedly conquered their baser impulses?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You are asking for proof why opposite sex attraction is hardwired into living beings??? That fact that (biolgically, scientifically) the purpose of sexual activity is reproduction, which occurs between a male and female. It’s pretty obvious, I would have thought.

So what?

Humans are clearly evolved to live on land, and that’s what most people do (and prefer).

Does that mean that those who prefer to live at sea are mentally ill (and hate land-dwellers)

 

[Qoeleth]

Do you have any proof of this?

It’s a theory.

 

[Qoeleth]

So what?

Humans are clearly evolved to live on land, and that’s what most people do (and prefer).

Does that mean that those who prefer to live at sea are mentally ill (and hate land-dwellers)

If a human being prefered to live in the water, yes, it would make them mentally ill.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

**By being hetrosexual, you are allowing females there proper place and dignity in society. To that extent, you are limiting the power of your fellow males. (In a good way- by giving some status to women). **
Eating disorers are disorders, not natural propensities. Maybe not kidding, but ‘deluding’ might be a better word.

P.S. I could ask for “Evidence?” for every statement you make. It is an annoying and tedious form of argument. You can either disagree or agree with an observation or proposition, but there is no obligation to provide evidence for every observation or comment.

Women are defined by more than their sexuality.
As I understand it, that is the Catholic position.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

By being hetrosexual, you are allowing females there proper place and dignity in society. To that extent, you are limiting the power of your fellow males. (In a good way- by giving some status to women).

Eating disorers are disorders, not natural propensities. Maybe not kidding, but ‘deluding’ might be a better word.

P.S. I could ask for “Evidence?” for every statement you make. It is an annoying and tedious form of argument. You can either disagree or agree with an observation or proposition, but there is no obligation to provide evidence for every observation or comment.

If you make an outrageous claim, you need to provide proof to be taken seriously.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

If a human being prefered to live in the water, yes, it would make them mentally ill.

You’re consistent I will give you that much.

 

[62Joy]

Quote from Ex “A bit off topic but gay marriage would destroy the very definition of marriage and that is how it effects your marriage and everyone’s. Fighting to be married is mostly a part of demanding to be accepted by society by defining the behavior as normal. Marriage is an institution for creating and raising children something self proclaimed gays can not do if they follow the nature they claim to be powerless to stop”

The very way you say things like “self proclaimed”, “demanding”. “they claim” - says you have no understanding or tolerance for gay people. I don’t believe that most people going into a hetrosexual marriage think of marriage as solely a legal institution to breed children. I know I got married because I loved my husband and wanted to be with him. Our children are a result of that love but the love would be there even if we could not have children.

In the case of gay marriage, we are using old ideas to judge these people. The older I get the more I realize that things I use to believe - I can no longer believe because of personal experience, reading, prayer or conscience. There is no way I can judge someone for being who they were born to be. Othere have talked about their “cross to carry”, etc. Right now, our Pope, who is probably the most far right one we have had in years has said that the Church will no longer ordain gay priests. I think that is hypocritical since we have so many gay priests now. I read he said that gay men who are already ordained will not be effected by the ruling. But, I had to ask myself, if I was an ordained priest who was gay how would I feel about myself after that ruling. It seems the church is marching backward. I know many of you will say if the church says it - that makes it so. Keep in mind that for years the church discouraged people from reading the Bible.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Identical twins have identical genotypes. Let’s flip the argument the other way. If there exists a gay gene, then both twins would have the gay genotype. If 80% of the second twins are heterosexual as the large Australian study found, then that would mean that the hetero phenotype overpowered the gay genotype, which supports your point that pheno might be more important than geno, but then that would also apply if there’s no gay gene.

This doesn’t make much sense to me. A phenotype is the physical expression of a trait due to a genetic cause. My point about genetics being more complex than having a particular genotype and exhibit a phenotype is to be taken to mean that there are dozens of steps between having a particular DNA sequence and the actual expression of that sequence and that even with things nobody doubts is due to genetics (like eye color) you will not find 100% co-incidence among monozygotic twins. Your statement "if there were a gene we’d expect twins to share a sexual orientation 100% of the time is just false.

 

[exnihilo]

The very way you say things like “self proclaimed”, “demanding”. “they claim” - says you have no understanding or tolerance for gay people.

Well they are self proclaimed. They claim to have an attraction to members of the same sex. I have not experienced this so all I can say is they proclaim that. They are demanding concessions from the rest of society. And yes, my tolerance is decreasing every day as they seek to destroy the foundation of civilization.

I don’t believe that most people going into a hetrosexual marriage think of marriage as solely a legal institution to breed children.

No argument there as marriage has been well enough destroyed by non-homosexuals. But marriage was classically understood as the foundation of a family, not a love partnering. This modern error is what allows the idea of gay marriage to be thinkable at all. The idea of licensing and regulating love partnerships would be called absurd, but that is what we are talking about. Replacing love partnership with marriage seems to turn people’s brains off.

There is no way I can judge someone for being who they were born to be.

Are you sure that is true? I think it more likely you will not judge people for being the way they were born to be if you consider their actions moral. If we find that murderers can’t help it will you then not judge them? If we find pedophiles cant help their attraction (which would seem to be the case since apparently sexual attraction is uncontrolable and irresistible), will you judge them?

Right now, our Pope, who is probably the most far right one we have had in years has said that the Church will no longer ordain gay priests. I think that is hypocritical since we have so many gay priests now. I read he said that gay men who are already ordained will not be effected by the ruling.

I’m not Catholic but I’m pretty sure the Catholic Church has never officially approved the ordination of practicing homosexuals. In fact in the Inquisition one of the problems rooted out was pederasty.

It seems the church is marching backward.

From my perspective the Catholic Church is tightening things up after allowing too much freedom and bad experimentation like the Mainline Protestants churches. From my perspective the Catholic Church is becoming one of the few institutional voices of sanity.

 

[fix]

In the case of gay marriage, we are using old ideas to judge these people. The older I get the more I realize that things I use to believe - I can no longer believe because of personal experience, reading, prayer or conscience.

Neat trick. Does that work if we change things to racism or genocide?

There is no way I can judge someone for being who they were born to be.

I hope you judge behavior. If not, then anything goes.

Right now, our Pope, who is probably the most far right one we have had in years has said that the Church will no longer ordain gay priests. I think that is hypocritical since we have so many gay priests now. I read he said that gay men who are already ordained will not be effected by the ruling. But, I had to ask myself, if I was an ordained priest who was gay how would I feel about myself after that ruling.

I hope there are no people calling themselves “gay” priests because gay is a contrived political term.

It seems the church is marching backward. I know many of you will say if the church says it - that makes it so. Keep in mind that for years the church discouraged people from reading the Bible.

No, that is not true. The Church did not want people to read incorrect biblical translations.

 

[ManOnFire]

Your statement "if there were a gene we’d expect twins to share a sexual orientation 100% of the time is just false.

I can see how it wouldn’t be 100% if some were being dishonest on the survey, or if learned behavior is stronger than genetic behavior.

 

[ManOnFire]

I thought much of it is due to differences in personality types, such as those stemming from a misunderstanding of sensitive, creative, vulnerable boys who want nothing to do with a bull-in-a-china-shop scary woman.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

ManOnFire:

I think we’re talking past each other. I hope I can clear some things up:

Behaviorial genetics almost always involves more than one gene, simply because behavior is too complex to be reduced to a single gene, which more often than not codes for a single protein. Furthermore, in all genetic cases, simply having a gene doesn’t mean a person will express that gene. To begin, a gene has to be copied into an RNA molecule (which is very similar to DNA), and then that RNA copy has to be translated into a protein by an organelle which itself is constituted by RNA (and thus has its own genes to code for the structure!). For any gene to be transcribed into RNA takes a host of transcription factors, which are proteins which themselves are created by separate genes. You might have a particular gene for a particular trait, but if the transcription factors necessary to produce the effects of that gene cannot be made (due to the effects of a different gene) then you won’t express the trait indicative of that gene.

Once you have a functional RNA copy, a tRNA molecule has to facilitate its translation into protein (and, yes, that tRNA has its own genes to code for itself). As you could see, the problem becomes compounded in that the simplistic genetics we’re taught in introductory biology isn’t true. For example, we’re taught (correctly) that sickle cell anemia is due to a single gene, namely the HgbS gene on Human Chromosome 11. If you have one copy of this gene, you have partial sickle cell, if you have two copies you have full blown sickle cell. The odd thing is that there exists individuals who have one copy of this gene yet exhibit nothing resembling sickle cell phenotype (i.e. sickled shaped red blood cells). Why is this? Its due to another gene mutation on chromosome 15 (rSwns)which corrects the initial sickle cell condition. In this case we’ve found a genetic cause for a condition (sickle cell) which can be alleviated by another genetic cause. In both cases, the cause is undoubtedly genetic.

There are other cases of obvious genetic diseases which can be corrected by changes in cell biochemistry, resulting in the lack of expression of a gene an individual nonetheless carries. This is what I meant by the complexities of genetics.

We have very strong evidence of sexual orientation being biological, and more than that, genetic (see the references I cited earlier, particularly the first three). You will never find a 100% co-incidence rate among monozygotic twins for anything simply because the genetic expression of our DNA depends on more than just the mere DNA sequence.

 

[ManOnFire]

ManOnFire:

I think we’re talking past each other. I hope I can clear some things up:

Behaviorial genetics almost always involves more than one gene, simply because behavior is too complex to be reduced to a single gene, which more often than not codes for a single protein. Furthermore, in all genetic cases, simply having a gene doesn’t mean a person will express that gene. To begin, a gene has to be copied into an RNA molecule (which is very similar to DNA), and then that RNA copy has to be translated into a protein by an organelle which itself is constituted by RNA (and thus has its own genes to code for the structure!). For any gene to be transcribed into RNA takes a host of transcription factors, which are proteins which themselves are created by separate genes. You might have a particular gene for a particular trait, but if the transcription factors necessary to produce the effects of that gene cannot be made (due to the effects of a different gene) then you won’t express the trait indicative of that gene.

Once you have a functional RNA copy, a tRNA molecule has to facilitate its translation into protein (and, yes, that tRNA has its own genes to code for itself). As you could see, the problem becomes compounded in that the simplistic genetics we’re taught in introductory biology isn’t true. For example, we’re taught (correctly) that sickle cell anemia is due to a single gene, namely the HgbS gene on Human Chromosome 11. If you have one copy of this gene, you have partial sickle cell, if you have two copies you have full blown sickle cell. The odd thing is that there exists individuals who have one copy of this gene yet exhibit nothing resembling sickle cell phenotype (i.e. sickled shaped red blood cells). Why is this? Its due to another gene mutation on chromosome 15 (rSwns)which corrects the initial sickle cell condition. In this case we’ve found a genetic cause for a condition (sickle cell) which can be alleviated by another genetic cause. In both cases, the cause is undoubtedly genetic.

There are other cases of obvious genetic diseases which can be corrected by changes in cell biochemistry, resulting in the lack of expression of a gene an individual nonetheless carries. This is what I meant by the complexities of genetics.

We have very strong evidence of sexual orientation being biological, and more than that, genetic (see the references I cited earlier, particularly the first three). You will never find a 100% co-incidence rate among monozygotic twins for anything simply because the genetic expression of our DNA depends on more than just the mere DNA sequence.

To help us from talking past each other, here is the opinion about how genetics affects behavior from The Human Genome Project website:

“There are several scientific obstacles to correlating genotype (an individual’s genetic endowment) and behavior. One problem is in defining a specific endpoint that characterizes a condition, be it schizophrenia or intelligence. Another problem is in identifying and excluding other possible causes of the condition, thereby permitting a determination of the significance of a supposed correlation. Much current research on genes and behavior also engenders very strong feelings because of the potential social and political consequences of accepting these supposed truths. Thus, more than any other aspect of genetics, discoveries in behavioral genetics should not be viewed as irrefutable until there has been substantial scientific corroboration.”
ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/behavior.shtml

So, they basically cannot say how much behavior is learned vs. genetics.

Progressives would not mind “growing” the numbers of homosexuals because it decreases their fears of world overpopulation. One can claim that it would actually be a partial cure for overpopulation. The research says that homosexuality is created in cases of child sexual abuse by an adult of the same gender, and we’ve seen women turn into lesbians after their husbands cheated on them, so the original post raises interesting questions. If the progressives are intentionally promoting sexist tensions, I think it is more likely intended to “save the planet” from too much true love. Sad if true, but I certainly don’t expect progressives to admit it.

 

[JDFatalist]

I suggest that the recent rise of homosexuality is a reaction made by a patriarchical culture to the movement to give women equal rights. Homosexuals are trying to derive women even of the status in human relationships.

A homosexual is effectively saying “I can go ahead and have a sexual relationship without including women, without having the consent of a woman.” Homosexuality seems to be all about reducing the power and status of women- of making them unnecessary. I think, in spirit and effect, it is almost akin to rape.

Does anyone else see it this way?

I doubt the rise of homosexuality is due to women’s rights-- the fact is that society is becoming more secular and homosexuality is becoming accepted (finally) as a norm. Lots of homosexuals who would ordinarily hide their homosexuality from strict families now have more secular traditions that make coming out easier. There is comfort in acceptance.

How you can tell me that you know what homosexuals are saying is beyond me, and how this in turn reduces women’s power is even stranger to me. And I can’t possibly fathom how this is like rape at all, it almost sounds like you are blaming homosexuals for coming out