Scans see 'gay brain differences'

[edesignuk]

The brains of gay men and women look like those found in straight people of the opposite sex, research suggests.

The Swedish study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, compared the size of the brain's halves in 90 adults.

Gay men and straight women had halves of a similar size, while the right side was bigger in lesbian women and straight men.

A UK scientist said this was evidence sexual preference was set in the womb. BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7456588.stm).

Not sure what I think about that, but there you go.

[Dagless]

Why I've got half a mind to go brain these scientists, grr.

[Father Jack]

Have these people bug*er all else to do with their time? .. :confused:

[costabunny]

Why do they keep paying these people to research crap like this. I mean whats the point - are they going to find a 'cure' for gay people???? OMFG

Its a reasonably well known theory that about 6weeks into a pregnancy is when the testosterone hosmone has greatest affect on any developing featus. If there is too much given to a female baby then she is more likely to have homosexual tendancies later in life and if too little is given to a male baby then he may grow up being gay (these are maybes, but the evidence suggests some truth to the idea) - in extreme cases where a female featus recives way too much testosterone then the girl may grow up with the body of a woman, but the brain structure and wires of a man (hence people who suffer from Gender Dysphoria (Trannsexualism)).

Whilst the work carried out by these scientists appears to validate such theorys to a point; I dont see the need to keep spending research money to explain things that cannot be changed (and why would we want to - is there something terribly wrong with gay people? I think not).

(My 5p worth anyways)

[costabunny]

Is there a Nobel Prize for being a twat?

^^^ Possibly the best comment I've seen on a subject of this nature in ages :) :) :) :) :) :)

[.Andy]

Hands up who in this thread has read the research paper. Even the abstract?

PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects
Cerebral responses to putative pheromones and objects of sexual attraction were recently found to differ between homo- and heterosexual subjects. Although this observation may merely mirror perceptional differences, it raises the intriguing question as to whether certain sexually dimorphic features in the brain may differ between individuals of the same sex but different sexual orientation. We addressed this issue by studying hemispheric asymmetry and functional connectivity, two parameters that in previous publications have shown specific sex differences. Ninety subjects [25 heterosexual men (HeM) and women (HeW), and 20 homosexual men (HoM) and women (HoW)] were investigated with magnetic resonance volumetry of cerebral and cerebellar hemispheres. Fifty of them also participated in PET measurements of cerebral blood flow, used for analyses of functional connections from the right and left amygdalae. HeM and HoW showed a rightward cerebral asymmetry, whereas volumes of the cerebral hemispheres were symmetrical in HoM and HeW. No cerebellar asymmetries were found. Homosexual subjects also showed sex-atypical amygdala connections. In HoM, as in HeW, the connections were more widespread from the left amygdala; in HoW and HeM, on the other hand, from the right amygdala. Furthermore, in HoM and HeW the connections were primarily displayed with the contralateral amygdala and the anterior cingulate, in HeM and HoW with the caudate, putamen, and the prefrontal cortex. The present study shows sex-atypical cerebral asymmetry and functional connections in homosexual subjects. The results cannot be primarily ascribed to learned effects, and they suggest a linkage to neurobiological entities.


Why do they keep paying these people to research crap like this. I mean whats the point - are they going to find a 'cure' for gay people???? OMFG

Whilst the work carried out by these scientists appears to validate such theorys to a point; I dont see the need to keep spending research money to explain things that cannot be changed (and why would we want to - is there something terribly wrong with gay people? I think not).
They looked at brain sizes in heterosexuals as well. What would your reaction to be to sensationalist individuals posting that this knowledge will just be used by gays to 'cure' heterosexuality OMFG? And why does research have to be on things that can be changed? Examining the differences between sexes is a massive area of research - different sexes metabolise drugs differently, respond to drugs differently, require completely different procedures, have completely different risk factors for different diseases. If the caudate and putamen are indeed different in homosexuals, this could have ramifications on the risk (increased or decreased) of diseases like Parkinsons.

[Queso]

We're that good at interior design, even our own interiors are symmetric and aesthetically pleasing :cool:

[leekohler]

They looked at brain sizes in heterosexuals as well. What would your reaction to be to sensationalist individuals posting that this knowledge will just be used by gays to 'cure' heterosexuality OMFG? And why does research have to be on things that can be changed?

Because that's what the wackos will try to do- find a "cure". They'll claim it's a "defect" and that we should find some way to "cure" homosexuality.

[iJohnHenry]

That might go hand-in-hand with better left/right brain co-ordination, which Woman are noted for.

That leads to better multi-tasking.

And dare I say, creative benefits??

[Agathon]

I can see gay guys being trolled for having "women's brains". It certainly plays to the stereotype of homosexual men as emotional and prone to depression.

Other than that, the bigots will just claim it's a mutation or some other violation of the "natural" order.

[Queso]

Couldn't give a toss if people attempt to troll for that. All the troll does is prove themselves bigoted against women too :)

[63dot]

Other than that, the bigots will just claim it's a mutation or some other violation of the "natural" order.

i think there is a natural order and bigots fall somewhere between insects and small rodents...at least when it comes to brain size :)

[Cleverboy]

Because that's what the wackos will try to do- find a "cure". They'll claim it's a "defect" and that we should find some way to "cure" homosexuality.Then it X-Men 3 all over again. :D But, seriously... aren't people trying to PROVE that homosexuality is in fact genetic, and NOT driven primarily by "choice" and "development"? Sounds like a "good" thing to have science coming down in a more definitive way.

~ CB

[psychofreak]

Because that's what the wackos will try to do- find a "cure". They'll claim it's a "defect" and that we should find some way to "cure" homosexuality.
Or more hopefully, research like this will stop the ridiculous notion that homosexuality is a (bad) choice.

[pooky]

Because that's what the wackos will try to do- find a "cure". They'll claim it's a "defect" and that we should find some way to "cure" homosexuality.

So we should stop doing reasonable, responsible, and (dare I say it) worthwhile research because a few wackos will misinterpret it? No science would ever get done!

[OscarTheGrouch]

Why I've got half a mind to go brain these scientists, grr.

Is it the right half??

*ducks and runs*

j/k

[Pittsax]

So we should stop doing reasonable, responsible, and (dare I say it) worthwhile research because a few wackos will misinterpret it? No science would ever get done!
Yup! All the more reason to continue to ignore funding the National Institutes of Health and promote teaching "intelligent design" in schools [/sarcasm]

And for what it's worth, this is hardly the first study on anatomical differences between hetero- and homosexuals (or any other sexual differences for that matter)...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=homosexual+brain+structure

[leekohler]

Then it X-Men 3 all over again. :D But, seriously... aren't people trying to PROVE that homosexuality is in fact genetic, and NOT driven primarily by "choice" and "development"? Sounds like a "good" thing to have science coming down in a more definitive way.

~ CB

One would think. However, I've already heard many "christians" say that if science shows it is genetic, then it must be a flaw that can be "fixed", and that we should pursue such efforts.

So we should stop doing reasonable, responsible, and (dare I say it) worthwhile research because a few wackos will misinterpret it? No science would ever get done!

No- just keep in mind that such information is never going to do a thing to change a bigot's mind, and may in fact be used against the subject of study. Do you think Einstein initially thought his research would be used to destroy entire cities? Probably not, but it happened.

Research of course should be done. But one should never fool himself into thinking the information would only be used for noble purposes.

[newappleboy]

One would think. However, I've already heard many "christians" say that if science shows it is genetic, then it must be a flaw that can be "fixed", and that we should pursue such efforts.

Agreed. They'll argue that the genetic "mutation" occurred unnaturally and that it needs to be purged and fixed. I've been a gay christian all my life, but the self contradictions and hypocrisy in the church is at an all time high. "Thou shalt not judge" they say from the pulpit, then they run the streets yelling that we're bad people and going to hell and shouldn't be given rights. Umm...yeah. That goes together.

I'm all for any proof that shows I didn't choose to be what I am - I just am.

[themadchemist]

Why do they keep paying these people to research crap like this. I mean whats the point - are they going to find a 'cure' for gay people???? OMFG

Its a reasonably well known theory that about 6weeks into a pregnancy is when the testosterone hosmone has greatest affect on any developing featus. If there is too much given to a female baby then she is more likely to have homosexual tendancies later in life and if too little is given to a male baby then he may grow up being gay (these are maybes, but the evidence suggests some truth to the idea) - in extreme cases where a female featus recives way too much testosterone then the girl may grow up with the body of a woman, but the brain structure and wires of a man (hence people who suffer from Gender Dysphoria (Trannsexualism)).

Well, it did take *research* to figure those things out. I don't see why everyone is hating on this study. These folks are just trying to find ways to assess gender and sexual orientation differences, and to find a biological basis for them. If you oppose this study, you should oppose all the work you cite above for in utero development.

However, the claim that this provides evidence for these preferences to be set in the womb is probably very weak. Actually, the authors claim that this only shows that sometime during development (either before or after birth) the preferences are physically set down in the brain. It was only that British lecturer quoted in the article (who, from what I can tell, was not associated with the study) who claims this as irrefutable evidence that sexuality is imprinted in the womb. However, doing a correlative MRI study on adults is not going to give you any sense of the time point or cause of a given outcome. I haven't yet read the paper, though, I guess I should do that first.

[Gelfin]

It is damned unfortunate that everyone gets so wrapped up in identity politics as to be terrified of increasing our scientific knowledge in this area. In a politically neutral environment it would be a perfectly legitimate subject of research, but because we fear the findings might interfere with our political positions gay folks and bigots alike want to suppress it in some sort of uneasy Lysenkoist detente.

It's also completely reasonable to expect that bigots will turn on a dime and warp any notion so as to putatively support their position. Hard as it may seem, I think it's better we fight them on solid ground.

The potentially optimistic way of looking at this particular outcome is, if this is something that affects, or is affected by, gross brain structure, then there is just no plausible avenue for a "cure" from this research. Quite the contrary, I think it fundamentally undermines the rationale for existing brainwashing "therapies" far more than it suggests new ones.

If there is anything that makes me nervous, it is the potential for hasty reductionism that might arise from this sort of research. Someone might get the bright idea of using a CT scanner as some sort of homometer and consider that result somehow more definitive than just asking, which would ultimately end up with a few otherwise well-adjusted and happy people getting told they are "in denial" (in either direction) about what the machine says their "true nature" should be.

[leekohler]

It is damned unfortunate that everyone gets so wrapped up in identity politics as to be terrified of increasing our scientific knowledge in this area. In a politically neutral environment it would be a perfectly legitimate subject of research, but because we fear the findings might interfere with our political positions gay folks and bigots alike want to suppress it in some sort of uneasy Lysenkoist detente.

It's also completely reasonable to expect that bigots will turn on a dime and warp any notion so as to putatively support their position. Hard as it may seem, I think it's better we fight them on solid ground.

The potentially optimistic way of looking at this particular outcome is, if this is something that affects, or is affected by, gross brain structure, then there is just no plausible avenue for a "cure" from this research. Quite the contrary, I think it fundamentally undermines the rationale for existing brainwashing "therapies" far more than it suggests new ones.

If there is anything that makes me nervous, it is the potential for hasty reductionism that might arise from this sort of research. Someone might get the bright idea of using a CT scanner as some sort of homometer and consider that result somehow more definitive than just asking, which would ultimately end up with a few otherwise well-adjusted and happy people getting told they are "in denial" (in either direction) about what the machine says their "true nature" should be.

I agree. Ideally, it shouldn't be an issue. I'm not saying the research shouldn't be done, but we need to bear in mind how such research could be abused and proceed with caution.

[stevento]

Because that's what the wackos will try to do- find a "cure". They'll claim it's a "defect" and that we should find some way to "cure" homosexuality.



then what term should they use for it?
a while back i heard that the military dropped bombs on Iraq, not explosive ones, but one that release some kind of solution or dust that makes them attracted to the same sex. i wonder if they can do that then maybe they can do the opposite.

[Agathon]

Couldn't give a toss if people attempt to troll for that. All the troll does is prove themselves bigoted against women too :)

You mean like many homosexuals. Some of them are the worst misogynists I know. I'd personally get a kick out of them finding they had a girl's CPU up top.

[leekohler]

You mean like many homosexuals. Some of them are the worst misogynists I know.

Really? Care to provide a link to support said evidence? Wow- can't wait to see this one. :rolleyes:

[yellow]

Maybe they're not doing it in order to find a cure or support the right-wing fundamentalists vision of homosexuality, but to legitimize and support how gays and lesbians feel about themselves, that it's not a "choice", but a biological imperative?

To me, this makes more sense, particularly given the attitude of acceptance that seems to be part of Swedish society.

[leekohler]

Maybe they're not doing it in order to find a cure or support the right-wing fundamentalists vision of homosexuality, but to legitimize and support how gays and lesbians feel about themselves, that it's not a "choice", but a biological imperative?

To me, this makes more sense, particularly given the attitude of acceptance that seems to be part of Swedish society.


I don't think there's any agenda here other than research. We're just discussing the possible positive/negative results of such research.

And Agathon- I'm waiting.

[Gelfin]

a while back i heard that the military dropped bombs on Iraq, not explosive ones, but one that release some kind of solution or dust that makes them attracted to the same sex. i wonder if they can do that then maybe they can do the opposite.

Linky (http://cbs5.com/national/Pentagon.gay.bomb.2.284976.html)

Never happened. You heard something blown way out of proportion to the tiny kernel of truth. Nobody knows how to chemically make someone gay. I am tempted to believe somebody in the Air Force won a bet when they actually got funding for that proposal.

[arkitect]

Nobody knows how to chemically make someone gay.

Boy and if we did I'd like a little sachet or two of that powder please…
Talk about fairy dust! :D:D

[Gelfin]

Boy and if we did I'd like a little sachet or two of that powder please…
Talk about fairy dust! :D:D

And here I'd successfully resisted the urge to add that if there was such a substance, you'd better believe it would be all over the club scene by now.

[Queso]

then what term should they use for it?
If you mean "defect" they should use "difference". If you mean "cure", I'd rather they stopped trying to impose their version of what it is to be human onto others.
a while back i heard that the military dropped bombs on Iraq, not explosive ones, but one that release some kind of solution or dust that makes them attracted to the same sex. i wonder if they can do that then maybe they can do the opposite.
You heard wrong. That entire project was suggested on the flawed belief that being gay is a choice. Luckily someone at the USAF had the common sense to realise that and scrap the whole nonsense idea long before it started wasting too many taxpayer's contributions.

[arkitect]

You heard wrong. That entire project was suggested on the flawed belief that being gay is a choice. Luckily someone at the USAF had the common sense to realise that and scrap the whole nonsense idea long before it started wasting too many taxpayer's contributions.

That surely ranks up there with itching powder in Fidel Castro's undewear and exploding cigars… :rolleyes:

[Agathon]

Really? Care to provide a link to support said evidence? Wow- can't wait to see this one. :rolleyes:

Don't get your knickers in a twist. I am talking about people I know personally.

[killerrobot]

Interesting read. I guess it makes sense that people that like women would have a similar brain structure and those that like men would too.

@dynamicv - So lesbians and straight men aren't good at interior design?;)


a while back i heard that the military dropped bombs on Iraq, not explosive ones, but one that release some kind of solution or dust that makes them attracted to the same sex. i wonder if they can do that then maybe they can do the opposite.

Okay, its time to put the tabloids down in the line at the grocery store.:rolleyes:

[arkitect]

Don't get your knickers in a twist. I am talking about people I know personally.

Alas, that is quite true.
While my best friends are all women (apart from my partner who apparently only has a woman's brain ;)) some of my gay friends/acquaintances can be pretty mysogynist.


@dynamicv - So lesbians and straight men aren't good at interior design?;)


Hummm… now that you mention it… ;) :D

[leekohler]

Don't get your knickers in a twist. I am talking about people I know personally.

Next time say so. To make a gross generalization based only on people you know is a bit of a reach, don't you think?

Alas, that is quite true.
While my best friends are all women (apart from my partner who apparently only has a woman's brain ;)) some of my gay friends/acquaintances can be pretty mysogynist.


In what way? Are they denying women jobs? Beating women? Please explain this vast amount of mysogyny on the part of gay men to me, please.

[arkitect]

In what way? Are they denying women jobs? Beating women? Please explain this vast amount of mysogyny on the part of gay men to me, please.

Oh fer heavens sake Lee! Have you never ever had any gay friends that make snide or nasty comments about women? Never? Then count yourself lucky.

No. I am not saying they are denying them jobs or beating them up. Where the f** did you get that? Sheeesh!
And where was it claimed that a vast amount of misogyny exists?

So. As a gay man I have known other gay men who have behaved in a misogynist fashion towards women.
Clear enough for you?
Wow. :confused:

[leekohler]

Oh fer heavens sake Lee! Have you never ever had any gay friends that make snide or nasty comments about women? Never? Then count yourself lucky.

No. I am not saying they are denying them jobs or beating them up. Where the f** did you get that? Sheeesh!
And where was it claimed that a vast amount of misogyny exists?

Here:
You mean like many homosexuals. Some of them are the worst misogynists I know.


So. As a gay man I have known other gay men who have behaved in a misogynist fashion towards women.
Clear enough for you?
Wow. :confused:

Hasn't everyone man behaved in a misogynist fashion at one time or another? I'm just saying I thought it was a gross generalization based on acquaintances of one's own. And really- have you been around a large group of women and heard what they say about men? The whole "misogyny" claim seems ridiculous to me, that's all. And having a lot straight male friends, I can tell you who's far worse between gay and straight. But then that would make me guilty of the same generalizations based on acquaintance.

[arkitect]

Here:


Well, I can only take responsibility for what I wrote… and I did not use the phrase "vast amount"… anywhere nor did I imply it.
;)
No need to pick a fight… :o

Now it is time to go cook some dinner.

[Queso]

@dynamicv - So lesbians and straight men aren't good at interior design?;)
No, but they're better at putting shelves up and servicing the car so it all evens out :p

[Macky-Mac]

yesterday, the Los Angeles Times had a related article with the following headline and subtitle;

What does gay look like? Science keeps trying to figure that out.

Finding common biological traits -- things like hair growth patterns, penis size, family makeup -- might one day shed light on the origins of sexual orientation

......These scientists are searching for innate traits that might not appear to be related to sexual orientation or even to standard clichés. So measuring a subject's shoe size is permissible; asking about ownership of Barbra Streisand albums would be cheating. Some inborn traits might be expected if homosexuality is -- as most scientists believe -- rooted in biology, and they might provide clues about the biological origins of sexual orientation....


according to the article, average penis length is longer for gay men than straight men

the whole article is here LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-he-sex16-2008jun16,0,6712163.story).....(you might have to be registered to get to it but I'm not sure about that)

[Agathon]

Next time say so. To make a gross generalization based only on people you know is a bit of a reach, don't you think?.

Are you being daft, or just one of those people who takes offence whenever the opportunity presents itself?

Note that I added the rider "I know" in my first post, because I was talking about my personal experience. To any normal person who wasn't desperate to be offended, the meaning would have been pretty clear. It is a fact that many homosexuals I know have poor attitudes towards women (it's also a fact that gay men I know lament this about gay men they know whom I don't know). I then explained to you that you had misinterpreted my meaning, and you continued to whine, not only at me, but at another poster.

And then you deliberately misinterpret him as saying something he didn't say either, just so you can satisfy your sense of victimhood. So it likely isn't a case of simple failure to communicate, but of you positively looking for something to complain about.

Look, no matter how high an opinion you have of yourself, you do not own other people's utterances. That sentence said what I take it to mean because I said it, and I knew what I meant at the time I said it. If you took it to say something else, then you misread my meaning. I even explained to you what I meant when you asked. It's not my problem, nor anyone else's if you constantly hunt for the slightest possibility of offence in everything other people say, and then won't give it up when it turns out to be nothing.

Again, try to remember that you don't own other people's words. And if you find something they say ambiguous or possibly offensive, ask them what they meant and they will tell you. When that happens, and it turns out your suspicions were incorrect, it is time to stop there. Going further than that just makes you look ridiculous.

[Mac-Addict]

I don't really know what to say about it all :P Just why can't people leave it all alone and just accept it o.0

[iJohnHenry]

Look, no matter how high an opinion you have of yourself, you do not own other people's utterances.

That is excellent, brilliant (insert other accolades here). :cool:

Can I get that on a plaque, please. :D

[mithrilfox]

It's interesting that people interpret facts to fit their preconceived notions. The structure of the brain, in many cases, is influenced directly by the development of the brain. Showing a brain structure difference from the womb until adulthood in a person who considers himself gay is one thing, but simply looking at an adult brain and saying, "proof that it starts from the womb" is horribly bad data interpretation.

Our choices greatly affect the development of our brain, and how we choose to use or not use them, what we eat, what we drink (especially alcohol), drugs we use or don't use, and other addictions we come into are all factors in deciding how the brain develops. A nobody among neurologists like me even knows that.

[.Andy]

It's interesting that people interpret facts to fit their preconceived notions.
Like you're about to do for the rest of your post? If you'd read the paper, or even the abstract on the previous page it would have stopped you typing. Instead you're jumping to a conclusion to which even the slightest bit of reading should make you embarrased. Nothing says interpreting facts to fit preconceived notions like posting without reading the paper or even the abstract.:rolleyes:.

The structure of the brain, in many cases, is influenced directly by the development of the brain. Showing a brain structure difference from the womb until adulthood in a person who considers himself gay is one thing, but simply looking at an adult brain and saying, "proof that it starts from the womb" is horribly bad data interpretation.
No. You have a horribly bad delusion that you know what you're talking about. The researchers specifically state they chose parts of the brain that don't develop significantly beyond birth. To quote one of the researchers;
"That was the whole point of the study, to show parameters that differ, but which couldn't be altered by learning or cognitive processes," You can read the abstract I posted on the first page of the thread or perhaps more at New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html?feedId=online-news_rss20) if you're at all interested.

Our choices greatly affect the development of our brain, and how we choose to use or not use them, what we eat, what we drink (especially alcohol), drugs we use or don't use, and other addictions we come into are all factors in deciding how the brain develops. A nobody among neurologists like me even knows that.
So you're interpretation for this data is that gay men have similar brains (in a limited number of structures) to females as they drink the same alcohol, take the same drugs, eat the same foods, learn the same things, and have the same addictions as women?

[themadchemist]

Now it is time to go cook some dinner.

Well played...(If the irony of the statement was intended)

[themadchemist]

No. You have a horribly bad delusion that you know what you're talking about. The researchers specifically state they chose parts of the brain that don't develop significantly beyond birth. To quote one of the researchers;
You can read the abstract I posted on the first page of the thread or perhaps more at New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html?feedId=online-news_rss20) if you're at all interested.


Admittedly, I don't know a lot about brain development on the scale of major structures like the amygdala, but after scanning the paper, I think your statement might be attributing more of a claim to the authors than they make.


Cerebral maturation continues after puberty, especially in boys, providing a substrate for effects of social/environmental factors. However, to attribute such effects to the present results would require a detailed comprehension of how specific environmental factors relate to the four groups investigated, and how they affect various cerebral circuits. In light of currently available information this can only be speculative. Of note is that at variance with previous studies in homosexual subjects the present data were not directly dependent on perception or behavior. Thus, although repetitive sex- (or sexual orientation-) specific preferred strategies may, theoretically, have influenced the results, such systematic effects have, to the best of our knowledge, not been reported, and seem unlikely.


To my reading, this suggests that while the authors are skeptical of the effect of social factors, this skepticism is based on an absence of data, not on the presence of data to the contrary. Their claim that rest functionality is not affected by prior behavior or perception may be correct, but it doesn't seem supported (at least, not in the arguments presented in the paper--again, this is far out of my field). This is relevant because even if the amygdala is mostly mature by birth, it has connections with portions of the brain (including the neocortex) that change considerably. This could, if I am not mistaken, affect the results of their functional studies.

But the authors admit as much:


The present study does not allow narrowing of potential explanations, which are probably multifactorial, including interplay between pre- and postnatal testosterone and estrogen, the androgen and estrogen receptors, and the testosterone-degrading enzyme aromatase.

[mithrilfox]

Many societies that are ultra-sensitive to PC-needs (being politically correct) have already socially excommunicated the belief that any social factors could affect sexual orientation, or sexual choices.

That is completely absurd and absolutely not true. If it were not a matter of privacy, I could name two friends of mine that I personally know and interact with who once considered themselves either homosexual or possibly homosexual, and who participated in that act with another man. Over a decade has passed for both men, and neither has had any desire to return to those previous ways, and has not.

Equally, I knew countless women in college who would either directly say that they were bisexual, or very strongly hint at it. After college, the ones that I still kept in touch with through other friends informed me of their change away from that behavior towards a "pure" heterosexual lifestyle.

Additionally, some women who had previously been involved in pornography but rejected that lifestyle and turned away from it have commented on how the acts they participated in helped to shape and change their sexual behavior, even their sexual preferences.

Also, men in different cultures develop obsessive fetishes over different things. For example, here in Japan, many men obsess over ankles. Ankles are not exactly the most prominent "lust-inducing" body part in the US, my home country. Also, preferences for clothing on women are radically different, and some things men like here would be seen as perverted and strange by men in the US. For a particularly non-religious young man to call another young man perverted means that he must be really doing something the other considers crazy, since most young men with no particular religious or moral "obstacles" to their sexuality are very free with it (within their own realm, heterosexual for example).

Social issues factor HEAVILY into sexuality, sexual behavior, sexual preferences, and, I believe, sexual orientation. I am not even sure why so many people consider a biological factor some sort of patented "proof" of the acceptability or value of homosexuality. We have well known that people who suffer from extreme anger problems have biological factors, and so does diabetes, and most likely Alzheimer's, too. So does balding. Do any of those biological factors somehow change the reality we face?

If anger leading to violence is a problem, it is not "OK" because it has some biological factor involved. I'd be surprised if homosexuality DIDN'T have some sort of biological influence at some level for at least some people.

[themadchemist]

Social issues factor HEAVILY into sexuality, sexual behavior, sexual preferences, and, I believe, sexual orientation. I am not even sure why so many people consider a biological factor some sort of patented "proof" of the acceptability or value of homosexuality. We have well known that people who suffer from extreme anger problems have biological factors, and so does diabetes, and most likely Alzheimer's, too. So does balding. Do any of those biological factors somehow change the reality we face?


I agree with you that in the end, I think the result will be that environment and genetics work hand in hand in constructing sexual orientation--as they do in Alzheimer, diabetes, some emotional disturbances, etc. However, I doubt these social formations in sexuality are a matter of choice, being dictated much more subtly by environmental cues. But the distinction you raise is an interesting one.

As it were, there has been a remarkable change over the last 100 to 150 years in the way that genetic determinism is perceived. In the late 1800s, Ashkenazi Jews, for instance, in the face of being perceived as, among other things, weak, argued vehemently that their idiosyncrasies were socially constructed as opposed to hereditary. As this roughly coincides with the rise of eugenics and the great push to rout out genetic "flaws," it makes sense that at that time, the reasoning was frequently that socially constructed traits were more "excusable" than genetic ones. The idea, I suppose, was that hereditary traits being immutable, they branded a group of people more fully.

We have seen this turn 180 degrees, as society accepts differences more readily, and as the racially-motivated drives of eugenics have lost their previous potency. Now, the argument is that genes are what we are given, and because we accept all people as being born with equal rights, we cannot deny them these rights on the basis of innate traits. This has shifted some debates, including the one about homosexuality, to the realm of moral imperative. The argument from some (possibly from you, I don't know) is that if there is a possible for "ethical" choice, then we can discriminate on the basis of people's moral rectitude in a way we cannot discriminate on the basis of innate traits. Therefore, in the new social paradigm in which we operate, if people can choose to be gay, then it is possible for gayness to be immoral and therefore frowned upon, whereas if they cannot choose to be gay, the possibility of the situation as a moral question is by definition ruled out.

It is a shift, for shifting times. I think it's all besides the point. Trying to "excuse" homosexuality on the basis of nature or nurture side steps the more important point: There is nothing to excuse. There is no valid argument (at least in my opinion) for discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

[mithrilfox]

Therefore, in the new social paradigm in which we operate, if people can choose to be gay, then it is possible for gayness to be immoral and therefore frowned upon, whereas if they cannot choose to be gay, the possibility of the situation as a moral question is by definition ruled out.

It is a shift, for shifting times. I think it's all besides the point. Trying to "excuse" homosexuality on the basis of nature or nurture side steps the more important point: There is nothing to excuse. There is no valid argument (at least in my opinion) for discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

You seem well-versed on the matter and pretty temperate. I respect that a lot.

However, I quoted the above part that I disagreed with. You probably saw my disagreement coming, I'm sure.

I am a Christian, and I make the Bible a guide to my life... at least I try to, and I know I fail a LOT. That's a given. In the Bible, it speaks of sin a lot, as I'm sure most people here know. One of the things that has happened recently is that people have failed to realize the extent of sin, and often times we think of our bodies as "neutral vehicles" of either good or bad, decided by various factors. This is not the accurate Christian perception, at least not according to what I believe is decent hermeneutics of the Scriptures, and the long-held beliefs of numerous Christian traditions.

The accurate perception is that we are sinful by nature now because of the fall of mankind into the realm of sin. This sin is all-permeating, reaching to every depth of our being. It inhabits our bodies, as Apostle Paul struggled much with what he called, "this body of sin" (referring to his own body). Often he says that the "spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."

Sin, or immorality, is not eliminated by finding some biological connection between the behavior and the individual. Far from it. We are steeped in sin, and living a "sinless" life is impossible, because we are, as King David said, "born in sin." A baby is sinful from birth; you do not need to teach your child to be selfish, or hit others. One mother was once amazed that her child hit another; she said she never let him see such behavior on TV or elsewhere, and never hit him herself. The pastor simply told her, "He didn't have to learn it anywhere, it comes naturally."

Invariably, non-Christians will probably greatly disagree with what I am saying. I take it that "casual" or "cultural" Christians will disagree, too (those who participant in religious activities as a sort of cultural or casual lifestyle, and do not consider it important to dedicate their life, or to take everything "seriously").

This leads me to the point I was stressing: a biological link does not assuage the issue at hand. I am NOT going to argue homosexuality in terms of morality or sinfulness; that has been done countless times and in countless ways. On an internet forum, such discussions turn hateful VERY quickly, and often nothing good comes from them. There are good, biblically based arguments for those issues online.

[63dot]

Invariably, non-Christians will probably greatly disagree with what I am saying. I take it that "casual" or "cultural" Christians will disagree, too (those who participant in religious activities as a sort of cultural or casual lifestyle, and do not consider it important to dedicate their life, or to take everything "seriously").

This leads me to the point I was stressing: a biological link does not assuage the issue at hand. I am NOT going to argue homosexuality in terms of morality or sinfulness; that has been done countless times and in countless ways. On an internet forum, such discussions turn hateful VERY quickly, and often nothing good comes from them. There are good, biblically based arguments for those issues online.



the thing is, i can be sure of it, i am sure you didn't suffer being a missionary where you were constantly held at gunpoint spreading the gospel and had members of your entourage executed for their faith in christ

have you ever stood next to a major hotel full of body parts due to religous hatred between protestants and catholics in belfast?...i didn't think so

brother, let me tell you there are bigger issues with christianity than worrying about homosexuality and playing with safe issues in a safe country where people are not being beheaded or burned at the stake for their missionary duties for christ...and who did jesus hang around in the NT?

be sure that at the end of the day, what maters at all is that jesus died for our sins on the cross and christians who are obesessed with who sleeps with who are not worthy, or brave enough to go do a missionary journey in belfast, or like my fellow travelers, who went to uganda

when one comes to christ, the rest will be revealed to them but our jobs as christians is to spread the gospel...nothing more, nothing less

god bless,

-63

[SMM]

e.

< ... lots of snips ... >

I am a Christian, and I make the Bible a guide to my life... at least I try to, and I know I fail a LOT.



OK, now I know where you are coming from. Most historians believe that Peter was homosexual, but could never come to terms with it. Therefore, he often writes about the the 'sins of the flesh'. We studied him in Philosophy, in my junior year of college, which was largely focused on theology. He even took an extreme position, it was better to live a life of total abstinence. But, if they could not resist the temptations of the flesh, "Let them be married".

You wrote, "I am NOT going to argue homosexuality in terms of morality or sinfulness", yet this subject of this thread is focused on that subject. You are entitled to your own beliefs, but not when it comes to the rights of others. Why cannot people like you understand that? You do not have the right to shove your dogma down the throat of others.

[Iscariot]

There are good, biblically based arguments for those issues online.

Biblical arguments are not good arguments. Belief is personal. Since not everybody has it, it can not be used as a basis for law or rules of society. That's not a dig at your beliefs, whatever beefs I may or may not have with them. It's simply equitable and just.

[Mord]

My brain clearly must be rainbow coloured.

[Cleverboy]

One would think. However, I've already heard many "christians" say that if science shows it is genetic, then it must be a flaw that can be "fixed", and that we should pursue such efforts. Sure, and much like the movie, there would no doubt be those gays that would rush to be "cured", much to the horror of their mature and self-confident contemporaries. My point still rests that science shouldn't stick its head in a hole, simply because it fears what people might do with the knowledge. I have a hard time believing doctors would offer parents a cocktail of chemicals to administer to babies having exhibited the gene, who would like it "deactivated". I'd think scientists should be more active in finding imbalances that lead to pedophilia or psychopathic behavior. In any case, it sounds far fetched. We now have laws that protect genetic predisposition from being factored into insurance and hiring decisions. I think we're moving in the right direction there.

~ CB

[63dot]

I have a hard time believing doctors would offer parents a cocktail of chemicals to administer to babies having exhibited the gene, who would like it "deactivated". I'd think scientists should be more active in finding imbalances that lead to pedophilia or psychopathic behavior.

~ CB

unfortunately, there are some christians, and i am not one with this belief, that think homosexuality is the same thing as pedophilia or being psychotic

some believe gay people are possessed by demons

and many of those same christians think that's it's ok to kill/bomb random arabs because "they" are responsible for 9/11 and that the evil religion of islam taught them to be violent

the bible belt is still full of people who believe 9/11 was directly related to saddam hussein and that the terrorists who hijacked the jets were iraqis

[leekohler]

You seem well-versed on the matter and pretty temperate. I respect that a lot.

However, I quoted the above part that I disagreed with. You probably saw my disagreement coming, I'm sure.

I am a Christian, and I make the Bible a guide to my life... at least I try to, and I know I fail a LOT. That's a given. In the Bible, it speaks of sin a lot, as I'm sure most people here know. One of the things that has happened recently is that people have failed to realize the extent of sin, and often times we think of our bodies as "neutral vehicles" of either good or bad, decided by various factors. This is not the accurate Christian perception, at least not according to what I believe is decent hermeneutics of the Scriptures, and the long-held beliefs of numerous Christian traditions.

The accurate perception is that we are sinful by nature now because of the fall of mankind into the realm of sin. This sin is all-permeating, reaching to every depth of our being. It inhabits our bodies, as Apostle Paul struggled much with what he called, "this body of sin" (referring to his own body). Often he says that the "spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."Sin, or immorality, is not eliminated by finding some biological connection between the behavior and the individual. Far from it. We are steeped in sin, and living a "sinless" life is impossible, because we are, as King David said, "born in sin." A baby is sinful from birth; you do not need to teach your child to be selfish, or hit others. One mother was once amazed that her child hit another; she said she never let him see such behavior on TV or elsewhere, and never hit him herself. The pastor simply told her, "He didn't have to learn it anywhere, it comes naturally."

Invariably, non-Christians will probably greatly disagree with what I am saying. I take it that "casual" or "cultural" Christians will disagree, too (those who participant in religious activities as a sort of cultural or casual lifestyle, and do not consider it important to dedicate their life, or to take everything "seriously").

This leads me to the point I was stressing: a biological link does not assuage the issue at hand. I am NOT going to argue homosexuality in terms of morality or sinfulness; that has been done countless times and in countless ways. On an internet forum, such discussions turn hateful VERY quickly, and often nothing good comes from them. There are good, biblically based arguments for those issues online.

One would think. However, I've already heard many "christians" say that if science shows it is genetic, then it must be a flaw that can be "fixed", and that we should pursue such efforts.

Didn't I tell you guys? Didn't take too long, did it?

This illustrates my favorite Christian premise. Everyone is bad and needs to be fixed. It's the reason I left the religion. How about thinking you're OK, but make mistakes from time to time? What's wrong with that?

And you're right- these kinds of things do get hateful and ugly quickly. Wanna know why? Because people like you constantly insist that your beliefs should be law for the rest of us. Guess what? We don't share your beliefs!

[imac/cheese]

OK, now I know where you are coming from. It is interesting that you quote Peter here. Most historians believe that Peter was homosexual, but could never come to terms with it. Therefore, he often writes about the the 'sins of the flesh'. We studied him in Philosophy, in my junior year of college, which was largely focused on theology. He even took an extreme position, it was better to live a life of total abstinence. But, if they could not resist the temptations of the flesh, "Let them be married".

You wrote, "I am NOT going to argue homosexuality in terms of morality or sinfulness", yet this subject of this thread is focused on that subject. You are entitled to your own beliefs, but not when it comes to the rights of others. Why cannot people like you understand that? You do not have the right to shove your dogma down the throat of others.

Actually, he quoted Paul. Your claim that most historians believe he was homosexual is a bit of a stretch. There is a lot of speculation about Paul being single or a widower and he definitely talks being abstinent and about passions and using marriage to control those passions if necessary. However, there is no consensus among historians about his sexual orientation.

[Queso]

This illustrates my favorite Christian premise. Everyone is bad and needs to be fixed. It's the reason I left the religion. How about thinking you're OK, but make mistakes from time to time? What's wrong with that?
They're not going to get that Lee. They seek out religion because they see themselves as damaged, so the message that everyone is damaged is especially powerful because then they can believe there's nothing wrong with them personally. And those of us that are quite vocal about how we don't need it at all are just prideful, sinful and arrogant, which we'll pay for after death :D

When you think about it, we ought to pity them.

[leekohler]

They're not going to get that Lee. They seek out religion because they see themselves as damaged, so the message that everyone is damaged is especially powerful because then they can believe there's nothing wrong with them personally. And those of us that are quite vocal about how we don't need it at all are just prideful, sinful and arrogant, which we'll pay for after death :D

When you think about it, we ought to pity them.

I know. I would be OK with it if they could just keep their "laws" out of my personal life. I really don't care what anybody wishes to believe.

[Mord]

Genetic conditions can't be "fixed" at birth, only detected then aborted. It'd be interesting to see how that would go down with the pro-life camp.

[leekohler]

Genetic conditions can't be "fixed" at birth, only detected then aborted. It'd be interesting to see how that would go down with the pro-life camp.

Since many of them think we're worse than murderers, I'm sure they'd be fine with abortion at that point. :mad:

[floyde]

You seem well-versed on the matter and pretty temperate. I respect that a lot.

However, I quoted the above part that I disagreed with. You probably saw my disagreement coming, I'm sure.

I am a Christian, and I make the Bible a guide to my life... at least I try to, and I know I fail a LOT. That's a given. In the Bible, it speaks of sin a lot, as I'm sure most people here know. One of the things that has happened recently is that people have failed to realize the extent of sin, and often times we think of our bodies as "neutral vehicles" of either good or bad, decided by various factors. This is not the accurate Christian perception, at least not according to what I believe is decent hermeneutics of the Scriptures, and the long-held beliefs of numerous Christian traditions.


Are you sure you don't mean "The Christian perception is not accurate"?


The accurate perception is that we are sinful by nature now because of the fall of mankind into the realm of sin. This sin is all-permeating, reaching to every depth of our being. It inhabits our bodies, as Apostle Paul struggled much with what he called, "this body of sin" (referring to his own body). Often he says that the "spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."

Sin, or immorality, is not eliminated by finding some biological connection between the behavior and the individual. Far from it. We are steeped in sin, and living a "sinless" life is impossible, because we are, as King David said, "born in sin." A baby is sinful from birth; you do not need to teach your child to be selfish, or hit others. One mother was once amazed that her child hit another; she said she never let him see such behavior on TV or elsewhere, and never hit him herself. The pastor simply told her, "He didn't have to learn it anywhere, it comes naturally."
...


Why are you so sure that this is the accurate perception? No offense, but it seems to me that this is merely your interpretation. I don't think the child was acting on sin, but rather on instinct, perhaps he felt threatened. I don't think that constitutes as 'evil'.


This leads me to the point I was stressing: a biological link does not assuage the issue at hand. I am NOT going to argue homosexuality in terms of morality or sinfulness; that has been done countless times and in countless ways. On an internet forum, such discussions turn hateful VERY quickly, and often nothing good comes from them. There are good, biblically based arguments for those issues online.

But wouldn't it mean that it's your God's fault that people are homosexual and that they didn't have a choice? Wouldn't they just have to accept God's wonderful plan?

Do you mean arguments such as these:

"If a man lies with a male as a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."

where an all-loving God calls for the disproportionate punishment of murder? Even if it were immoral (which it's not), don't you think it's a bit too much? But you're right, nothing good can come from this.

[imac/cheese]

They're not going to get that Lee. They seek out religion because they see themselves as damaged, so the message that everyone is damaged is especially powerful because then they can believe there's nothing wrong with them personally. And those of us that are quite vocal about how we don't need it at all are just prideful, sinful and arrogant, which we'll pay for after death :D

When you think about it, we ought to pity them.

Having pity on someone because of their beliefs is prideful and arrogant (at least that is what I have been told when I have pity for the lost). ;)

Many people do come to Christianity because they are hurt or have hit rock bottom, but the message isn't about the fact that everyone is damaged as much as is it about the way to becoming repaired.

[Queso]

Many people do come to Christianity because they are hurt or have hit rock bottom, but the message isn't about the fact that everyone is damaged as much as is it about the way to becoming repaired.
A way, one of many.

[leekohler]

A way, one of many.

Yep- many of us were born into it and had it rammed down our throats from day one. Note to fundamentalist Christian parents: the best way to insure your kid becomes an atheist is to force religion on them.

[Antares]

Have these people bug*er all else to do with their time? .. :confused:

Why do they keep paying these people to research crap like this. I mean whats the point - are they going to find a 'cure' for gay people???? OMFG

Whilst the work carried out by these scientists appears to validate such theorys to a point; I dont see the need to keep spending research money to explain things that cannot be changed (and why would we want to - is there something terribly wrong with gay people? I think not).


Science is about the discovery of and the understanding of how the natural world works. Why would anyone be opposed to this type of research? There are people who research anything and everything imaginable. It's about discovering how things work in the world and why things are the way they are. Also, science is not about changing and fixing things.

This specific study is not about "finding a cure to homosexuality." Seriously, people could take research that was done on any topic/subject and use it for nefarious purposes. The only way to prevent that is to stop science and to not research anything, at all, in the world. I don't think anyone would advocate that (other than extremists/fanaticals).

[imac/cheese]

I know. I would be OK with it if they could just keep their "laws" out of my personal life. I really don't care what anybody wishes to believe.

I personally do not believe in legislating based on religious beliefs. I do understand that there are, however, many Christians who feel otherwise.

Since many of them think we're worse than murderers, I'm sure they'd be fine with abortion at that point. :mad:

This might come as a shock to some, but there are many Christians, even among us Southern Baptists, that do not feel homosexuals are lesser people and would never feel that you are worse than murderers. I personally hold all life sacred and would never want to see anyone aborted no matter what their "genetic condition".

Yep- many of us were born into it and had it rammed down our throats from day one. Note to fundamentalist Christian parents: the best way to insure your kid becomes an atheist is to force religion on them.

I agree with this completely. Christianity should never be rammed down someone's throat. The Gospel should be taught throughout the entire world, but it should never be forced on people.

[themadchemist]

Genetic conditions can't be "fixed" at birth, only detected then aborted. It'd be interesting to see how that would go down with the pro-life camp.

Again I'll repeat that I agree with modern medicine and the DSM IV in agreeing that homosexuality is not a problem. However, your contention above isn't quite accurate.

We treat tons of genetically determined or associated conditions by replacing a deficient enzyme, inhibiting and overproduced hormone, preventing the buildup of a toxic substrate, supplementing an absent product, etc. There are plenty of chemical therapeutics used in these situations. Gene therapy may also become more important in the future, though as we have seen with the Severe Combined Immunodeficiency (SCID) trials using functional adenosine deaminase, there can be some serious consequences.

I think it's problematic to claim that genetic disorders can only be "detected then aborted," considering the large number of people who suffer from various genetic disorders that are successfully managed.

[iJohnHenry]

How in the Hell did genetic diversity turn into a religious discussion???

This is beyond perverse.

Were I gay, I would welcome any knowledge that would help me cope with my day to day activity.

Someone, please enlighten me.

(Stands back to avoid being trampled.)

[mithrilfox]

the thing is, i can be sure of it, i am sure you didn't suffer being a missionary where you were constantly held at gunpoint spreading the gospel and had members of your entourage executed for their faith in christ

have you ever stood next to a major hotel full of body parts due to religous hatred between protestants and catholics in belfast?...i didn't think so

brother, let me tell you there are bigger issues with christianity than worrying about homosexuality and playing with safe issues in a safe country where people are not being beheaded or burned at the stake for their missionary duties for christ...and who did jesus hang around in the NT?

be sure that at the end of the day, what maters at all is that jesus died for our sins on the cross and christians who are obesessed with who sleeps with who are not worthy, or brave enough to go do a missionary journey in belfast, or like my fellow travelers, who went to uganda

when one comes to christ, the rest will be revealed to them but our jobs as christians is to spread the gospel...nothing more, nothing less

god bless,

-63

Your desire to move people past pointless bickering about "small" issues is great, but if that desire includes calling good evil or evil good, it's not OK. We cannot sacrifice the basic foundation of the gospel of Christ and say that we are "focusing on the most important stuff."

If we are not teaching all that Christ taught, we're not obeying his command, to go and to make disciples, and teach them EVERYTHING that he taught. We cannot dispense with particular parts of the faith because some people think it's "nit-picky."

True, if people are getting hung up on this issues and letting it consume an unhealthy amount of time or energy, then yes, there's a problem. But to say that "who sleeps with who" doesn't matter is simply wrong; it's all part of God's teaching through Jesus Christ, and belittling part of that teaching is no missionary work at all.

Additionally, Christians are not required to be placed into positions of danger to life and limb. Those who are in that position, I pray for. Those who feel called to it, I pray with and for. But no humble Christian would belittle and make others small because they are not being "persecuted as much as me." And besides, when you do that sort of thing, someone comes around who is more persecuted than you, or in greater danger, who can "tell you a thing or two." We need to quit trying to play the one-up-manship game. The "I'm better than you because..." game needs to end, and we need to all work together. Some in more dangerous areas, some in less. There is no sin that we can call good in order to further God's gospel, because in doing so we lose a little piece of it... And it easily becomes a slippery slope. If you wish to discuss it further, PM or start a new thread.

leekholer:

This illustrates my favorite Christian premise. Everyone is bad and needs to be fixed. It's the reason I left the religion. How about thinking you're OK, but make mistakes from time to time? What's wrong with that?

Although leaving is not good in my opinion, you left for a valid reason: that IS a teaching of Scripture. Many people leave for invalid reasons, silly things that becomes lame excuses for other, real reasons. The problem with "thinking you're ok but make mistakes from time to time" is that it is absolutely not biblical. It's not a biblically defensible position. If you wish to discuss further, start a new thread. I may or may not participate.


Biblical arguments are not good arguments. Belief is personal. Since not everybody has it, it can not be used as a basis for law or rules of society. That's not a dig at your beliefs, whatever beefs I may or may not have with them. It's simply equitable and just.

Claiming that my beliefs are merely personal is a belief in and of itself, and therefore, you are "forcing" your beliefs on me if you insist on me keeping my beliefs "personal." I don't believe they are merely personal. Your position is not neutral, or the best, or the most equitable, it is simply one opinion claiming domination over others, no better than one religion dominating over other religions.

SMM

Most historians believe that Peter was homosexual, but could never come to terms with it.

That is absolutely not true. I have studied countless books and articles written by religious and non-religious scholars on the history of the Bible and the key characters in it, and NEVER have I encountered such an absurdly ridiculous position. Someone is merely trying to further a personal agenda. This tendency to look into history and try to make people into homosexuals when there is absolutely no proof whatsoever is completely rude and insulting to those characters from our past. I would hate to think that people would look back at me and try to make me into something I'm not just to further their own agenda.


Most historians believe that Peter was homosexual, but could never come to terms with it. Therefore, he often writes about the the 'sins of the flesh'. We studied him in Philosophy, in my junior year of college, which was largely focused on theology. He even took an extreme position, it was better to live a life of total abstinence. But, if they could not resist the temptations of the flesh, "Let them be married".

I think you're confused. You are saying it is Peter, but you are talking about the writings of Paul. Peter did NOT write those things that are you referring to or quoting. Paul did. Are you sure you know what you're referring to here?

floyde

where an all-loving God calls for the disproportionate punishment of murder? Even if it were immoral (which it's not), don't you think it's a bit too much? But you're right, nothing good can come from this.

The world feels fine about the "loving" aspect of God, but they stop far short of recognizing his wrath. Outside of religious circles, few people ever want to speak of God's wrath, much less admit it is ever present in the Bible as a character trait. God is not acting out of character or acting on impulsive angry, or any other human-like fallible emotional spur-of-the-moment rashness; he is completely in-line with his basic nature. He is a god of love, and he is a god of wrath. The contradiction is in our attempt to force him to be less than he is, or our failure to understand how they fit together.

The verse you quoted about the punishment for immoral behavior (which is immoral by God's law, which is the ultimate law that overrides all others) is not problematic at all for me, or any well-versed Christian. The reason non-Christians bring such verses up so often is because they have a hugely critical misunderstanding of God's nature, and the nature of sin, and just how evil and wicked sin is. People think of sin as a bad thing you do to someone else, or maybe even a bad thing specifically done against God (like swearing at him, or saying he is bad). Sin goes so much deeper, and encompasses so much more, and is much, much more wicked than you could even imagine. I won't try to explain it, because if you are interested, you could find out, or ask me in PM.

[mithrilfox]

Genetic conditions can't be "fixed" at birth, only detected then aborted. It'd be interesting to see how that would go down with the pro-life camp.

I'm curious why a few instances of violence against homosexuals has suddenly pushed discussions of the issue into "hate" avenues? Most of the Christians I know who are opposed to it have no hatred or violent intentions towards any homosexual, and would be bothered to hear about such instances. In my previous church, we often lamented the stories we heard in the news of occasional violence against homosexuals, and prayed for them, their families, and the offender as well.

When we hear of such cases, we know that the attacker must have some personal problems or anger issues. Meanwhile, the rest of the world turns it into a huge "hate" campaign by anyone opposed to homosexuality. We need to ditch this whole misconception, and fast, or we will push people towards the very hatred that we are trying to fight. If you take a person who is morally opposed to it, and you basically force him into a position of for or against, if against means hatred and violence, you will push him towards hatred and violence. Let people be opposed in non-hateful, non-violent ways, or you will make it worse.

No Christian I have ever met even suggested locating a "gay" trait and then aborting them before birth. It's NEVER been suggested or even joked about in any Christian circle I know of or have been a part of.

[blackfox]

A lot of stuff I don't agree with, but am attempting to respect.

I am trying hard not to belittle your position mithrilfox, as you have been a good sport in this thread and have tried, somewhat patiently, to defend/explain your position. That said, I have some questions/comments:

1. While I respect your obvious faith in your position, it is also (necessarily) a position that is completely inflexible, immune to logical argument, and poor with context. This makes it a difficult position for people to agree with, or to even find a common ground. This includes the Christian community at large, as reflected in the various schisms and denominations over the years.

As such, you must allow for the fact that much of what you take as definitive is quite subjective. Even allowing for a second the possibility that the Bible IS the word of God (which I don't) - It wasn't dictated over the heavenly intercom to some guy - it was written by several people covering oral eye-witness accounts occuring many years prior. This is generally agreed upon. It also was translated several times, and due to the nature of language and the personalities of the translators - other blurrings took effect. In addition, there were/are a multiple of gospels that were excluded from either Testament - and considering the defacto political nature of the Church, and the nature of humanity - it is hard not to see the possibility that this editing reflected very human, political motives.

I am not trying to talk you out of your faith, but just remember that what you believe is not as certain as you might think. I am not advocating you take up moral relativism, but to remember that the Bible is a very metaphorical book about the human condition - and perhaps it might be better to concentrate on the big messages than the exact words.

2. A question: If everyone is a "sinner" - then why care about a certain "sinful" % of the population? Why not say your piece (if you must) and let the GLBT community do their thing? They "sin" in their way(s), and you (since you are a sinner) sin in yours. Are you not supposed to love the sinner? I don't understand this at all.

Also, what further sins are commited by you (or the Christian community to generalize), with regards to how you (all) treat the GLBT community? Is it a net reduction in sin - if not, then how do you reconcile that? Are some sins worse than others? I know of the Cardinal Sins, but they don't seem to relate to the GLBT community in particular...

I don't mean to single you out personally, but you are the only one (here) representing your POV.

Oh, and my apologies for further pulling this thread away from the Science, and more into the Religious/Philosophical.

I find the news interesting, but personally I don't care what the "origins" of homosexuals are - they have always been part of humanity, and imo have never been a negative part of humanity by virtue of who they find attractive. To argue otherwise seems patently ridiculous.

[solvs]

My brain clearly must be rainbow coloured.
That would only be for gay dudes. Your brain is made of... oh, I don't know, I can't think of any lesbian stereotypes. Oh wait, I thought of something! :D But if I say it I'd probably get bleeped. :o Naughty.

There is a lot of speculation about Paul being single or a widower and he definitely talks being abstinent and about passions and using marriage to control those passions if necessary. However, there is no consensus among historians about his sexual orientation.
Consensus, no. But it is a thought based on what he said and how he acted. I've brought it up myself. Makes sense, some of the most vehemently anti-gay turned out to be gay themselves. One of the reasons why I wonder when someone says it's a choice that maybe it's a choice for them. That they're gay, but can't deal with it, and think everyone feels the way they do. Tempted by hot gayness, choosing icky girlies because God says so. We don't BTW. Some of us like women. Like, really like women. It's not a choice. Others can just deal with the fact that they like their own gender, and get turned off by religious nuts telling them they're evil because they don't understand their own religion, which should be encouraging them to join them in the light of God or whatever.

Not aimed at you cheesie, just an observation I make in almost all of these threads.

[mithrilfox]

<snip>

We should make a separate thread to pursue those issues you brought up, if it's worth it for you. I'd be willing to go some distance, but I wouldn't want to spend hours writing up replies, if you know what I mean. We’ve all been party to sabotaging this thread, we have to admit.

[Zwhaler]

I thought we already knew this stuff :o

But it really does make sense, a gay man having a straight woman's brain and vice versa.

[Blue Velvet]

But it really does make sense, a gay man having a straight woman's brain and vice versa.

Doesn't make sense to me and I don't think it's that simplistic.

[solvs]

Doesn't make sense to me and I don't think it's that simplistic.
Maybe not, but some of us are pretty simplistic, so we need simplistic comparisons to understand. Maybe the lesbians out there can explain it to us. Slowly.

Sorry, that's not funny and I apologize. :o

[Blue Velvet]

Maybe not, but some of us are pretty simplistic, so we need simplistic comparisons to understand. Maybe the lesbians out there can explain it to us. Slowly.


I'm not a lesbian. Not that there's anything wrong with that... ;)

First of all, reading about recent studies elsewhere on UK sites shows that these studied differences (in a sample of only about 40 people) were not reflected, in a reversed sense, in lesbian women.

Secondly, it seems to be clear to me that it's more about certain parts of the brain having some similarities, not having identical brains. Men's brains are bigger, for instance...

I'm uncomfortable with the entire notion and am unsure why this type of research is pursued so vigorously; it could lead to a slippery slope of pre-screening and 'cures'. And this thread is not about religious arguments or judgements about 'sinners', they have no place here.

[Rodimus Prime]

I am not suprised by this. It seems to fit with certain things. For example some fields seem to have a much higher concentration of gays than others like extermly higher concentration. To me that seems to lead the brains are different

It already known male and female brains are different in how things are process. Males tend to have the left and right brain process separated and left over lap. Compared to females which will have the 2 sides work more together. Something to note on that point is it has been discovered males who have be force to deal with some heavy handed emotional things tend to have the left and right become more wired together. Example comes from looking at things with logic. Males tend to have less emotions involved in the decision making than females or something along those lines. Never fully understsood it.

But this leads more to my point. If male and female brains are wired differently and certain termatic emotional events can and will cause the male brain to become wired differently. THis along with we know everyone brain is wired differently. Why should it not be the cause "Gay" brains are different than "straight Brains". This does feed the argument that being Gay is at least part genetic. .Personally I still say it is a mixture of both decision and genitics. Some people have more "Gay" tendency that leads to the likely hood of them choosing to be Gay much greater. In the end I really do not care if some one chooses to be gay or straight as long as they are happy in what they choose so be it.

[Blue Velvet]

For example some fields seem to have a much higher concentration of gays than others like extermly higher concentration. To me that seems to lead the brains are different


Some 'fields' are culturally more welcoming to gay men and less hostile in their institutional views. That doesn't automatically mean that brain differences are an explanation, nor does it mean that gay men aren't in every walk of life. Some are more closeted than others.

[solvs]

I'm not a lesbian.
I know. That's why I said, "lesbians out there". ;) Thanks for dumbing it down for the rest of us though. :p

[Gelfin]

Be very careful. This study talks about brain hemisphere proportions, not behavior. There may or may not be certain nonsexual cognitive traits that manifest disproportionately in homosexual people and cannot be attributed to other causes, but any such hypothesis would need to be established independently. In the meantime it is dangerously tempting to overinterpret results like this and just end up with ad hoc rationalization of stereotypes.

[Blue Velvet]

In the meantime it is dangerously tempting to overinterpret results like this and just end up with ad hoc rationalization of stereotypes.

Much more succinctly put than my vague mutterings. :)

[Iscariot]

Claiming that my beliefs are merely personal is a belief in and of itself, and therefore, you are "forcing" your beliefs on me if you insist on me keeping my beliefs "personal." I don't believe they are merely personal. Your position is not neutral, or the best, or the most equitable, it is simply one opinion claiming domination over others, no better than one religion dominating over other religions.

(Citing the Bible as an argument IS positing that your belief is superior to the beliefs of everyone else, and is therefor inequitable.)

[Abstract]

They looked at brain sizes in heterosexuals as well. What would your reaction to be to sensationalist individuals posting that this knowledge will just be used by gays to 'cure' heterosexuality OMFG? And why does research have to be on things that can be changed?

Thanks. I was going to say the same thing.

If you want to stay ignorant, fine. I just learnt something new from the article, and the paper. Ok, so we know something about size asymmetries.....you're probably thinking "So what", right? It's often many small discoveries that add up to something bigger. If you say you don't know what to make out of this news, then just read another thread. Hide under your duvet if you wish. We'll come get you when the world is less scary.


And for what it's worth, this is hardly the first study on anatomical differences between hetero- and homosexuals (or any other sexual differences for that matter)...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=search&term=homosexual+brain+structure

Exactly.

I thought we already knew this stuff :o

But it really does make sense, a gay man having a straight woman's brain and vice versa.

I agree with BV. Doesn't make sense to me either....not in terms of size asymmetry, anyway. I figured it was probably a chemical difference more than physical. That would make sense to me, since I believe every natural preference is chemical.

[iJohnHenry]

Maybe the lesbians out there can explain it to us. Slowly.

Slowly, because they have male brains?? :p

[killerrobot]

Slowly, because they have male brains?? :p

Slower please. I don't get it.:eek:

[newappleboy]

Everyone needs to stop saying "lesbian". The ad filters are picking up on it and I keep seeing ads for girls on here. Where's a good conversation about hot army men when you need one? :D

[themadchemist]

I am a Christian, and I make the Bible a guide to my life... at least I try to, and I know I fail a LOT. That's a given. In the Bible, it speaks of sin a lot, as I'm sure most people here know. One of the things that has happened recently is that people have failed to realize the extent of sin, and often times we think of our bodies as "neutral vehicles" of either good or bad, decided by various factors. This is not the accurate Christian perception, at least not according to what I believe is decent hermeneutics of the Scriptures, and the long-held beliefs of numerous Christian traditions.

The accurate perception is that we are sinful by nature now because of the fall of mankind into the realm of sin. This sin is all-permeating, reaching to every depth of our being. It inhabits our bodies, as Apostle Paul struggled much with what he called, "this body of sin" (referring to his own body). Often he says that the "spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."


As you point out, this is the perception from a Christian standpoint (and, I would guess, a particular Christian standpoint--it seems to me, as an outside observer, that interpretations vary). Secular countries, the United States for instance, cannot base their laws in interpretations of religion. This undermines the fundamental protections of minority viewpoints that Tocqueville pointed out are crucial to preserving democracy.


Sin, or immorality, is not eliminated by finding some biological connection between the behavior and the individual. Far from it. We are steeped in sin, and living a "sinless" life is impossible, because we are, as King David said, "born in sin." A baby is sinful from birth; you do not need to teach your child to be selfish, or hit others. One mother was once amazed that her child hit another; she said she never let him see such behavior on TV or elsewhere, and never hit him herself. The pastor simply told her, "He didn't have to learn it anywhere, it comes naturally."


I disagree with you that children are inherently sinful. I think it is a simplistic way to categorize human behavior and that it demands that we reject the very realities of our existence in order to conform to a debatable standard. Considering that morality has changed with society, I don't quite see what the ideal it is to which you expect us to aspire. Beyond some basic underpinnings on which there is general consensus, it is hard to argue that morality is a clear issue.


Invariably, non-Christians will probably greatly disagree with what I am saying. I take it that "casual" or "cultural" Christians will disagree, too (those who participant in religious activities as a sort of cultural or casual lifestyle, and do not consider it important to dedicate their life, or to take everything "seriously").


There is a pejorative tone in what you say here that bothers me. People disagree with you (Christian or non-Christian) not necessarily because they are less "serious," but rather because their viewpoint of the world is markedly different, and to be honest, perhaps less judgmental. Of course, you are completely within your rights to express this viewpoint, and it's internally consistent even if I don't agree with it. But the impact that that viewpoint (one of many) has in public policy must be limited to the point that it robs rights from others. Where differing viewpoints exist, we must allow the approach that expands rights to prevail.


This leads me to the point I was stressing: a biological link does not assuage the issue at hand. I am NOT going to argue homosexuality in terms of morality or sinfulness; that has been done countless times and in countless ways. On an internet forum, such discussions turn hateful VERY quickly, and often nothing good comes from them. There are good, biblically based arguments for those issues online.

You're right, a biological link really is not a significant part of the argument. But neither is a Biblical one. If we are looking to "determine" some universal morality, particularist Biblical arguments do not establish it. There are far too many different belief systems in the world to let the values of one domineer over the rest in the realm of law. Unless it can be shown that a given act causes harm to others, we must protect against stripping away rights on that basis. I don't think this test has been met for homosexuality, nor do I think it can be met. All the arguments in the Bible for why it's wrong don't necessarily make it so, nor do they provide a basis for negative legal consequences.

[iJohnHenry]

Slower please. I don't get it.:eek:

The lesbians, having male brains, have to speak slower as a result. :rolleyes:

[mithrilfox]

Secular countries, the United States for instance, cannot base their laws in interpretations of religion. This undermines the fundamental protections of minority viewpoints that Tocqueville pointed out are crucial to preserving democracy.

That is absolutely not true. There is no such thing as a religiously "neutral" state. An unreligious state is taking a religious position, and a religious state is taking a religious position. Being non-religious is not some sort of "neutral" unbiased middle ground, it is a position on the scale that some disagree with. This is a huge misconception that many people still hold and teach, and it needs to be stamped out.

Telling a group of religious people, "We can't base laws on your religion cause we need to be fair to everyone," is automatically unfair to them -- you have already disqualified their voice in the law making process, and will now disregard their position. Religious people are a COMPLETELY VALID, COMPLETELY ACCEPTABLE group that operates within a country like the US. They have EVERY RIGHT to voice their agenda, like everyone else does, and every right to petition the government for grievances. Religious people are not lesser than supposedly "non-religious" people, and they have no less right to expect the government to reflect their desires. That is democracy (or a republic, if you will). Anyone who says otherwise is discriminating on the basis of religion.


There is a pejorative tone in what you say here that bothers me. People disagree with you (Christian or non-Christian) not necessarily because they are less "serious," but rather because their viewpoint of the world is markedly different, and to be honest, perhaps less judgmental. Of course, you are completely within your rights to express this viewpoint, and it's internally consistent even if I don't agree with it. But the impact that that viewpoint (one of many) has in public policy must be limited to the point that it robs rights from others. Where differing viewpoints exist, we must allow the approach that expands rights to prevail.

Since when am I forcing my position on others and robbing them of their rights? It's your own mistaken personal extrapolation of what I am saying. That is your problem, not mine. I won't even entertain the silly notion further.

You're right, a biological link really is not a significant part of the argument. But neither is a Biblical one. If we are looking to "determine" some universal morality, particularist Biblical arguments do not establish it.

Sorry, that is only your opinion. Just because you think that all religions are equally valid, or equally invalid, does not invalidate my religion. Sorry, but your "non-religious" approach is just as opinionated and limiting to my beliefs as my beliefs are to yours. You really need to open up your mind and see that you are just trying to strike down my "opinions" with your own opinions. That is called hypocrisy, and it runs rampant in this anti-religious conversations, where people think that "non-religiousness" is some sort of perfect neutrality -- NOT - AT - ALL.

Thank you for your opinions, but they are merely opinions. At least I am appealing to a source that I believe, with numerous reasons, to be more than an opinion. That is my position, and if you don't like it, you're just gonna have to learn to deal with it. Pushing religious people out of the picture or out of the democratic process is unconstitutional (in the US), and morally wrong.

[killerrobot]

The lesbians, having male brains, have to speak slower as a result. :rolleyes:

Ya see, I got me one of dem thar' hetero male brains and I'm a male. So maybe I've got me one of dem lesbian brains too. Can I have me two brains!? Neverthemindmeless, the good news being my cat's breath smells like catfud. :rolleyes:

[themadchemist]

As a preamble: I apologize if our discussion has gotten acrimonious. I appreciate the kind words from your prior post and do understand and respect the depth of your religious convictions. That said, this is a matter on which I disagree with you vehemently (although I bet we have more common ground in general than you might expect).

That is absolutely not true. There is no such thing as a religiously "neutral" state. An unreligious state is taking a religious position, and a religious state is taking a religious position. Being non-religious is not some sort of "neutral" unbiased middle ground, it is a position on the scale that some disagree with. This is a huge misconception that many people still hold and teach, and it needs to be stamped out.


OK. I guess you're right. We should base laws on your religion because not doing so would be unfair to you. Of course, that would mean that we weren't basing laws on other people's religions (or on people's lack of faith) and that would be unfair to them. But who cares about them because they don't believe what you do.

This makes no sense.


Telling a group of religious people, "We can't base laws on your religion cause we need to be fair to everyone," is automatically unfair to them -- you have already disqualified their voice in the law making process, and will now disregard their position. Religious people are a COMPLETELY VALID, COMPLETELY ACCEPTABLE group that operates within a country like the US. They have EVERY RIGHT to voice their agenda, like everyone else does, and every right to petition the government for grievances. Religious people are not lesser than supposedly "non-religious" people, and they have no less right to expect the government to reflect their desires. That is democracy (or a republic, if you will). Anyone who says otherwise is discriminating on the basis of religion.


So you're discriminating based on religion unless you base the country's laws on a particular religion and then force those of other faiths to conform to a standard in which they don't believe? The religious have the right to voice their agenda--that's freedom of expression. However, it would be an infringement on the rights of those not practicing a particular faith to force them to conform to laws that find their only basis in that faith's religious text.

As it so happens, I am a religious person, but not your religion. I don't see any reason why your religion has priority over mine, or why mine has priority over yours. I also don't see why either of our religions has priority over those who don't have religious beliefs.


Since when am I forcing my position on others and robbing them of their rights? It's your own mistaken personal extrapolation of what I am saying. That is your problem, not mine. I won't even entertain the silly notion further.


The second you say that Biblical arguments ought to be used to deny certain legal rights to gay couples (i.e., marriage, and all the legal/financial benefits that come with it), you are arguing to deny others' rights based on your beliefs. That is where you overstep the boundary.

Denying gay marriage is not an explicit violation of the establishment clause, but it certainly violates the spirit in which the religious protections are granted. If the only leg to stand on for those who would deny, say, gay marriage, is a religious one, then that's not enough to fly. You see, while you may feel very injured by the inability to keep someone else from getting married, and see this as a gross violation of your religious beliefs, you're really not that affected by it. The person who wants to get married has way more at stake and is experiencing far more of a denial of rights. As it were, your rights do not extend so far as to allow you to deny the rights of others.


Sorry, that is only your opinion. Just because you think that all religions are equally valid, or equally invalid, does not invalidate my religion. Sorry, but your "non-religious" approach is just as opinionated and limiting to my beliefs as my beliefs are to yours.


You're right, it is an opinion, but it is not nearly as limiting of rights. You want your religious principles to become the law of the land. You want control of the legal and cultural dialogue--a control that affects not only you and your fellow believers, but all those who don't believe. And therefore, you are asking to deny marriage to millions of people simply because your religion, which, the last time I checked, was not the state religion, finds their lifestyle distasteful.


You really need to open up your mind and see that you are just trying to strike down my "opinions" with your own opinions. That is called hypocrisy, and it runs rampant in this anti-religious conversations, where people think that "non-religiousness" is some sort of perfect neutrality -- NOT - AT - ALL.


Thank you for your opinions, but they are merely opinions. At least I am appealing to a source that I believe, with numerous reasons, to be more than an opinion. That is my position, and if you don't like it, you're just gonna have to learn to deal with it. Pushing religious people out of the picture or out of the democratic process is unconstitutional (in the US), and morally wrong.[/QUOTE]

So first you call me hypocritical and then you claim that your argument has the benefit of "appeal to a source that [you] believe, with numerous reasons, to be more than an opinion." You're trying to give priority to your opinion with this sleight of hand, and it's in poor form.

You're also setting up a bit of a straw man argument. I never claimed that you couldn't express your opinions or your religion. Last time I checked, religious institutions played a tremendous role in American public life and the political process. What you fail to address is whether a particular religion's set of beliefs is sufficient basis for a legal code in a secular country. If you think it is, well, that's your opinion, but it doesn't fit too well with "a source that I believe, with numerous reasons, to be more than an opinion"--the Constitution of the United States of America.

[mithrilfox]

BTW, after I wrote, I realized it sounded a bit rude. Rather than go through and change a bunch of stuff, I just want to say that I am speaking frankly and a little crudely. I hope that's OK. If you feel anything in particular I said is unnecessarily rude, please PM me and I'll probably apologize... probably! :-)


OK. I guess you're right. We should base laws on your religion because not doing so would be unfair to you. Of course, that would mean that we weren't basing laws on other people's religions (or on people's lack of faith) and that would be unfair to them. But who cares about them because they don't believe what you do.

Please re-read what I said. I did not say that people of my religion should have the only say. Seriously, re-read what I said. It's NOT there. You said it, not me. I said that we cannot exclude people because we don't like their religion, or because the have one. That's what I said.

This makes no sense.

Hey, you said, not me. If it makes no sense, consider where it came from :p.



So you're discriminating based on religion unless you base the country's laws on a particular religion and then force those of other faiths to conform to a standard in which they don't believe?

All laws force people to subscribe to them, like it or not. Have you ever encountered a law you don't like? It doesn't matter if it came from a religious group or not, it's just as much a law you don't like. Fortunately for all of us, the US has a constitutional barrier to creating laws establishing a particular religion. That does NOT mean that religion cannot influence the laws, however; that would be contorting that piece of the constitution. Congress cannot make laws establishing religion, but laws governing moral practices are perfectly plausible. Laws such as that about murder, incest, rape, etc. In fact, think long and hard about where marriage itself comes from. It's a primarily religious practice that has recently moved more towards a civil one, yet it has been part of our laws from nearly the beginning.


As it so happens, I am a religious person, but not your religion. I don't see any reason why your religion has priority over mine, or why mine has priority over yours. I also don't see why either of our religions has priority over those who don't have religious beliefs.

Legally it doesn't have priority over yours, unless your religion is deemed by the state to be dangerous to the welfare of the public, which is always subjective. Regardless, I don't look to the laws of governments, which rise and fall and often make enormous mistakes, to dictate to me the value of particular religions. My faith teaches me that information, and I believe it to be accurate. A lot of people have some sort of personal problem with that, but I want to stress that it is THEIR PERSONAL problem; I try not to make it mine any more than necessary.


The second you say that Biblical arguments ought to be used to deny certain legal rights to gay couples (i.e., marriage, and all the legal/financial benefits that come with it), you are arguing to deny others' rights based on your beliefs. That is where you overstep the boundary.

The second you argue that gay couples should be given rights based on your beliefs, you deny me the right to say, for example, a country without a procedure I believe is wrong. I have every right to petition the government, if I choose, to make such practices illegal (or to prevent such practices from being made legal). It is my legal right. It it is your legal right to petition as you please. You may even try to deny me my rights, but luckily for all of us, you are not in the position to impose your rule. There is no "boundary" here but the one you invented and try to make me follow here by saying I "overstep" it.


Denying gay marriage is not an explicit violation of the establishment clause, but it certainly violates the spirit in which the religious protections are granted.

Arguments of that nature, referring to the "spirit" of governmental laws, are entirely subjective and full of opinions.

If the only leg to stand on for those who would deny, say, gay marriage, is a religious one, then that's not enough to fly.

It is everything they would need to be opposed, and all the reason they would need to petition the government to oppose legalizing procedures or to make certain practices illegal. It is their right, and anyone who tries to say no is discriminating on the basis of religion.


You see, while you may feel very injured by the inability to keep someone else from getting married, and see this as a gross violation of your religious beliefs, you're really not that affected by it.

No, I don't feel "injured." I have never publicly or significantly been involved in protesting or opposing any moves for gay marriage, unions, etc. It is an area I choose not to devote any time to, aside from casual conversations with other people. However, you are not the one who decides if I am affected or not. That is a decision that I make for myself, and it becomes my own personal problem; that is right for it to be that way. However, if I decide I feel it is a problem for society as a whole, even if I base it on my religious beliefs, I have every right to petition the government to change it. EVERY RIGHT.

Like it or not, you can't force religious people out of the government, or force them to have no place in the procedures of government in this country. If you do that, you are violating their rights and committing discrimination. It is no better than barring certain races from participating in the government. Would you ban people based on a race, from having the right to petition the government? I doubt it. Why would we do it to a religious group because they are religious? Pure discrimination, that's all.

Many people fear religious groups, and they fear religious groups becoming involved in government. Here's a wake-up call to them: religious people have always been a part of the government, and have always had a profoundly significant effect on it too. Time to open up your eyes and realize that along with every other group you don't like, religious groups are affecting government policies and laws.

Look, maybe you don't like the oil companies lobbying in the government. Maybe you think it's wrong. I personally am not a big fan of oil companies winning either. But the fact is, those companies have a right to lobby, because the act of lobbying is what our country is founded on -- the right of the people to petition the government with their grievances. Maybe you think the procedures are wrong and should be changed. OK, so petition the government to change it. But don't petition the government to remove someone's voice -- that makes you a hater. I have never petitioned the government to ban anyone who calls themselves gay from being able to participate in government. Never once have I asked for that, recommended it, prayed for it, or suggested it. Neither should you, nor anyone else, do likewise to me; it's rude, it's wrong, and it's not democratic.

The person who wants to get married has way more at stake and is experiencing far more of a denial of rights. As it were, your rights do not extend so far as to allow you to deny the rights of others.

Getting married is NOT a right, it's a privilege. You are not entitled to get married to whoever you want, however you want. There are laws restricting marriage based on age, family connection, current marital status, number of parties (no more than two people in a marriage), and yes, still laws restricting it based on gender (no two of the same gender can marry in most states currently). These are all laws that are written explicitly in the negative, or written by nature in the positive (for example, a law stating that a man and woman may marry is by nature preventing a man and a man, or a woman and a woman).

You may not realize it, but there are also laws governing things like where you can build a home, how large it can be, what kind of rooms peopled are allowed to live in (bedrooms), things that the home has to have, etc. There are also laws about starting a business and getting a specific status for it, as well as laws governing building churches and their tax free status. We can complain and gripe and moan, and sometimes we should, but never for a minute think that laws don't force us to follow someone else's beliefs. We are forced everyday to do things we don't want to do, at least most of us, especially those of us with a job. There are levels to which we are kept bound, some are weak and only allow a person to charge us money or fire us from a job, and some are strong and allow people to bring us to trial and face serious penalties like jail or prison terms. I can walk away from my job right now and my boss can't legally stop me with force, but yet if I try to walk away from an officer who is detaining me, he is legally allowed to stop me with force. He can restrict my freedom in serious ways. That is the nature of the law, the opinion of others forced on all.


You're right, it is an opinion, but it is not nearly as limiting of rights. You want your religious principles to become the law of the land.

I never said that. You really have to quit assuming, because when you assume, .. well, you know how it goes. :D I never said any such thing; you said it, not me. I won't argue with something I never said.

You want control of the legal and cultural dialogue--a control that affects not only you and your fellow believers, but all those who don't believe.

Nope, never said that either. Where are you getting this stuff? Ah... I know, from your own head. That's the fallacy of assumption, we extrapolate other's statements beyond what they really mean, set them up with a straw man, and get all excited cause we can knock them down. All you are knocking is yourself.

Here is what I AM saying I want: the legal right for people who believe as I do to have just as much participation as any other group, in principle. That, in principle, we would not be restricted any more than another group based on a factor like religion. I am asking not to be discriminated against.

And therefore, you are asking to deny marriage to millions of people simply because your religion, which, the last time I checked, was not the state religion, finds their lifestyle distasteful.

There is no state religion, that is barred by the constitution. Congress may not draft a law establishing any religion, or the free exercise thereof. Regardless, if I personally don't agree that our legal institution known as marriage should extend to that (gay marriage), I have every legal right to petition the government to prevent that from happening. I voted it down when it appeared on the ballot in my home state many years ago. That is my legal right, and that is recognized by the government, who puts it to a vote. I am fortunate that my government still recognized my right to do that. I am afraid, in a small way, that the people around me are becoming increasing hostile toward those with religious beliefs, particularly their involvement in government. Such hostility is discrimination, plain and simple. I have never tried to tell someone else they have no voice, or have no right to voice their petitions to the government -- NUMEROUS people have told me that, however. They tell me that because I'm religious, I have no right to vote based on that, or participate in government unless I throw my religion away to do it. That is nonsense, and absolutely wrong. There is just no other way to see it -- it's dead wrong.

I'll say it again. A supposedly non-religious position is NOT some neutral, unbiased starting point. A religious person has EVERY right to participate in the governmental processes of the US, including, but not limited to, voting based on their beliefs, running for office, holding an office, and holding a person as judge. Religious people can not legally be discriminated against on the basis of their religion. That is the law.


So first you call me hypocritical and then you claim that your argument has the benefit of "appeal to a source that [you] believe, with numerous reasons, to be more than an opinion." You're trying to give priority to your opinion with this sleight of hand, and it's in poor form.

I am not using any sneaky tactics here -- I said straight up, clear as day. I'll say it again: I am appealing to beliefs that I believe, with numerous reaosns, to be more than an opinion. That is what I believe. I am not going to lie and pretend that I think it's "mere opinion." I don't think it is. If you don't like that, or consider me "one-uping" you, that's fine; I am not going to contort myself to fit your expectations.

What you fail to address is whether a particular religion's set of beliefs is sufficient basis for a legal code in a secular country. If you think it is, well, that's your opinion, but it doesn't fit too well with "a source that I believe, with numerous reasons, to be more than an opinion"--the Constitution of the United States of America.

Constitution of the United States does NOT prevent creating laws based on religious beliefs -- not at all. As long as those laws do not establish a religion, there is nothing unconstutitional about them. If the people of America petition the government to prevent something from happening, it does not matter whether their position is based on humanistic grounds, religious grounds, philosophical grounds, or pragmatic grounds, it is their position and it has every legal right to be voiced and heard. Your assertion that we can't make a law is the reason is "religious" is simply wrong -- it can, and in fact is being done. Every religoius person who voted against gay marriage because of their religion did exactly that -- and they did it entirely legally. In fact, they were performing their democratic duty as citizens of the country.

To tell me that "you can voice your opinion, but you can't make anything happen if it's based on religious beliefs" is ridiculous. Tell me if I misinterpreted your statements, but you seem be saying that we can have our opinion, but we can't make anything happen with it unless somehow it's classified as "non-religious." That is a ridiculously stupid and inane argument that has never been true in the US, not legally. It does not matter what your reasons for your petition -- religious or supposedly "non-religious," they are valid petitions. I petitioned my home state to ban partial-birth abortion (won't discuss it here) after it was vetoed by the governor. We got signatures on our petition forms, and presented them to the government. Although we had enough signatures to override our governor's veto, it did not make it back through the legal process to completion -- it was stopped short. What was the main reason most people gave for signing it? Religious beliefs. Almost everyone who I got to sign up, of about 40-60, were religious, and specifically signed because of their religious beliefs. Those religious beliefs are the reason the petition worked, and the reason the law went back to the legislature again. Unfortunately, it got struck down. Such is the legal process. :o

If you, or anyone else, is afraid of religious people acting in the government or petitioning the government, that's a personal problem. You, or anyone else, need to deal with that on your own, in your own personal way. Either come to accept that reality, or fight for the discrimination that you somehow believe is OK. I don't want you to, and don't think you should, but I won't try to force your voice out of the government -- I have the respect to let you have your voice. Let religious people have theirs, even if you don't like their religion, even if you don't like thier reasons for having their positions -- they have every right to have them. Period. It's just that simple.

Hope you can accept that and move on. I have. If gay marriage is legal in California, then that is the law. I accept it. If I decide it's worth fighting, I'll fight it. That's my legal right to fight a law that I think is wrong. Whatever reason I think it's wrong, it's still entirely my right to fight it with every legal avenue I have. I have chosen not to get involved, that's my choice. The covenant of marriage, which I believe was instituted by God and for his purposes, is not destroyed or lost because of some California law. My faith is not destroyed or hindered because of it, either. I won't recognize that marriage has a valid marriage in the biblical sense. Legally, sure it is. Biblically, and therefore, "ultimately," no I don't think it is. Don't like my position? Tough beans pal, you gotta learn to live with it. I learned to live with a lot of stuff I don't like.

[leekohler]

Mithrilfox- to deny an entire group of people rights and privileges based solely on a religious belief is the worst abuse of religion there is. You may have your beliefs and you may choose to live by them if you wish. But if you think for one minute, that you have some right to force others by law to live by your beliefs, you've got another thing comin' man. This is the USA, after all. Tough beans pal, you gotta learn to live with it.

And people haven't all of sudden become hostile to religion for no reason. You only have yourselves to blame for that. Your last post was the one of the scariest things I've read in a very long time.

[Shotglass]

But it really does make sense, a gay man having a straight woman's brain and vice versa.Are you sure you're not talking about transvestites?

[iJohnHenry]

Are you sure you're not talking about transvestites?

No, I agree with Zwhaler on this one.

Perhaps transvestites think they look too good to date women, so they seek out men of the same persuasion.

[ErikCLDR]

First, I don't think this is an "offensive" study I think they are just curious to see any anatomical differences between hetero and homosexual people.

Second, who knows how accurate or credible this experiment was.

The way I see it homosexuals should be able to "marry" and get the economic benefits of having a spouse. Not being able to marry I feel is blocks them from the pursuit of happiness.

[themadchemist]

BTW, after I wrote, I realized it sounded a bit rude. Rather than go through and change a bunch of stuff, I just want to say that I am speaking frankly and a little crudely. I hope that's OK. If you feel anything in particular I said is unnecessarily rude, please PM me and I'll probably apologize... probably! :-)


No problem. I'm not easily offended.


All laws force people to subscribe to them, like it or not. Have you ever encountered a law you don't like? It doesn't matter if it came from a religious group or not, it's just as much a law you don't like

[...]

That does NOT mean that religion cannot influence the laws, however; that would be contorting that piece of the constitution. Congress cannot make laws establishing religion, but laws governing moral practices are perfectly plausible.


Actually, you're right. Religions can influence the law, and they do. It was a mistake for me to claim that that was a violation of the intent of the Constitution.

Indeed, religious impulse has often been the source for profoundly positive change in this country. I think that the religious should play an active role in the political process (and they do).

Despite this, I still argue that a denial of gay marriage is unconstitutional:


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


That's pretty broad. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Your religious convictions in this case come in direct conflict with this statement, and in the United States, the Constitution takes precedence every single time.


Laws such as that about murder, incest, rape, etc.


Drawing a relation between "murder, incest, rape, etc.," and gay marriage--in any way, however oblique--is downright unacceptable.


In fact, think long and hard about where marriage itself comes from. It's a primarily religious practice that has recently moved more towards a civil one, yet it has been part of our laws from nearly the beginning.



The second you argue that gay couples should be given rights based on your beliefs, you deny me the right to say, for example, a country without a procedure I believe is wrong. I have every right to petition the government, if I choose, to make such practices illegal (or to prevent such practices from being made legal). It is my legal right. It it is your legal right to petition as you please. You may even try to deny me my rights, but luckily for all of us, you are not in the position to impose your rule. There is no "boundary" here but the one you invented and try to make me follow here by saying I "overstep" it.


Your ability to believe whatever it is you like is not limited by allowing gay marriage. Barring gay marriage, however, causes direct, material, and significant harm to homosexual couples wishing to get married. Their loss is quantifiable and practical. Yours is, at best, psychic and indirect. This is only an opinion, but it is an opinion backed by more than a century's precedent of expanding rights: We must err in the direction of allowing people rights. The burden of proof is higher on denying rights than giving them.

Where religion dictates a limitation of practices that do not materially hurt others, I think this constitutes discrimination. In the case of gay marriage, we are discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, which is inconsistent with non-discrimination precedent set. Our medical experts have reached a consensus that homosexuality is not an illness; our legal bodies have reached a consensus that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has already rejected the Biblical sentiment that homosexual acts ought to be subject to prohibition, citing the principle of liberty over such morality-based legislation. This gives weight within the context of American law to my opinion that the limit of marriage to a man and a woman is illegal discrimination.

You are asking that people be denied various spousal privileges in order to satisfy a vision of a "moral America" whose grounding has essentially already been rejected as insufficient basis for discrimination. When I argue that you're overstepping your boundaries here, it's because of the legal precedent protecting individual rights.

Religious groups, while they have the right to petition for whatever they like, should not expect that this country will uphold laws that violate constitutional principles.


Regardless, I don't look to the laws of governments, which rise and fall and often make enormous mistakes, to dictate to me the value of particular religions. My faith teaches me that information, and I believe it to be accurate. A lot of people have some sort of personal problem with that, but I want to stress that it is THEIR PERSONAL problem; I try not to make it mine any more than necessary.


What relevance does this statement have to the national laws of the United States? You have the individual right to have whatever values you see fit; no
one is denying you these.


Arguments of that nature, referring to the "spirit" of governmental laws, are entirely subjective and full of opinions.


You're right. Religion can be the basis for law in the United States. These efforts don't violate the First Amendment at all; they violate the Fourteenth. I'll take that spirit stuff back: the Fourteenth Amendment is pretty explicitly on my side here.


It is everything they would need to be opposed, and all the reason they would need to petition the government to oppose legalizing procedures or to make certain practices illegal. It is their right, and anyone who tries to say no is discriminating on the basis of religion.


I am not discriminating. I am saying they are requesting a law that is unconstitutional.


However, you are not the one who decides if I am affected or not. That is a decision that I make for myself, and it becomes my own personal problem; that is right for it to be that way. However, if I decide I feel it is a problem for society as a whole, even if I base it on my religious beliefs, I have every right to petition the government to change it. EVERY RIGHT.


You do, but your petitions should be stricken down on the basis of constitutionality. And really, whether you are affected or not, from a legal standpoint, is not your own personal problem--it's a matter to be sorted out by courts. Don't go with this argument; it's not your strongest.


Like it or not, you can't force religious people out of the government, or force them to have no place in the procedures of government in this country. If you do that, you are violating their rights and committing discrimination. It is no better than barring certain races from participating in the government. Would you ban people based on a race, from having the right to petition the government? I doubt it. Why would we do it to a religious group because they are religious? Pure discrimination, that's all.


Now you're reading a lot into my statements that I'm not saying. If I came off that way, I apologize. I'm just saying that religious opinions don't trump Constitutional rights to equal protection.


Getting married is NOT a right, it's a privilege. You are not entitled to get married to whoever you want, however you want. There are laws restricting marriage based on age, family connection, current marital status, number of parties (no more than two people in a marriage), and yes, still laws restricting it based on gender (no two of the same gender can marry in most states currently).

These are all laws that are written explicitly in the negative, or written by nature in the positive (for example, a law stating that a man and woman may marry is by nature preventing a man and a man, or a woman and a woman).


And how does this not violate equal protection?


That is the nature of the law, the opinion of others forced on all.


I fear you're seriously confused on what a right is. Being forced to do something is quite different from having your rights violated or being discriminated against.



I never said that. You really have to quit assuming, because when you assume, .. well, you know how it goes. :D I never said any such thing; you said it, not me. I won't argue with something I never said.


Never said you said that. I'm saying that. It's not a quote; it's an observation.


I am not using any sneaky tactics here -- I said straight up, clear as day. I'll say it again: I am appealing to beliefs that I believe, with numerous reaosns, to be more than an opinion. That is what I believe. I am not going to lie and pretend that I think it's "mere opinion." I don't think it is. If you don't like that, or consider me "one-uping" you, that's fine; I am not going to contort myself to fit your expectations.


The strength of your beliefs is irrelevant to the legal applicability of them. A Constitutional argument has legal force; your argument does not have legal force. You are right, your conviction is all that you need to have a law passed, but it is not nearly enough to have that law upheld. Unless you can manage to get the Constitution amended, your religious beliefs are not sufficient to override others' constitutional rights. That's all I was trying to say.


The covenant of marriage, which I believe was instituted by God and for his purposes, is not destroyed or lost because of some California law. My faith is not destroyed or hindered because of it, either. I won't recognize that marriage has a valid marriage in the biblical sense. Legally, sure it is. Biblically, and therefore, "ultimately," no I don't think it is. Don't like my position? Tough beans pal, you gotta learn to live with it. I learned to live with a lot of stuff I don't like.

And that is exactly why you are not affected by gay marriage. It doesn't weaken your religious position or your religion. No one has the right to force your religion to bless gay marriages; but as a civil institution, the government not blessing the marriage of two individuals on the basis of sexual orientation is a violation of those individuals' rights. And by granting those rights, it does nothing at all to your religion. I don't have to say you're not affected; you just did.

[scem0]

An interesting study, no doubt. But I'm with Lee on this one –*I fear that it will be twisted and used in wrong ways.

– Emerson

[leekohler]

An interesting study, no doubt. But I'm with Lee on this one –*I fear that it will be twisted and used in wrong ways.

– Emerson

Well, who knows? I don't want to Godwin the thread, but it does give me the creeps. It reminds me of the days of shock therapy and the horrible experiments the Nazis did during the Holocaust. It's hard to forget about that stuff, especially when James Dobson is touting "reparative therapy" and such.

[themadchemist]

Well, who knows? I don't want to Godwin the thread, but it does give me the creeps. It reminds me of the days of shock therapy and the horrible experiments the Nazis did during the Holocaust. It's hard to forget about that stuff, especially when James Dobson is touting "reparative therapy" and such.

This analogy is extraordinarily unfair. "Shock therapy and the horrible experiments the Nazis did during the Holocaust" caused immediate physical and psychological harm to subjects, and subjects were enrolled with out adequate informed consent. That cannot be said about this study.

The scientists here are not complicit in whatever it is that you fear. I think it is very unfortunate that we would draw such connections based on unease, while ignoring the facts of the situation.

[CalBoy]

You mean like many homosexuals. Some of them are the worst misogynists I know. I'd personally get a kick out of them finding they had a girl's CPU up top.

While I personally haven't found that to be the case, I think what you may be seeing is similar to how women interact with each other. To the untrained eye, cattiness can be misconstrued for misogyny.


Were I gay, I would welcome any knowledge that would help me cope with my day to day activity.

Someone, please enlighten me.

(Stands back to avoid being trampled.)
Cope with what exactly?

A disease?

A disorder?

A psychological problem?

There's nothing to "cope" with, and this study won't change that one bit.

This study gives us a better (albeit limited) understanding of brain size and structure, but it really doesn't tell us as much as we'd hope.

Not that I mind the study; I think it's a great thing. The expansion of knowledge and information is something we should never look down upon or be afraid of. We can deal with the social consequences later and focus at the moment on learning what there is to learn.


Secondly, it seems to be clear to me that it's more about certain parts of the brain having some similarities, not having identical brains. Men's brains are bigger, for instance...

I was going to make a similar statement.

It shouldn't be misunderstood that gay men and straight women suddenly have the "same brain."

Were I a betting man (which I'm not :p), I'd reckon that gay men have more in common in behavior and social characteristics with straight men that with straight women. Stereotypes shouldn't cloud our understanding of how similar we truly are as human beings.

BTW, after I wrote, I realized it sounded a bit rude. Rather than go through and change a bunch of stuff, I just want to say that I am speaking frankly and a little crudely.

Your writing was frank, and that's what scares the living daylights out of me.

The fact that someone, in this day and age (and momentarily living in a society that is more adaptable than the US) someone can still spout such an obviously poor understanding of the world and its citizens saddens me.
I hope that's OK. If you feel anything in particular I said is unnecessarily rude, please PM me and I'll probably apologize... probably! :-)

I would gladly take a billion insults if it meant you were to understand. Unfortunately, it seems that you wouldn't be able to (or wouldn't want to) provide that, so an apology would be rather hollow and pointless wouldn't it?

[leekohler]

This analogy is extraordinarily unfair. "Shock therapy and the horrible experiments the Nazis did during the Holocaust" caused immediate physical and psychological harm to subjects, and subjects were enrolled with out adequate informed consent. That cannot be said about this study.

The scientists here are not complicit in whatever it is that you fear. I think it is very unfortunate that we would draw such connections based on unease, while ignoring the facts of the situation.

Given history, I can't help it. And Dobson's "therapy" has caused serious harm to many of his "patients". Whether they submitted willingly to it or not isn't the point.

I know this isn't the point of the study. I'm just leery of potential abuse. Why can I not call attention to that without people thinking I'm against the research? The potential is there and needs to be addressed and discussed.

[themadchemist]

Given history, I can't help it. And Dobson's "therapy" has caused serious harm to many of his "patients". Whether they submitted willingly to it or not isn't the point.

I know this isn't the point of the study. I'm just leery of potential abuse. Why can I not call attention to that without people thinking I'm against the research? The potential is there and needs to be addressed and discussed.

There are ways that this can be abused, but the parallel that you're drawing doesn't make any sense. The Nazis tortured their subjects; these trials were conducted with informed consent using an entirely painless procedure.

It's entirely unfairly to criticize a possible abuse of the results of an experiment by citing examples of experiments that were inherently unethical to perform (like those Nazi ones).

That is, unless you think that there is something morally wrong with paying someone a few bucks to stick them in an MRI, with the provision of debriefing them on the experiment being conducted. But if you have a problem with that, that has nothing to do with the effect this has on the treatment of gay people, and its implications extend far beyond this particular subject.

[iJohnHenry]

Cope with what exactly?


On, say a 14 year old boy, crying into his pillow at night, wondering what is "wrong" with him.

Has it occurred to you that this could be used to help the individual find himself, and thereby help him to make his life just a little more angst free?

(If there is such a thing??)

[CalBoy]

On, say a 14 year old boy, crying into his pillow at night, wondering what is "wrong" with him.

That's quite different from your original phrasing, "day to day activity."

The 14 year old is going through a lot, but I very much doubt that this particular knowledge of brain regions being correlated by sexual attraction is going to make him feel any better.

You know what will? Having positive figures around him who love him unconditionally, rather only when his "problems" can be scientifically "justified."


Has it occurred to you that this could be used to help the individual find himself, and thereby help him to make his life just a little more angst free?


Has it occurred to you that we aren't defined by what scientific studies say about us?

Has it occurred to you that angst is rarely, if ever, adequately resolved by science?

Has it occurred to you that being a minority (in any sense of the term) does not mean you lack understanding of yourself, but rather that you cannot be the same as those around you. This, while very easy to understand, is the true crux of the problem and no scientific analysis will change that or alleviate its effects. Self-confidence, encouragement, and love changes that.

The study is fine to do (the more we know the better of course), but don't assume it can act as some panacea, because it falls well short of even accomplishing a single useful social goal, let alone the laundry list some in this thread expect.

[leekohler]

There are ways that this can be abused, but the parallel that you're drawing doesn't make any sense. The Nazis tortured their subjects; these trials were conducted with informed consent using an entirely painless procedure.

It's entirely unfairly to criticize a possible abuse of the results of an experiment by citing examples of experiments that were inherently unethical to perform (like those Nazi ones).

That is, unless you think that there is something morally wrong with paying someone a few bucks to stick them in an MRI, with the provision of debriefing them on the experiment being conducted. But if you have a problem with that, that has nothing to do with the effect this has on the treatment of gay people, and its implications extend far beyond this particular subject.

Whoa! You took this completely the wrong way. All I meant was that someone could take the results of this research and misuse it. I didn't say the study itself was unethical. Jeez! Am I that hard to understand?

[.Andy]

Here's some novel research correlating the anatomical differences and similarities between brains in different sexes and sexualities :cool:.

Although we approve of research this is dangerous as it could be used by christians to try and wipe homosexuality off the face of the earth :mad:

Although we approve of research this is a dangerous step closer to the gays forcing their homosexual agenda on everyone and increasing the number of gays through some sort of transgenics :mad:

Thread summarised using terrible stereotypes.

[leekohler]

Thread summarised using terrible stereotypes.

Gross stereotypes, I might add. ;)

[themadchemist]

Whoa! You took this completely the wrong way. All I meant was that someone could take the results of this research and misuse it. I didn't say the study itself was unethical. Jeez! Am I that hard to understand?

I know! And that's my point. The comparison to Nazi experiments, which were inherently unethical, doesn't make any sense to me, unless I'm really missing something.

[solvs]

Wait, I'm still confused... are you guys saying all Nazis are closeted gays, because that would explain a lot actually.

[leekohler]

I know! And that's my point. The comparison to Nazi experiments, which were inherently unethical, doesn't make any sense to me, unless I'm really missing something.

You are. :) I wasn't comparing this study to Nazi experiments.

I just meant to say that it's not impossible for some people to try to use this info as a justification for trying to "cure" us. That is certainly something worth discussing- to not do so is naive. It doesn't make the study "evil" and certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't do the research.

The only reason I brought it up is because of history. We as gay people are very aware of what has happened to us in the past, and very afraid that it could be repeated. It's certainly not impossible. So pardon us if studies like this make us uneasy. It shouldn't be too hard to understand. Right now, James Dobson is also victimizing certain gay people in the US by guilting them into "therapy" via their own religious beliefs. It's already been shown that his "therapy" causes psychological damage in many of his "patients". Dobson can and probably will use this study to "prove" to his "patients" there's something wrong with them.

[Gelfin]

I must admit, though I still fall mostly into .Andy's "Scientists" stereotype in my outlook, ever since iJohnHenry brought that hypothetical fourteen year old boy into the discussion, I've revised my position a little, and not in the way he intended.

I'd been thinking about this in terms of how it might be applied to adults. Now, though, I'm less encouraged by what applications of this research could mean to that young boy and more deeply concerned what they could mean to his father.

There are still a lot of families where, given a relatively easy option to have a child tested for The Gay, dear old Dad would force Junior to do so in a heartbeat if he had a suspicion. And if the test came back positive? In a lot of cases handing him over to the likes of Dobson would actually be one of the more merciful possible reactions.

Now, realistically, so few people can afford an elective CT scan that it isn't really an issue in this specific case, but it does get me thinking more deeply and inclines me a little more towards Lee's sense of caution than I was at the outset.

[.Andy]

I'd been thinking about this in terms of how it might be applied to adults. Now, though, I'm less encouraged by what applications of this research could mean to that young boy and more deeply concerned what they could mean to his father.
A few of the structures the scientists have identified in the study are involved in mood/affect/memory. This could provide understanding to diseases such as depression, dipolar, schizophrenia etc (for treatments for both homosexual and heterosexuals). I'm sitting here studying for my neurology exam and it takes me back how much we know about some structures of the brain, but how much more we need to understand. Who knows where this research will fit in.

There are still a lot of families where, given a relatively easy option to have a child tested for The Gay, dear old Dad would force Junior to do so in a heartbeat if he had a suspicion.

Now, realistically, so few people can afford an elective CT scan that it isn't really an issue in this specific case, but it does get me thinking more deeply and inclines me a little more towards Lee's sense of caution than I was at the outset.
I don't see a way in which a CT scan would be/could be offered in a scenario such as this for ethical/safety reasons by any clinician/radiologist. The radiation delivered by CT scan is very high and it's used conservatively in the clinical sense - even with a high index of suspicion of organic disease other tests are preferable. Perhaps if MRIs become cheaper, but even that seems unlikely as you'll still require the expertise of the radiologist/a specialist to read/assess the scans and report on them.

It's likely that this research will have a far more academic application than a translational one.

[themadchemist]

You are. :) I wasn't comparing this study to Nazi experiments.



It reminds me of the days of shock therapy and the horrible experiments the Nazis did during the Holocaust.


Perhaps this explains why I was confused.


I just meant to say that it's not impossible for some people to try to use this info as a justification for trying to "cure" us. That is certainly something worth discussing- to not do so is naive. It doesn't make the study "evil" and certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't do the research.


Right. Which is why the Nazi comparison puzzled me.


The only reason I brought it up is because of history. We as gay people are very aware of what has happened to us in the past, and very afraid that it could be repeated. It's certainly not impossible.


I certainly understand the unease, but I think it is most productive to think about the possible problems in a way that fits. Jumping to the Nazis is always a recipe for hysteria.

[Gelfin]

...

You've said nothing at all I disagree with. As I said, science marches on and I approve.

I know the direct fallout of this research could never be realistically used in the hypothetical nefarious way I described, and I know a lot of good could come out of it otherwise, but I also realize what a lot of people would do to abuse it if they could, and I can definitely see the cause for generalized concern.

Like I said, it's the "kids" angle that got to me. Adults I generally expect can take care of themselves and make their own decisions, even if that includes hating themselves so much as to subject themselves to bogus "therapies" that only do harm. Lots of people hurt themselves out of self-loathing by all kinds of mechanisms. I hate it and I think it's stupid, and I think people knowingly providing such "services" should be held to account for the harm they do, but bottom line those people are adults and they have every right and duty to figure out for themselves what to do about the circumstances of their lives. Kids don't have that luxury, and gay kids are just super vulnerable.

I don't want to stop the science, but I get the other side more acutely at this point too.