Defining homosexuality
I brought this up in a previous thread in which the best rebuttal to my argument someone could summon was to call me a retard. Hoping there are more thoughtful conservatives...
Let me start by admitting that I am a geneticist and a heterosexual. I believe I was born this way (being heterosexual not a geneticist, that is) and everything I've learned in genetics convinces me that homosexuality is most likely an inborn trait, but that's not what I'm going to argue. (If you really want to argue this point please review the bees of the famous birds and bees speech before diving in).
So here's the argument-
It is a not too uncommon event that people are born with what is called ambiguous or indeterminate gender. Here the person may have both a vagina and a penis, or a penis + ovaries, or be XY but look like a girl, or XXY, etc... In the past the doctor would usually operate to make the child either a girl or a boy based on a judgement call, usually siding in favor of a girl because, and I qoute, "It's easier to make a hole than a pole." Oftentimes the child will grow up and find that they are actually attracted to the sex opposite of the sex they were declared upon surgery.
First question- Is anyone here who is against homosexuality for religious reasons prepared to state that such people are definately sinners? (Sinners for engaging in the homosexual act, not just sinners in general, that is).
Note: Since this kind of question usually results in the, "I don't think they are sinners, God thinks they are..." nonsense, just remember I'm asking YOUR judgement as to their likely celestial status). If you asceed all judgement to the "Big Guy" then I hope you recognize that you can't argue for laws that discriminate against them (at least theologically argue). Also, keep in mind that if you argue they are sinners because they are not married, please remember why they can't be married.
Second question- Since the physical aspects of gender can be mixed at birth, is there any logical reason why the mental aspects of gender absolutely cannot? IOW, are physical and mental charactistics of gender the ONLY genetic traits which segregate together perfectly?
Third question- If you actually believe you made a conscious decision at some point to be a heterosexual, skip this question. OTOH, if you think your sexuality was innate then is there any reasonable argument by which we cannot judge someone's gender by their mental state. I
Last question- If we define someone's gender by their mental state (someone attracted to females is a male) then do any theological arguments against supposed homosexuality remain? After all, if we define people this way, then there are no homosexuals (bisexuals being a different matter).
Final note- For the homosexuals in the forum ready to take offense at the suggestion that they are better identified as the opposite sex, let me make it clear that I'm confining the definition of man and woman by sexual orientation only with respect to theological judgement. I've met plenty of homosexuals which are more "manly" than I am and I'm not a small, effeminate man. I do not endorse the idea that gay men should call themselves women or lesbians call themselves men, but it could be argued that this approach to classifying gender could eliminate theological problems for some. I'm not a theist so I don't have such problems.
Let me start by admitting that I am a geneticist and a heterosexual. I believe I was born this way (being heterosexual not a geneticist, that is) and everything I've learned in genetics convinces me that homosexuality is most likely an inborn trait, but that's not what I'm going to argue. (If you really want to argue this point please review the bees of the famous birds and bees speech before diving in).
So here's the argument-
It is a not too uncommon event that people are born with what is called ambiguous or indeterminate gender. Here the person may have both a vagina and a penis, or a penis + ovaries, or be XY but look like a girl, or XXY, etc... In the past the doctor would usually operate to make the child either a girl or a boy based on a judgement call, usually siding in favor of a girl because, and I qoute, "It's easier to make a hole than a pole." Oftentimes the child will grow up and find that they are actually attracted to the sex opposite of the sex they were declared upon surgery.
First question- Is anyone here who is against homosexuality for religious reasons prepared to state that such people are definately sinners? (Sinners for engaging in the homosexual act, not just sinners in general, that is).
Note: Since this kind of question usually results in the, "I don't think they are sinners, God thinks they are..." nonsense, just remember I'm asking YOUR judgement as to their likely celestial status). If you asceed all judgement to the "Big Guy" then I hope you recognize that you can't argue for laws that discriminate against them (at least theologically argue). Also, keep in mind that if you argue they are sinners because they are not married, please remember why they can't be married.
Second question- Since the physical aspects of gender can be mixed at birth, is there any logical reason why the mental aspects of gender absolutely cannot? IOW, are physical and mental charactistics of gender the ONLY genetic traits which segregate together perfectly?
Third question- If you actually believe you made a conscious decision at some point to be a heterosexual, skip this question. OTOH, if you think your sexuality was innate then is there any reasonable argument by which we cannot judge someone's gender by their mental state. I
Last question- If we define someone's gender by their mental state (someone attracted to females is a male) then do any theological arguments against supposed homosexuality remain? After all, if we define people this way, then there are no homosexuals (bisexuals being a different matter).
Final note- For the homosexuals in the forum ready to take offense at the suggestion that they are better identified as the opposite sex, let me make it clear that I'm confining the definition of man and woman by sexual orientation only with respect to theological judgement. I've met plenty of homosexuals which are more "manly" than I am and I'm not a small, effeminate man. I do not endorse the idea that gay men should call themselves women or lesbians call themselves men, but it could be argued that this approach to classifying gender could eliminate theological problems for some. I'm not a theist so I don't have such problems.
Comments
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Since the physical aspects of gender can be mixed at birth, is there any logical reason why the mental aspects of gender absolutely cannot? IOW, are physical and mental charactistics of gender the ONLY genetic traits which segregate together perfectly?
As a geneticist, you know that personality characteristics are definitely heritable, just like physical characteristics. However, although I do believe the evidence shows that sexual orientation is largely genetic, I think gender identity and sexual orientation are separable. That is, I think you can be big and strong and testosterone-filled and yet be a gay male. So I'm not sure I agree with your example, if I'm understanding you right. Those hermaphrodites are quite rare and I'm not sure you can use them to generalize to sexual orientation.
First question: Not applicable - not against homosexuality, not religious, don't believe in sin.
Second question- Since the physical aspects of gender can be mixed at birth, is there any logical reason why the mental aspects of gender absolutely cannot?:
If physical aspects of gender can cause difficulty with the occassional person being born whose physical characteristics are ambiguous, how would one begin to define mental aspects of gender?
Clearly sexual preference alone is unreliable. People do sometimes change sexual preference during their lives, some 'experiment' and move on, people's circumstances change and their sexual habits adapt to incorporate the choices available. Also people have sex for reasons other than physical attraction....what would someone become (if their gender were defined by their mental state) if what they desire, and what what makes them have sex, is money?
Third question: What instead, if you you are born with the potential for many forms of sexuality (if that means preferences, desires etc) but with an 'inate' preference for a particular form and that that preference when combined with environment, experience etc is what makes the determination?
Last question- If we define someone's gender by their mental state, someone attracted to females is a male...
Mostly we don't and neither do you. You said in question two:
that physical and mental charactistics of gender were only genetic traits which segregate together perfectly...
After acknowledging the physical aspect then you cannot say now that it is purely a 'mentally defined quality.
Anyway, surely someone's gender is defined by their physical characteristics....more deeply by their combination of X Y chromasomes.
Someones sexuality is another mater
Have a nice day
Question #2 - There is no difference between physical anomalies and mental anomalies.
Question #3 - There are no reasonable arguments.
Question #4 - Gender cannot be defined by mental state, therefore there are homosexuals amongst us.
If it were not for a few words written by men in the good 'ol book we all love to quote, then there is ABSOLUTELY NO reasonable argument for publicly and actively discriminating against 10% of our own population.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
First question- Is anyone here who is against homosexuality for religious reasons prepared to state that such people are definately sinners?
no
Second question- Since the physical aspects of gender can be mixed at birth, is there any logical reason why the mental aspects of gender absolutely cannot? IOW, are physical and mental charactistics of gender the ONLY genetic traits which segregate together perfectly?
no
Last question- If we define someone's gender by their mental state (someone attracted to females is a male) then do any theological arguments against supposed homosexuality remain? After all, if we define people this way, then there are no homosexuals (bisexuals being a different matter).
true
Final note- For the homosexuals in the forum ready to take offense at the suggestion that they are better identified as the opposite sex, let me make it clear that I'm confining the definition of man and woman by sexual orientation only with respect to theological judgement. I've met plenty of homosexuals which are more "manly" than I am and I'm not a small, effeminate man. I do not endorse the idea that gay men should call themselves women or lesbians call themselves men, but it could be argued that this approach to classifying gender could eliminate theological problems for some. I'm not a theist so I don't have such problems.
I think its everybody's responsibility to decide for themselves what actions would violate God's will. No person should be able to tell another person how to live their life, other than in cases where that choice would infringe on the life of another.
Originally posted by Zarathustra
Clearly sexual preference alone is unreliable. People do sometimes change sexual preference during their lives, some 'experiment' and move on, people's circumstances change and their sexual habits adapt to incorporate the choices available. Also people have sex for reasons other than physical attraction....what would someone become (if their gender were defined by their mental state) if what they desire, and what what makes them have sex, is money?
I've often thought that sex and sexuality actually hinder our ability to properly love. Just based on my own observations I've seen people that would have been excellent companions reject each other out of lack of attraction. And what of the rich (male) CEO that would fire a man for doing something, but might ask out a woman if she did the same thing, etc (I know, vague example, but you get the point).
Originally posted by Northgate
If it were not for a few words written by men in the good 'ol book we all love to quote, then there is ABSOLUTELY NO reasonable argument for publicly and actively discriminating against 10% of our own population.
I don't think there is ever any legitimate reason to discriminate against another human being. So some book says its wrong. If it truely is wrong, then this person has enough problems without society picking them out and torturing them. I think if people took the time to really stop and try to walk in someone elses shoes before making judgements, this world would be a much better place.
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
I've often thought that sex and sexuality actually hinder our ability to properly love.
That's interesting. But I'm not sure I agree. I wonder if we'd have love at all if we didn't have sex.
Originally posted by BRussell
That's interesting. But I'm not sure I agree. I wonder if we'd have love at all if we didn't have sex.
Thats true. I don't know either. It would most certainly be alot different. If you think about it, the whole concept of picking one person to love more than anybody else in the entire world is really strange. There are people that go into political, religious, etc positions to avoid the need to label one relationship more important than all others.
Edit: I reread your response in the context of my comment and I realize that I come from the preconceived notion that the ideal is loving everybody equally.
Originally posted by Northgate
If it were not for a few words written by men in the good 'ol book we all love to quote, then there is ABSOLUTELY NO reasonable argument for publicly and actively discriminating against 10% of our own population.
Open a first year psychology text book. The real numbers are closer to 2-3%, variously, by location and gender.
Originally posted by Matsu
Open a first year psychology text book. The real numbers are closer to 2-3%, variously, by location and gender.
I've heard 1 in 10 as well. Of course who really knows.
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
I think its everybody's responsibility to decide for themselves what actions would violate God's will. No person should be able to tell another person how to live their life, other than in cases where that choice would infringe on the life of another.
Wow, Jukebox. I guess the mixed issues in the vatican- condom thread clouded my ability to ascertain your viewpoint (aside from my being a retard). If you really are of the opinion that someone could reconcile their homosexuality with "God's will" under reasoning such as that I outlined and you'd be none the wiser to question them, then I don't have a real problem with your form of catholicism even if you are prone to calling such people deviants.
Still some mixed messages there IMO, but I won't belabor the point.
Sexuality isn't an either/or proposition for anyone but a remote handful of people (the 2-3%). It's a spectrum. There are men and women who are committed hetero... but find certain members of the same sex appealing, even if not enough to pursue a sexual encounter with. Are they 100% hetero? Naw. Are there people who are? Sure. For them, members of the same sex are just plain 100% not attractive.
So that 2-3%... is that *purely* homosexual? Sure, I can see that. I can also see that the mirror image gives us 2-3% *purely* heterosexual in society, with the rest of us somewhere in between.
10% for 'almost exclusively homosexual'? Totally believable, in my opinion. Heck, I'd bump that figure up a bit if you toss 'lives homosexual lifestyle, has heterosexual encounters ocassionally'. Ditto for the hetero equivalent.
Bins are idiotic, in my opinion, and the 'percentage gay' figure becomes merely an exercise in statistics - where do you draw your cutoff to make a label?
Originally posted by BRussell
As a geneticist, you know that personality characteristics are definitely heritable, just like physical characteristics. However, although I do believe the evidence shows that sexual orientation is largely genetic, I think gender identity and sexual orientation are separable. That is, I think you can be big and strong and testosterone-filled and yet be a gay male. So I'm not sure I agree with your example, if I'm understanding you right.
I tried to make it clear that I did not mean that gay men are really better classified as woman (or vice versa for lesbians). We clearly identify a lot of charactieristics as being either masculine or feminine. But with respect to this biblical interpretation people (myself not included) try to employ I think it is equally fair to judge someone's gender by their preference. Under this interpretation a physically male person who has sex with another physically male person is not a homosexual in the biblical sense since their real mental gender (as endowed by God) is female.
To be clear, I think the first two questions should illustrate that such polarized views of sex are silly anyway, but for those who can't quite break the hold of dogma, they may find a peaceful interpretation in the last part.
Those hermaphrodites are quite rare and I'm not sure you can use them to generalize to sexual orientation.
Just a quick google pulled up a figure of 1 in 3000 births. Not that uncommon. Also, this is somewhat different that a true hermaphrodite.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
... even if you are prone to calling such people deviants.
Did you see what he called me? I wasn't being Catholic, I was being human.
Still some mixed messages there IMO, but I won't belabor the point.
Naw man. Thats just it. People are people. Anytime the top positions are powerful and prestigious, they are prone to be abused by greedy folks seeking to exploit it. The rest of us schmucks are just trying to get by.
I just realized what you're really arguing isn't an anti-Cathlic message, its a separation of church and state.. I see that now. Jesus was all about forgiveness and peace, not about killing a bunch of people in Spain.
Originally posted by Zarathustra
First question: Not applicable - not against homosexuality, not religious, don't believe in sin.
Ugh, I'm not preaching to the choir here. I wanted to hear from some religious conservatives who think homosexuality is quantifiable and a sin.
If physical aspects of gender can cause difficulty with the occassional person being born whose physical characteristics are ambiguous, how would one begin to define mental aspects of gender?
Clearly sexual preference alone is unreliable. People do sometimes change sexual preference during their lives, some 'experiment' and move on, people's circumstances change and their sexual habits adapt to incorporate the choices available. Also people have sex for reasons other than physical attraction....what would someone become (if their gender were defined by their mental state) if what they desire, and what what makes them have sex, is money?
To be clear, I accept that like other genetic traits occur along a spectrum and, not being religious, have no problem with people doing anything with their naughty parts that doesn't hurt someone else. With respect to your question and how it would apply to a conservative's position I would suggest that my argument would depend on accurate self reporting of sexual preference, not observation by others.
Third question: What instead, if you you are born with the potential for many forms of sexuality (if that means preferences, desires etc) but with an 'inate' preference for a particular form and that that preference when combined with environment, experience etc is what makes the determination?
Given the black and white thinking of conservatives I don't think this argument would have weight. I, however, have no problem with it.
Last question- If we define someone's gender by their mental state, someone attracted to females is a male...
Mostly we don't and neither do you. You said in question two:
that physical and mental charactistics of gender were only genetic traits which segregate together perfectly...
I didn't state that, but offered it as part of the question. For those who believe that homosexuality CANNOT be genetic they must believe that the physical and mental aspects of gender segregate together perfectly and are more or less perfect unless thwarted by willful desire for sin.
After acknowledging the physical aspect then you cannot say now that it is purely a 'mentally defined quality.
I didn't suggest that it is purely one or the other, but in our current system religious conservatives clearly judge people's gender strictly by their physical attributes (upon birth that is).
Anyway, surely someone's gender is defined by their physical characteristics....more deeply by their combination of X Y chromasomes.
Clearly that's what we do now, but the examples illustrate that this is not an absolutely final standard for judging gender especially with respect to how people interpret homosexuality.
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
Did you see what he called me? I wasn't being Catholic, I was being human.
Maybe I got lost in the rapid fire postings, but I thought you were refering to homosexuals as deviants. Forgive me if I mixed it up.
I just realized what you're really arguing isn't an anti-Cathlic message, its a separation of church and state.. I see that now. Jesus was all about forgiveness and peace, not about killing a bunch of people in Spain.
Well, my primary concern is with keeping theological based judgements out of public policy, but I am taking Catholics to task a bit. As related to the condoms issue, if a catholic (not you, any catholic) wants to argue that something is wrong (either on a societal level or a moral level) I want to make sure they have their facts right and their definitions established. I'm not going to fire up the condoms issue, you seemed to be at a standoff with some over exactly whether the church said condoms caused aides or not or if they had research to support it.
With the issue of homosexuality I was simply suggesting that if a catholic (or any person) argues that homosexuality is wrong then they should be able to clearly identify a homosexual and I believe the example of ambiguous gender suggests that it's not so easy. Not just in the case of ambiguous gender, but the mere existence of ambiguous gender implies that gender itself is not clearly definable.
Originally posted by Amorph
First of all, I am prepared to state, unequivocally, that by my religion's doctrine all homosexuals are sinners. Why? Because my religion's doctrine, everyone is in a constant state of sinfulness. ("In Adam's fall/we sinned all.") In other words, homosexuals are sinners not because they're homosexual, but because they're human.
Yes, I was waiting for someone to say that, but thank you for taking my meaning as with respect to the sin deriving from homosexual behavior. (I'll amend my post)
With that out of the way, there are a number of complications here: First of all, genetics are only part of the equation when determining if something is inborn. The whole poorly-understood machinery that interprets a gene and produces the actual materials and proteins is a factor, and what the mother does to the fetus in utero (consciously and unconsciously) has an enormous effect (for example, a genetic male who doesn't get the right bath of hormones as a fetus comes out transgendered or even female physically).
Quite true. I ommitted these clarifications for brevity. Nevertheless, most people will lump determined traits under the term "genetic," but "in-born" is more apt. For some reason, the influences of early development are generally not treated with as much validity as something that is there at birth. Many will assume that if it is the result of environmental influences then it is "unnatural" and can be reversed which is not the case most of the time. Several species will actually permanently fix their genetics in response to environmental cues, making them no less fixed than traits there at birth.
Then there are other factors. There is research into the idea that childhood events and family can help determine sexuality before the child is sexually aware. There are conscious decisions, too: Women who work as strippers have a much higher rate of lesbianism and bisexuality, simply because some of them wind up with a much lower opinion of men as a result of their work. Then there's the sailor phenomenon, where people who are forced by circumstance to be with one gender will often become intimate with that gender whether or not they would be in a mixed context, simply because, for them, human intimacy is better than no intimacy at all. (The ancient Greeks elaborated this into fully socialized bisexuality, at least among men.) And, as Kickaha mentioned, sexual attraction isn't a toggle switch anyway. Even the Kinsey scale is too narrow a measure.
The conclusions about cause and effect are a lot more shaky here. Whether lesbians/bisexuals are much less inhibited and more likely to strip not like men or strippers are more likely to become lesbians/strippers.... But yes, I accept that sexual behavior is heavily influenced by environment.
My argument is designed to illustrate how murky this sexuality issue is starting with something that religious conservatives (those that think homosexuality is a sin, that is) tend to mistake for being black and white, namely physical gender characteristics.
As for Scripture, I have yet to find a place where homosexuals are condemned. There are two places where one particular act is condemned, but human sexuality is ambiguous and situational enough that the act of "lying with a man as with a woman" doesn't require that both men be gay, nor does it proscribe or condemn any other homosexual attitudes or behaviors.
I have always thought this line open to tremendous interpretation since a homosexual man doesn't "lay with a man as he would with a woman" for the simple fact that they "laying" is quite different and the gay man doesn't lay with woman anyway.