North Carolina to Limit Bathroom Use by Birth Gender

[FollowChrist34]

Twin studies and family trees provide strong evidence that sexual orientation is at least partly genetic. When one identical twin is gay, there is about a 20% chance that the other will be as well. But because this rate is not 100%, it is thought that environmental factors play a role as well.
nature.com/news/epigenetic-tags-linked-to-homosexuality-in-men-1.18530

In a 2012 paper, Rice and his colleagues suggested that such unerased epi-marks might lead to homosexuality when they are passed on from father to daughter or from mother to son. Specifically, they argued that inherited marks that influence a fetus’s sensitivity to testosterone in the womb might “masculinize” the brains of girls and “feminize” those of boys, leading to same-sex attraction.
sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/homosexuality-may-be-caused-chemical-modifications-dna

There is increasing evidence of the influence of epi-marks as a genetic predisposition to homosexuality. The markers are passed on from the parent to the homosexual child. The epi-marks actually protect the parent but are passed on as a sort of genetic carry-over error to the child. The problem is that there is still variation - not all twins are gay. Thus there are also environmental and social factors. The most important years of sexual identity development are 1-4, (especially 1-2) not later. There is a lot of evidence to support the influence of family and social relationships, including trauma, abuse. Many gay persons (though not all) report childhood trauma; the rates of sexual abuse are higher than with straight persons, etc. There are multiple factors at work. We don’t know them all.

And this is relative in that it goes to what causes crises in gender and sexual identity. The ideology that gender is what freely one determines it is is behind bills like this - we can talk about other theories on this thread I would think…how society handles this issue, how that affects us as a culture.

 

[clem456]

The transgender “bathroom” issue is not an issue, psychologically speaking; but the transgender issue is. And the tendency now is to search for biological links.

BTW, transgender is not the same as gay. I hope we can agree on that. Some transgendered people are gay, while others are straight. Sexual preference is a complicated and messy business, and the jury is still out.

Right. I realize that.

I’m not sure why the discussion wanders from bathrooms to racism to why people are gay.
It seems to me, when answers to simple questions cannot be had, all the handy peripheral issues come out as if they are the same, or as if the same logic and principles apply.

Race is certainly a sacred thing, as it should be. How it applies here I have no idea, other than as a tool to silence people.

 

[Thorolfr]

There is a lot of evidence to support the influence of family and social relationships, including trauma, abuse. Many gay persons (though not all) report childhood trauma; the rates of sexual abuse are higher than with straight persons, etc. There are multiple factors at work. We don’t know them all.

So the questions arises: Why does someone turn out LGBT who has had no trauma or abuse as a child and had ideal parents and a great childhood? Some gay men have great relationships with their fathers and many good male role models growing up. Why do many people who experience considerable trauma or sexual abuse turn out straight? There are obviously, as you say, multiple factors at work and no simple explanations.

 

[Thorolfr]

Race is certainly a sacred thing, as it should be. How it applies here I have no idea, other than as a tool to silence people.

What is sacred about race?

 

[FollowChrist34]

So the questions arises: Why does someone turn out LGBT who has had no trauma or abuse as a child and had ideal parents and a great childhood? Some gay men have great relationships with their fathers and many good male role models growing up. Why do many people who experience considerable trauma or sexual abuse turn out straight? There are obviously, as you say, multiple factors at work and no simple explanations.

I agree with this. Also many straight persons are sexually or physically abused as children; or they have difficult, neglectful relationships with one or both parents. (Gay men I have known in my life did have difficult relationships with their fathers; I can’t think of one instance where I have seen anything different, though I am sure they exist…) We don’t know the answer to what causes sexual orientation. But there are still well documented trends. Gay persons report these kinds of incidents at a higher rate.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

This thread is wandering. Please stay with the topic of the original post

This is not a psychology thread

 

[TMC]

I have four daughters-one is a homosexual. So did we parent three of them “good” and one of them “bad” Of course most people who have been around these forums for any length of time know I have a homosexual child so I take such statements for what they are worth

Yes, we disagree on many issues (including on many things related to homosexuality), but I have great respect for the patience you show on these forums on that particular topic, and for the way you obviously love and respect all of your children.

 

[clem456]

What is sacred about race?

It is an integral part of what it means to be human.
Human beings are diverse. In that diversity we have unity.
“Unity through diversity”.

Maybe you are asking what is meant by “sacred”?

2258 "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end.

Race is sacred not for itself and it’s own purposes, but as an integral trait of a human person that cannot be a basis for denial or violation. It’s part of what makes a human being unique.

Another sign of diversity is male/female. Human beings exhibit diversity from the beginning, and out of the diversity we are called to complementary unity.

I hope that makes sense. To put it another way, if we are all adult white males, the world would be sterile and mind numbingly dull…ie hell.

 

[Crossbones]

If people are born gay, then they have rights that need to be protected by law. A lot of people here seem to believe that people are born gay, but don’t think they deserve any rights to be protected. It’s an interesting contradiction. Back to segregated buses, bathrooms and restaurants I guess.

 

[clem456]

If people are born gay, then they have rights that need to be protected by law. A lot of people here seem to believe that people are born gay, but don’t think they deserve any rights to be protected. It’s an interesting contradiction. Back to segregated buses, bathrooms and restaurants I guess.

You should quote posts that propose these denials of rights for gay people and refute them instead of create the straw men.

I don’t remember anyone saying gay people should be denied rights. Correct if I am wrong.

No person should be discriminated against on the basis of sex, race, creed, etc…

 

[Crossbones]

You should quote posts that propose these denials of rights for gay people and refute them instead of create the straw men.

I don’t remember anyone saying gay people should be denied rights. Correct if I am wrong.

No person should be discriminated against on the basis of sex, race, creed, etc…

Is the right to marry a fundamental right that needs to be enforced by the government? Or the right to lodge in a hotel? Or buy a cake from someone who sells cakes? Does etc. mean sexual orientation?

I’m asking, not trying to put you on the spot.

 

[estesbob]

Yes, we disagree on many issues (including on many things related to homosexuality), but I have great respect for the patience you show on these forums on that particular topic, and for the way you obviously love and respect all of your children.

Thx!

 

[clem456]

Is the right to marry a fundamental right that needs to be enforced by the government? Or the right to lodge in a hotel? Or buy a cake from someone who sells cakes? Does etc. mean sexual orientation?

I’m asking, not trying to put you on the spot.

From the Catholic point of view, which has always been based on common sense observation of how human beings are made, marriage is unique to a man and woman.
So the government should support that institution. To deny marriage based on skin color (not too long ago it was) would be discrimination. Race does not determine the complementarity of man and woman in marriage so there is no grounds to use race as a basis for denial.
There is obviously an effort to broaden the definition of marriage into an equation with other types of unions. The equation does not work obviously. The union of a man and woman is unique, and it is not just incidentally unique. It is uniquely tied to human existence and flourishing. That is of some import.

If the government want to recognize the union of gay couples or multi partner unions or whatever, that recognition does not change the relative nature of the unions.
The attempt to equate other types of unions with the unique union of man and woman is a lie of the insane type. It will harm the very people it proposes to support. I do not care if a gay couple inherits each other’s property or lives together happily ever after. I hope they do. That is not the issue. The issue is the equation with the union of a man and woman.

Lodging in a hotel has nothing to do with gender. There is nothing about lodging in a hotel that is unique to a person’s race or gender. Housing should be a right.

A cake. Is a cake grave matter or a matter of necessity?
I have a retail shop. I have served probably hundreds of gay people over the years. In my occupation I am simply not asked to condone anyone’s lifestyle or provide something that violates my beliefs.
It seems to me a cake is not a right like food, lodging, clothing, voting.

 

[Thorolfr]

Race is sacred not for itself and it’s own purposes, but as an integral trait of a human person that cannot be a basis for denial or violation. It’s part of what makes a human being unique.

So is having red hair or blue eyes also sacred?

 

[Crossbones]

From the Catholic point of view, which has always been based on common sense observation of how human beings are made, marriage is unique to a man and woman.
So the government should support that institution. To deny marriage based on skin color (not too long ago it was) would be discrimination. Race does not determine the complementarity of man and woman in marriage so there is no grounds to use race as a basis for denial.
There is obviously an effort to broaden the definition of marriage into an equation with other types of unions. The equation does not work obviously. The union of a man and woman is unique, and it is not just incidentally unique. It is uniquely tied to human existence and flourishing. That is of some import.

I understand though I may disagree

If the government want to recognize the union of gay couples or multi partner unions or whatever, that recognition does not change the relative nature of the unions.
The attempt to equate other types of unions with the unique union of man and woman is a lie of the insane type. It will harm the very people it proposes to support. I do not care if a gay couple inherits each other’s property or lives together happily ever after. I hope they do. That is not the issue. The issue is the equation with the union of a man and woman.

Now, I totally disagree. I don’t really see the harm. I see the harm from gay people pretending to be straight and getting married to someone of the opposite sex.

Lodging in a hotel has nothing to do with gender. There is nothing about lodging in a hotel that is unique to a person’s race or gender. Housing should be a right.

A cake. Is a cake grave matter or a matter of necessity?
I have a retail shop. I have served probably hundreds of gay people over the years. In my occupation I am simply not asked to condone anyone’s lifestyle or provide something that violates my beliefs.
It seems to me a cake is not a right like food, lodging, clothing, voting.

It’s seems like there is a weird line here that I don’t see. Do I get it right that you don’t think a gay couple should be denied lodging but you do think they should be denied cakes?

 

[Thorolfr]

Now, I totally disagree. I don’t really see the harm. I see the harm from gay people pretending to be straight and getting married to someone of the opposite sex.

I agree. It would definitely be more harmful for a gay man to marry a woman than another man. It’s usually bad for both the gay man and the woman they marry. I’ve known lots of older gay men who came of age in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s and married women because it was the expected thing to do. They were all in the closet, weren’t sexually attracted to their wives and often had secret relationships with other closeted gay men. I don’t think that most of them had happy marriages.

 

[meltzerboy]

I agree. It would definitely be more harmful for a gay man to marry a woman than another man. It’s usually bad for both the gay man and the woman they marry. I’ve known lots of older gay men who came of age in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s and married women because it was the expected thing to do. They were all in the closet, weren’t sexually attracted to their wives and often had secret relationships with other closeted gay men. I don’t think that most of them had happy marriages.

I agree. However, the Catholic position is not that a gay man should marry a woman but rather that he should remain celibate. It is his cross to bear.

All of this, interesting as it is, has little to do with the transgender bathroom issue.

 

[Crossbones]

I agree. However, the Catholic position is not that a gay man should marry a woman but rather that he should remain celibate. It is his cross to bear.

Well, that opens up the question of church and state. A lot of southerners used their religious beliefs to discriminate against blacks. The Catholic Church has the right to say it should be this and we won’t allow it in the Church, but I don’t understand why that must apply to all society.

All of this, interesting as it is, has little to do with the transgender bathroom issue.

To me, the transgender bathroom issue is a subset of the larger issue; where do legal protections end for those that people seem to genuinely believe were ‘born that way’. I was surprised by the vitriol that I received when I suggested that homosexuality is caused by bad parenting because I do believe there is an environmental impact and anecdotal that this evidence is, almost every gay person I know has a really messed up relationship with one or both of their parents. I would figure that most people here would believe that the cause of homosexuality was either environmental or a choice because, if you believe someone is ‘born that way’, it becomes really hard to justify stripping their legal protections away (such as North Carolina wants to do with the transgender bathroom issue).

 

[CatholicSooner]

SIAP

thefederalist.com/2015/11/23/a-rape-survivor-speaks-out-about-transgender-bathrooms/

I don’t think most supporters of this bill have anything against transgenders. But the safety of 1 overrides the discomfort of thousands. I think this article explains this well.

Not only that, supporters aren’t worried about peeing next to a transgender, it is knowing that sick individuals, even if only a handful, will attempt to take advantage of things.

Also, allowing people to do whatever they want based on feelings is irrational. I truly feel for anyone that feels like a female trapped in a males body or vice versa, but just because you feel that way doesn’t mean you are that way and doesn’t allow you to privelages of the opposite sex.

 

[CatholicSooner]

To me, the transgender bathroom issue is a subset of the larger issue; where do legal protections end for those that people seem to genuinely believe were ‘born that way’. I was surprised by the vitriol that I received when I suggested that homosexuality is caused by bad parenting because I do believe there is an environmental impact and anecdotal that this evidence is, almost every gay person I know has a really messed up relationship with one or both of their parents. I would figure that most people here would believe that the cause of homosexuality was either environmental or a choice because, if you believe someone is ‘born that way’, it becomes really hard to justify stripping their legal protections away (such as North Carolina wants to do with the transgender bathroom issue).

I would counter that most homosexuals you know have messed up relationships with their parents b/c they are homosexual…not the other way around.

If there are still people out there that don’t believe the majority of homosexuals are born that way, I’m not sure what to tell you.

And the North Carolina bill does not strip anyones rights away. You don’t have a right to use whatever bathroom you want. That isn’t a right.