How did you react when same sex marriage became legal?

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Seriously? You actually believe that some people do not experience same sex attraction? (nevermind the acting on it)
Are you SERIOUS?

Are you some 71 year old person living in some sort of conservative religious bubble?

I am graduate level trained in the biological sciences and work in a profession just one step down from diagnostic pathologists (basically, lab medicine doctors).

I can tell you that many, if not all traits of humans have multi-factorial. This means that multiple “genes” can be involved, including something called heterochromatin, the complex proteins that sit on
DNA and are subject. Some traits are a combintion of genetics and environment.

Maybe there really is no one cause of SSA.

The idea that one gene causes one"thing" is so antiquated it’s probably older than my great-grandparents.

I do not feel SSA, I am a 30 year old men sexual attraction to women. I didn’t “choose” to be sexually aroused by certain women, I just am that way.

By the way, “blood tests” are not an adequate way to assay DNA. “Blood” contains erythrocytes and various monocytes and it is difficult to amplify DNA via PCR from these cells.

Just as there is no one “cancer” gene there probably isn’t a “gay gene”. This is all obvious to me, I don’t know about you.
For example, numerous rearragements of the ALK and EGFR genes cause a certain subset of lung carcinomas.

Thank you for the science lesson Doc. Very interesting comments about DNA and genes.

Please get back to me when you and your colleagues can PROVE that homosexuality is innate. In the mean time I will remain a “71 year old person living in some sort of conservative religious bubble” who maintains that homosexuality is acquired.

 

[JimG]

I suppose that at some point in the near future a doctor might tell an expectant mother, “Well, you are having twins! One is a boy and he is gay; the other is a girl who is bisexual with a strong tendency toward BDSM.”

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I suppose that at some point in the near future a doctor might tell an expectant mother, “Well, you are having twins! One is a boy and he is gay; the other is a girl who is bisexual with a strong tendency toward BDSM.”

…and that will be the day the rate of abortions begin to soar.

 

[JimG]

…and that will be the day the rate of abortions begin to soar.

The day that ‘sexual orientation’ is declared before birth is the day that laws prohibiting abortion on the basis of sexual orientation will have to be proposed.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I do not feel SSA, I am a 30 year old men sexual attraction to women. I didn’t “choose” to be sexually aroused by certain women, I just am that way.

I am not “graduate level trained in the biological sciences”…but I can tell you that you are attracted to women because that is what you are supposed to be attracted to. That is the basic natural design…right?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The day that ‘sexual orientation’ is declared before birth is the day that laws prohibiting abortion on the basis of sexual orientation will have to be proposed.

Abortion should be prohibited. PERIOD

 

[David_Goliath]

Thank you for the science lesson Doc. Very interesting comments about DNA and genes.

Please get back to me when you and your colleagues can PROVE that homosexuality is innate. In the mean time I will remain a “71 year old person living in some sort of conservative religious bubble” who maintains that homosexuality is acquired.

How is it that posts like these lack such a basic level of the understanding of genetics/biochemistry/physiology/molecular biology? Isn’t this taught in high school?
I went to a private boarding high school (college prep) so I am totally clueless as to what is taught. Even public schools teach biochemistry, right?
It is now common sense that single genes are not linearly related to phenotypes. Any trait of a person is a complex multifactorial collaboration of numerous of factors: genes, expression of genes, RNA, Rrna, siRNA, etc.

Basic biology:
Genes are composed of sequences of DNA that code for mRNA that code for proteins. Proteins work together with other proteins and other cells in complex cascade of events that lead to a biological outcome.
You are assuming everything works on a “one gene =one thing” system. I thought it was common sense that that is not true.

What do you mean by “innate”? Innate as in like an infant can be sexually attracted to the same or both sexes? What do you mean by “acquired”? Acquired as in a person later in life comes to realize that they are attracted to the same or both sexes and then “acquire” that identity?
The phrase “born gay” is so ambigious. We can’t prove that because you can’t ask a new born if he/she is gay. Some people just later in life realize they are attracted to the same or both sexes. “Born gay” is an overstated phrase that probably means something more like “I can’t remember exactly when I started feeling attracted to the same or both sexes”
Let me ask you this:
Can YOU choose now to be attracted to the same or both sexes? Didn’t think so.
(assuming you aren’t a conflicted closeted SSA person like Cardinal Keith O’Brien or George Rekers, google them, lots of anti-gays are closet cases because they are so internally conflicted).

Perhaps SSA is a rare occurence in nature. Many things in nature exist on a spectrum. Certain flower petals vary in shape and size. Maybe being “straight” is just the median…average. Maybe being straight just “normal” in that it is “statistically normal”.

---

I browsed this forum and have to say I am extremely disturbed. I seriously never thought people like some of you existed.

Some of you on this forum want to/are in favor of
**ban condoms for everyone
**ban birth control for everyone
**make pre-marital sex illegal for everyone
**have a Catholic state where other religions are “tolerated”, almost like the Dhimmi status proposed by some proponents of Islamic Sharia Law
*I’ve read posts of people angry that gay-straight alliances exists in even undergraduate colleges because “fat kids need bullying groups to” (in a sarcastic way)
*I’ve read tacit approval of anti gay laws in Uganda, Russia, and Nigeria
I have say I plan to leave this forum. I find the Catholicism on here to loaded with facist and totalitarian tendencies. I haven’t met any Catholics in real life like some on here. If you had it your way maybe Jews would be back in ghettos like in the 13th century.
*Some unable to just admit the problem of sexual abuse, others continuing to split hairs over words like pedophilia and ephebophilia, etc
*Trying to justify certain practices of the Crusades and Inquisition (like forcing Jewish children to listen to Christian sermons?)

For the record, my religious community (and LOTS of religious Jews throughout the world, even in Israel) sees the legalization of SSM to actually be Tikkun Olam: repairing the world. You don’t. Good for you.
Goodbye for good, everyone.
This is just all too disturbing for me. I do not feel the love of G-d among you (not just this thread but the whole forum) . One time I even cried. Many, many times I have actually experience a physical/visceral reaction in my abdominal area while reading posts around this forum.

Goodbye, CAF.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Goodbye, CAF.

Goodbye lab tech.

 

[Rau]

Thank you for the science lesson Doc. Very interesting comments about DNA and genes.

Please get back to me when you and your colleagues can PROVE that homosexuality is innate. In the mean time I will remain a “71 year old person living in some sort of conservative religious bubble” who maintains that homosexuality is acquired.

I’ve never understood why you feel the need to take a side in this debate (as to the cause of homosexuality). Nothing irrational or upsetting to established beliefs or facts would flow from a finding that biological factors influence sexual orientation.

In the same way, I’ve never understood why an atheist doesn’t keep an open mind that their might just be a God.

 

[Rau]

…You’re a Catholic. Your church teaches you that it is morally wrong. I can’t recall the Pope every saying that contraception, or sex outside marriage or any number of scenarios that the church says are immoral only apply to Catholics. Is there a preamble in the Catechism that says ‘Note: The following is only applicable to those of the Catholic faith’? If the Pope is asked about the morality of people having pre-marital sex, does he shrug his shoulders and say: ‘Hey, as Zoltan said, as long as they’re not Catholic who am I to say they are morally wrong’.

A closer read of the CCC will reveal that the above is in fact addressed. One can only sin by deliberately choosing what one knows to be wrong.

But the Church holds that morality - as opposed to culpability for a failure to act morally - is an absolute, like “truth”. So for example, masturbation is an immoral act. But a person who truly does not know this cannot sin by succumbing.

The question of what laws should be enacted and to what extent they should be informed by one’s beliefs about what is/is not moral is a far more difficult issue. In many countries, democratic processes are applied.

 

[Rau]

…What do you mean by “innate”? Innate as in like an infant can be sexually attracted to the same or both sexes? What do you mean by “acquired”? Acquired as in a person later in life comes to realize that they are attracted to the same or both sexes and then “acquire” that identity?

For an educated person, these seem poor guesses! By “innate”, he means that the SSA arises from the biology of the individual. Genetics needs not be particularly relevant. By acquired, he means that the person’s experience (learning) is the principal factor.

I browsed this forum and have to say I am extremely disturbed. I seriously never thought people like some of you existed.

Some of you on this forum want to/are in favor of
**ban condoms for everyone
**ban birth control for everyone
**make pre-marital sex illegal for everyone
**have a Catholic state where other religions are “tolerated”, almost like the Dhimmi status proposed by some proponents of Islamic Sharia Law

I’ve had considerably more time on this forum than you, and I’d suggest that the number of posters holding those views is tiny to the point of being insignificant. And I suspect that many of those you may have found to propose such a legal framework do so in an “idealistic” sense, not with a view to wanting to literally advocate for laws of the above kind in the context of the current community.

I haven’t met any Catholics in real life like some on here.

Which probably ought to tell you that “Catholics on here” aren’t really as you imagine from your “study” (I mean, “browsing”) of this forum.

 

[David_Goliath]

Goodbye lab tech.

You wrote in another thread:

"If a religion existed that called for the death penalty to be applied to heretics…and a government recognized that religion as the “state religion” it would it be a moral obligation for the state to punish heresy with the death penalty. "

Saudi Arabia has something similar.

 

[kozlosap]

David, please continue to post here and don’t feel like you are unwelcome!

 

[kozlosap]

Goodbye lab tech.

As the virtual Queen of the Snark Kingdom, I can in all honesty assert that your last comment to David was, indeed, quite snarky and uncalled for. You cannot just Snark away posters that are educated and present scientific facts that don’t happen to prove Zolton’s personal views.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I’ve never understood why you feel the need to take a side in this debate (as to the cause of homosexuality). Nothing irrational or upsetting to established beliefs or facts would flow from a finding that biological factors influence sexual orientation.

Oh yes it would.

If homosexuality were proven to be innate that would establish **equivalency ** between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

A primary reason for espousing the premise of equivalency is that it allows gay activists to exploit civil rights doctrines which otherwise would not apply. Discrimination, in the civil rights context, means treating equal parties unequally. If homosexuals and heterosexuals are assumed to be equal, then it would be unfair to deny homosexuals a legal marriage among other things.

In the same way, I’ve never understood why an atheist doesn’t keep an open mind that their might just be a God.

Would that not make him an agnostic?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

You wrote in another thread:

"If a religion existed that called for the death penalty to be applied to heretics…and a government recognized that religion as the “state religion” it would it be a moral obligation for the state to punish heresy with the death penalty. "

Saudi Arabia has something similar.

That is true. I did write that. It is also true that Saudi Arabia and most Muslim countries have something similar.

This has what to do with: “How did you react when same sex marriage became legal?”

 

[at9009]

Oh yes it would.

If homosexuality were proven to be innate that would establish **equivalency ** between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

I don’t necessarily understand why it is so hard to consider that genetics, embryonic development, and environment (upbringing) +(probably other factors we haven’t even considered) all probably play some role in the origins of homosexuality (same sex attraction). I’d even suspect that their significance differs (and can differ greatly) for different individuals. In Catholic teaching the origin of the same gendered attraction is largely irrelevant. It is still considered a sin to act on those temptations and nothing is going to change that. If it’s proven mostly genetic, then its just another manifestation of original sin in our fallen world and a cross to carry. I don’t see it creating an equivalency.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

As the virtual Queen of the Snark Kingdom, I can in all honesty assert that your last comment to David was, indeed, quite snarky and uncalled for. You cannot just Snark away posters that are educated and present scientific facts that don’t happen to prove Zolton’s personal views.

I have read and enjoyed a good many of your posts. I never considered you “snarky” much less the Queen of the Snark Kingdom. Oh, you have tossed out a few really good “zingers” but I didn’t see much “snark”.

If you read “DR” David’s post you will have to admit that it was more condescending to me and the Catholic members of the forum…than informative. His closing with “Goodbye CAF” seemed like he was in a snit. I simply wished him a “goodbye” in return.

Zoltan has no problem accepting scientific facts from educated people…as long as I can understand the science. I am not a scientist so statements like:

It is now common sense that single genes are not linearly related to phenotypes. Any trait of a person is a complex multifactorial collaboration of numerous of factors: genes, expression of genes, RNA, Rrna, siRNA, etc.

make me want to ask: What do you mean by “etc.”…because I have no idea what “RNA, Rrna, siRNA” means.

But, be assured, if David didn’t mean it and does continue to post I will be kind to him.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I don’t necessarily understand why it is so hard to consider that genetics, embryonic development, and environment (upbringing) +(probably other factors we haven’t even considered) all probably play some role in the origins of homosexuality (same sex attraction). I’d even suspect that their significance differs (and can differ greatly) for different individuals. In Catholic teaching the origin of the same gendered attraction is largely irrelevant. It is still considered a sin to act on those temptations and nothing is going to change that. If it’s proven mostly genetic, then its just another manifestation of original sin in our fallen world and a cross to carry. I don’t see it creating an equivalency.

A agree with you about Catholic teaching. But please understand that I am speaking from a secular point and I try to argue from the non religious side.

All sex, but rape, is voluntary and thus every sexual act involves a conscious choice. A person’s** inclination** toward a form of sexual conduct may not, for any number of reasons, be consciously chosen, but the mere existence of desire does not justify the act. To accept otherwise would be to validate adultery and pedophilia.

Society has the right to require people to suppress harmful desires, even if it is difficult for them to do so.

 

[JimG]

Every person has within himself a whole host of inclinations. Whether they are innate or acquired during childhood or from psychological factors is immaterial as to the morality of acting on them. Inclinations do not make the man, or the woman. We are more than the sum of our inclinations.