Day of Silence and Day of Truth Options

[gingerpig]

Does it add anything to this debate to clarify the point about choosing to be gay, genes, environment etc. If it was a genetic mutation that occurred randomly, then why wouldn't it et bred ut? Of course it may be a genetic mutation that spontaneously repeats itself as well. We havent' really discussed what "makes" us heterosexual, which is kind of the same issue. In Bonobo society sex is apparently used for all sorts of things, to strengthen links, to comfort, reassure, dominate and to procreate. Chimps of all ages, sexes, relations have sex together - even mothers and children. Bearing in mind they are our closest genetic relation, it is interesting that we do share this range of sexual behaviour, but obviously have given it different cultural labels. Most societies seem to have some form of taboo against incest, although I'm not convinced that that perception doesn't come from biased anthropologists.

[trunks_girl26]

hmm.

I didn't participate in the Day of Silence because only a few people know that I'm bi, and I'd rather keep it that way. They say you can't be a Christian unless you're straight, but my entire identity is built around my faith.

I'm straight and I participated in the Day of Silence, and I certainly wasn't the only straight one to participate from the group. You don't have to be a certain sexuality to participate. I've also never heard of not being able to be a Christian if you're anything but straight- I had always thought the wole "hate the sin, not the sinner" thing was more important, personally.

When talking to Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin, I like to compare it to alcoholism; wanting to drink and actually drinking are two completely different things. Being attracted to your own sex and being involved with your own sex are different things.

Ok, well, maybe you can picture it like this. What if it was heterosexuality that was a sin? Or bisexuality, though technically half of it is. Could you picture yourself never being with anyone -or worse- pretending to like someone of the same gender but never feel attracted to them? It's the same sort of thing.

Right now all I can say, I guess, is that it's an interesting mix of guilt and frustration. And as for the Day of Truth, I'm sure everyone knows how Christian leaders feel about the issue, so why does there need to be another day devoted to the topic?

I honestly don't disagree with them having a day to express their opinion, however, I do disagree with how they go about doing it.

Does it add anything to this debate to clarify the point about choosing to be gay, genes, environment etc. If it was a genetic mutation that occurred randomly, then why wouldn't it et bred ut? Of course it may be a genetic mutation that spontaneously repeats itself as well.

There are a ton of genetic mutations that haven't been bred out, and most likely never will. I find that most mutations ideally are suppossed to serve as a normal source of population control, the genetic version of homosexuality being the most prominent.

We havent' really discussed what "makes" us heterosexual, which is kind of the same issue. In Bonobo society sex is apparently used for all sorts of things, to strengthen links, to comfort, reassure, dominate and to procreate. Chimps of all ages, sexes, relations have sex together - even mothers and children. Bearing in mind they are our closest genetic relation, it is interesting that we do share this range of sexual behaviour, but obviously have given it different cultural labels.

Well, there are a lot of animals that share the same type of use for sex, though the bonobo is the most extreme example I've ever come across. What's also different is that the bonobos originally split from a big group of pre-chimp chimpanzees and that they evolved so differently (because of food shortage and other factors, chimpanzees have evolved to become very violent and male-dominated, while the bonobos became more sexually oriented and female-dominated), but that's for another thread. <.<

Most societies seem to have some form of taboo against incest, although I'm not convinced that that perception doesn't come from biased anthropologists.

Well, unless all the anthropologists and even to some degree biologists are all conspiring with one another, I'd have to say that that taboo is pretty much intact However, there are some major differences between beyond nuclear family who one can have relations with. (For instance, being involved with cross cousins is acceptable, but parallel cousins is not.)

[Phyllis]

If it was a genetic mutation that occurred randomly, then why wouldn't it et bred ut?

Because gay people never marry a member of the opposite sex and have children with him/her due to societal pressures, right?

Well, if you are gay it doesn't mean your children will be gay. Likewise if you're straight. A lot of what psychologists are looking at now involves conditions in the womb and how that influences sexual orientation -- though that's tricky because sometimes there will be a set of identical twins where one is gay and one is straight. There's also some area of the brain that appears to be either larger or smaller (I forget which) in gay males...but it's important to not say that's causation. Not yet.

The truth is we simply do not know enough about it yet to say definitively what causes it. But it is widely agreed that it is not caused by things like "bad parenting." Gay people come from all walks of life, and from people with all sorts of different parenting styles. There are definitely some biological aspects and some environmental aspects to it, but we're not exactly certain what those are. Most of the current studies have been performed on gay men. There are comparatively few about lesbians, and even less about bisexuals. More studies need to be performed with both of those groups to gain more of an understanding of what causes homosexuality.

The bonobos are an interesting example...but there are definitely people within our society that are completely straight. Perhaps that is partially due to social conditioning telling them it's wrong. There's no real way to tell if those same people were brought up in a society that accepted homosexuality whether or not they would still not feel attracted to members of the same sex.

[Saratina]

I don't really know you, but I am sure there is so much more to you than simply your faith.

Oh, there is; but there's not a single aspect of my life that hasn't been affected by it somehow. In the same way, your faith or lack thereof probably affects your worldview and decisions even if it's only unconsciously.

I still really struggle with trying to understand how love could ever be a sin.

Me too, trust me.

But it is widely agreed that it is not caused by things like "bad parenting." Gay people come from all walks of life, and from people with all sorts of different parenting styles.

Indeed. It's always interesting to hear of gays who are told "you aren't really gay, you just think you are because you didn't have enough male influence in your life/were sexually abused as a child/were influenced by your gay peers/et cetera". >.>

[Astarael]

Good to see you here, gin! I can sort of understand your frustration with the debate and the way it's classified- I am a Christian, though not so well-grounded as you (I'm working on it.). It's frustrating that so many leaders of the conservative Christian movement are so loud that people begin to paint us with the same brush by association. I tend to take the view that picking out a handful of verses of iffy translated definition and saying that anyone who disagrees with them is going to hell is not the way to win converts, spread the love of Christ, or even sound basically rational. My opinions are likely to be permanently under construction about how to reconcile things.
The bit about parents is nonsense. Your parents are awesome people, though I'd likely feel a tad stifled if I had to live with them for a year (simply because of the various aprroval for books and movies.) Did you even have any peers that you knew were gay before you were twelve or so? None of the gay people I know were particularly open about it until last year (sophomore.)

[pgrmdave]

If it was a genetic mutation that occurred randomly, then why wouldn't it et bred ut?

Not if one could be a 'carrier' of the gene, and if it isn't always expressed. I don't think it can be defined as simply as "You have gene XYZ so you must be gay", but that a certain combination of genes may increase your predisposition to be homosexual. Having that combination of genes wouldn't necessarily make you homosexual, so you could still pass them on. Also, you may have some of the genes, but not all of the genes, which would mean that while your chances might be low, thus allowing you to pass on those genes, if you procreate with a person who has the other genes, you can produce a child with a high chance of being homosexual.

[trunks_girl26]

If it was a genetic mutation that occurred randomly, then why wouldn't it et bred ut?

Not if one could be a 'carrier' of the gene, and if it isn't always expressed. I don't think it can be defined as simply as "You have gene XYZ so you must be gay", but that a certain combination of genes may increase your predisposition to be homosexual. Having that combination of genes wouldn't necessarily make you homosexual, so you could still pass them on. Also, you may have some of the genes, but not all of the genes, which would mean that while your chances might be low, thus allowing you to pass on those genes, if you procreate with a person who has the other genes, you can produce a child with a high chance of being homosexual.

It could also be something akin to how cancer is.* There are however many genes that control the various aspects of what leads to cancer (basically, several genes which code for proteins, and said proteins can't recive signals correctly), and these deformities in genes can be triggered through both heredity as well as environment. It may be something similar to that, only that the environmental conditions can also be sustained in the womb......*trails off into scientific mumbling*



*Note: I'm not saying homosexuality is a disease like cancer, only that the mechanism might be similar.

[Witless]

There's also some theories why homosexuality wouldn't be bred out.

Way back when people are a lot more nomadic and technology wasn't so great. If we had children at the fastest theoretical rate we could have had them, there's no way we could have supported ourselves.

In such a time, anyone having sexual preferences that didn't lead to the birth of more children would have been welcomed. They would have been able to aid the group, through hunting and helping with looking after the groups young. At the same time, they wouldn't be swelling the group numbers faster than the group could handle.

In a system like that.. groups and communities that had the genes to produce a certain amount of people with different sexual preferences per generation could possibly have it easier than groups that did not.

Maybe that explains where the prejudices started. The moment we learned how to farm the land we could support a boom in population. Then the desire to produce more and more kids to farm the ever increasing amounts of farm land began. This made people pressure gay people into becoming straight and having children again?

I do know that some tribes in Africa celebrate gay people, for much the reason I suggested above. That they help look after the community without swelling the population.


On a side note, I always found the buddhist standpoint on homosexuality great. The general consesus (although there are differing sects) is that as long as everything is consentual, and that it increases the happyness of the people involved then not only is it ok, but you should do it.
Some sects go as far to say, "be the best of what you are". In terms of homosexuality that means that if you think you are gay, it is harming yourself to force yourself to be straight. You should embrace the reality of what you are, to get a bit closer to feeling spiritually enlightened.

This is different from merely being indulgent mind you. Buddhism considers harm against yourself and harm against others one of the strongest evils there is. So.. no alcohol.. no smoking.. stay physically and mentally fit etc etc. But homosexuality causes no harm, so... 'Be gay, Be happy'.

[Calantyr]

Not just in pre-history. Homosexuals were welcomed in ancient Sparta for much the same reason. They could be relied on to add a stable and masculine environment for upbringing young Spartan warriors, while their fathers were out on campaign.

In fact it was a duty for all men to show homosexual tendancies. Even to this very day Spartans are considered the ultimate form of masculinity. All you have to do is mention Thermopylae...

That may be slightly off-topic but meh.

[Cassidy]

I think that I read in the Gaurdian recently that new research surgested that the more siblings a person had the more likly that they would be gay, the base rate was supposed to be 2% per sibling for the eldest child.

Also, if there is a "gay gene" would it be acceptable to christians since God made us all, including including gay, lesbian and bi, and as such gives tacit approval to peoples sexuallity....although the bible classes the eating of shellfish as an abomination along with homosexuality

[Calantyr]

Also, if there is a "gay gene" would it be acceptable to christians since God made us all, including including gay, lesbian and bi, and as such gives tacit approval to peoples sexuallity....although the bible classes the eating of shellfish as an abomination along with homosexuality

Technically God made everything, even evil and sin. However he seems to have no qualms about condemning people who perform such acts.

Seems you can get smited for anything. Best to just live in a house with a lightning conductor.

[monkey_called_na...]

The ideals of "right" and "wrong" are social ideas. You think its wronge to be gay because while you were growing up, ou were taught that it is wrong to be gay.

It's like disscussing the diffrences of Moral: the following of social ideals, Immoral: knowing the social ideals and going agaisnt them, and Amoral: being unawear of social ideals and morality.

Within this itself you have to remimber that everything in life is subjective, so while chistians claim that homosexuality is immoral based on there morality. You have many homosexuals view homophobia as immoral. In the Roman you had groups of men that veiwed having sex with women as an immoral act, and today you have some feminists that veiw having sex with men as immoral.

For myself, I would have to say that blameing homosexuality on a gene seems like an easy way out. The fact of the matter is, that everyone has likes and dislikes concering every aspect of life. Being gay is just as natural as being straight, and I dont see the point of trying to reduce it to lower levels by claiming "Its not his fault, he just inherited the gay gene".

[Phyllis]

For myself, I would have to say that blameing homosexuality on a gene seems like an easy way out. The fact of the matter is, that everyone has likes and dislikes concering every aspect of life. Being gay is just as natural as being straight, and I dont see the point of trying to reduce it to lower levels by claiming "Its not his fault, he just inherited the gay gene".

That is a ridiculous oversimplification of what psychologists are doing. Did you not pay attention when I said most agree that it's a combination of genetic and environmental factors?

Also,

and today you have some feminists that veiw having sex with men as immoral.

I disagree. I would argue those women are not feminists. Feminists advocate equality for the sexes...not reducing men to an inferior status. I believe the term you're looking for is misandrists.

[gothictheysay]

Amoral: being unawear of social ideals and morality.

I thought amoral was simply the lack of having morals. As I was told recently as an example, immoral is doing something heinous, and amoral is just "walking down the street".

[trunks_girl26]

I found an article that actually supports Dave's theory of how the gene would probably be passed down. It's interesting stuff

Clicky!

Edit: and one about pheremones, though it's disappointing that there wasn't a homosexual female in the study.

Clicky number 2!

*is far too interested in this subject for her own good*

Edit #2: And an article on the brain structure of heterosexual and homosexual men.

Clicky number 3!

[monkey_called_na...]

For myself, I would have to say that blameing homosexuality on a gene seems like an easy way out. The fact of the matter is, that everyone has likes and dislikes concering every aspect of life. Being gay is just as natural as being straight, and I dont see the point of trying to reduce it to lower levels by claiming "Its not his fault, he just inherited the gay gene".

That is a ridiculous oversimplification of what psychologists are doing. Did you not pay attention when I said most agree that it's a combination of genetic and environmental factors?

Also,

and today you have some feminists that veiw having sex with men as immoral.

I disagree. I would argue those women are not feminists. Feminists advocate equality for the sexes...not reducing men to an inferior status. I believe the term you're looking for is misandrists.

I know its an over simplification. The point is that there are some people that use it as such. My main question was, why does it matter what makes people gay?

A few weeks ago my freind came over to my house after church and told me about the fact that her youth groupe was talking about homosexuality. From what i remimber she said that they disscussed it like it was an std rather then a persons life. she claimed that the minister told her that it was a bad idea to hang around with homosexuals because it was a genetic dissorder, and that they were kinnda like retarded people because of it. I shall say that last part again, he told her that homosexuals were mentally retarded and thats why they like having sex with same sex partners. I feel that that is freaking rediculios.

I think the whole idea of having to know why somone is gay is rediculous. Why should it matter if its genetic? Why should it matter if its enviromental? Do you really think that finding the correct answer is going to change the rights they receive? Shouldn't people be focusing more on human rights then that which divides us? Why does the fact that somone is homosexual matter at all?

I'm not trying to start a debate about this. I'm jsut trying to voice my opinoin that it doesnt matter what makes a person homosexual. Cause I really dont think that it does.


You are correct about the feminist thing. I'm used to refering to them as "femi-nazis" and couldnt find the right word. I wasn't entirly sure that "femi-nazi" was a correct term to use, so I refered to them as feminists. my appologies. I do understand the diffrence, and I am personally a marxist feminist. Sorry again.

[Phyllis]

I know its an over simplification. The point is that there are some people that use it as such. My main question was, why does it matter what makes people gay?

Well beyond it mattering purely from a psychological perspective (crazy psychologists want to know what makes people tick, you know), it's also a bit useful against religious fundamentalists.

Some fundamentalists believe that because they think it is a choice, they can "re-educate" people. They send their gay and bi children to therapy to try and make them straight. If psychologists can prove that it's not indeed a choice -- that people are attracted to whoever they're attracted to because of genetic and environmental factors -- well that helps a lot. Whether they'll all believe them is another story, unfortunately, but if it stops just a few kids from having to go through re-orientation therapy then I cannot see the harm in it.

What could be the harm in educating people? That includes dispelling myths, such as homosexuality is a mental disorder (it has not been recognized as such by the APA since the 1970's), or that you can somehow "catch" gayness from another person.

Shrouding homosexuality (and bisexuality, for that matter, though few studies are done on that) in mystery and refusing to explore it from a scientific perspective only furthers such myths. I agree that it shouldn't matter if someone is gay. It doesn't matter to me at all what someone's sexual orientation is; it is none of my business who they share their bed with. But the truth is that in our society...it does matter to a lot of people. People who have had their heads filled with a lot of misinformation. And we can fight that with science, or we can sit idly by while people spread ignorance and hatred. I know which one makes sense to me.

[trunks_girl26]

Here's something I found that might help Saratina, and something I found really interesting.

(It's from another forum I go to, but I've got links to go along with it)

Analysis of Leviticus 18:22

In transliterated Hebrew, the verse of Lev 18:22 is written: "V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

English translations of this verse vary. Some are:

ESV: (English Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is abomination."
KJV: (King James Version): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination".
LB: (Living Bible): "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin"
NIV: (New International Version) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
NLT: (New Living Translation): "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.
RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination .

The LB and NLT translations use the term "homosexuality" That is unusually deceptive for three reasons:

The passage in the ancient Hebrew is clearly talking about male-male sex acts. By using the word "homosexuality," the English translation appears to condemn lesbian activity as well. The latter behavior is definitely not mentioned in the original Hebrew text of this passage. In fact, lesbian behavior is not mentioned anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures.

The term "homosexuality" has two distinct meanings in English. Sometimes it refers to sexual behavior (what some people do). Sometimes it relates to sexual orientation (what some people are). One reader might conclude from an English translation that homosexual orientation is criticized in the Bible; others might assume that homosexual behavior is criticized.

The word "homosexual" was first used in the very late in 19th century CE. There was no Hebrew word that meant "homosexual." Thus, whenever the word is seen in an English translation of the Bible, one should be wary that the translators might be inserting their own prejudices into the text.

Various interpretations of Leviticus 18:22:

Conservative Christian Interpretation: This verse condemns homosexual behavior of all types including consensual sex between two adults and monogamous sexual activity within a committed relationship. Its meaning is clear and unambiguous. This verse is often quoted in Evangelical churches and on religious radio and TV programs.

Liberal Christian Interpretations: Some English translations of this passage condemn both gay and lesbian sexual relationships. This is a mistranslation. It refers only to male-male sexual behavior.

This passage does not refer to gay sex generally, but only to a specific form of homosexual prostitution in Pagan temples. Much of Leviticus deals with the Holiness Code which outlined ways in which the ancient Hebrews were to be set apart to God. Some fertility worship practices found in nearly Pagan cultures were specifically prohibited; ritual same-sex behavior in Pagan temples was one such practice.
The status of women in ancient Hebrew culture was very much lower than that of a man and barely above that of children and slaves. When a man engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman, he always took a dominant position; the woman would take a submissive posture. When two men engage in sexual intercourse, one of the men, in effect, takes the position of a woman. When a man takes on the low status of a woman, the act makes both ritually impure.

Many would regard "abomination," "enormous sin", etc. as particularly poor translations of the original Hebrew word which really means "ritually unclean" within an ancient Israelite era. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (circa 3rd century BCE) translated "to'ebah" into Greek as "bdelygma," which meant ritual impurity. If the writer(s) of Leviticus wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, he would have used the Hebrew word zimah.

The seriousness of this idolatry in Hebrew eyes was compounded by the belief that 'to lie with a man as with a woman' violated the dignity of the male sex. Women were [considered] property but men were the direct image of God. To treat a man the way a woman was treated was to reduce him to property and, thereby, to violate the image of God. The issue was idolatrous activity which failed to acknowledge God's creation.

This verse says nothing about consensual same-sex activity today.

It brought up a lot of new information for me.

And here are some other links, as well.

Interview with Dr Reverend Cheri DiNovo
What the Bible says about homosexuality
Soulforce: What the Bible says
Disproving the 'smashing verses'
Homosexuality and the Bible by Rev Goss
The sins of Sodom- an Analysis

and here's another link from the forum which gives another very well thought out view on homosexuality and Christianity:

Ananel's Analysis


*and as a sidenote*
FOX takes on Phelps' daughter
Even FOX has a heart, apparently.

[Saratina]

The Phelps family is an oozing zit on the face of this nation.


Also, thanks for the info, trunks_girl26. I'd actually never heard most of that before.

[{Gothic Angel}]

I didn't participate in the Day of Silence because only a few people know that I'm bi, and I'd rather keep it that way. They say you can't be a Christian unless you're straight, but my entire identity is built around my faith.

Can you explain something to me? I genuinely don't understand why, in a religion where (I think) you believe God made you that way, any way you are without conscious choice is a sin or a problem. If He made you bi, attracted to both men and women, then why is it right for anyone else to judge you? Especially since that's supposed to be a priviledge (yes, I know I spelled that wrong) reserved for God? Particularly givien how important your faith obviously is to you, I find that unacceptable.

When talking to Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin, I like to compare it to alcoholism; wanting to drink and actually drinking are two completely different things. Being attracted to your own sex and being involved with your own sex are different things.

I like that analogy But I still argue that alcoholism, which destroys you physically and mentally, and physical or mental attraction to another member of your own sex, which does you no damage beyond perhaps what a so-called "normal" relationship would do to you, are different things, although I suppose it could be argued that it damages you spiritually? I'm not that great at religious things >.>

Right now all I can say, I guess, is that it's an interesting mix of guilt and frustration. And as for the Day of Truth, I'm sure everyone knows how Christian leaders feel about the issue, so why does there need to be another day devoted to the topic?

Sorry, but it makes me angry when people are made to feel guilty for the things they can't control about who they are. You should never, ever have to feel that way, particularly given you "can't help how you're made" and "God has a plan for all of us".

[EvilSpork]

http://www.subversions.com/french/pages/science/animals.html

And Candice, I love your signature.

I just don't get how people can say that homosexuality is wrong or a mental illness, but of course I was raised to be a very open person.