Actually, I have no idea what Natural Law is, maybe it means not natural/ natural, what ever it maybe I am sure gayness goes against it. Many say the are born this way but from a genetics and evolutionay perspective is this even possible? How does homosexuality prolong a species and how did the "gene" get there? Well, we could go back to to original sin and just blame it on that, but we are not looking at it from a christian perspective, are we? To me it seems to be a non- issue, let me explain. Okay, say it is genetic, and the reason there are still gay people is because 'back in the day' homosexuality was frowned upon openly and homosexuals were more or less forced into marriage and subsequently had children, thus the number of homosexuals today. Now that it is anti progressive to be anti homosexual, and it is more socially acceptable, gays are allowed to be gay. Since this is a genetic thing, it is no big deal because in a few generations all the gay genes will be gone and dead. There might be a few left here and there, but not as big a population as now and they will die takeing the genes with them.I know its morbid but true. Of course, gay couples might be able to adopt ,and those children might become gay but that is not genetic, that is enviroment and choice. Unltimately homosexuality is a choice, wether by the individual, or a parenting/enviromental mistake (a nurture thing like alcoholism...not to say gay is bad...just useless to the species), i can not see how it is natural or goes within the confines of Natural Law. I mean how can you be born that way?
Homosexuality is against Natural Law
By whispers awnesty - Posted on November 20th, 2006
I hate to burst the "genetic homosexuality" bubble, but I agree with whispers awnesty. Any genetic option that leads to the absence of gene passage is inevitably a dead end. I'm not saying I agree with the Catholic, "you must procreate or sex is bad" rule. I personally plan to take birth control pills after I get married until I get out of school. That means sex without children. This means, genetically speaking, if I continue with taking the pil for the rest of my life, I will pass on none of my genetic material - thusly dead end. This is what homosexuality is. A choice, not genetic.
incognito goddess writes, with respect to homosexuality, "Any genetic option that leads to the absence of gene passage is inevitably a dead end."
Not true as explained on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Sexual_orientation_and_evolution
I think people are defintely born with a tendency to be gay. Personal choice decides to what extent those feelings are embraced maybe. And the "homosexual gene" could easily be something present in everybody, but other factors influence its expression.
Not all genes are on/off switches. It may be that homosexual feelings are totally natural. The thoughts at least are present in most people. I think this is a gross oversimplification of genetics and "evolution." Also if the gene is recessive then many people are carriers without expressing the traits. It could also be like sickle cell.
Sickle cell protects from malaria when it is slightly present, but when two sickle cell genes are present problems are caused.
Sexual orientation is a very complex set of behaviors set on a spectrum, rather than the usual black and white view of homo/heterosexual. You are ignoring all the grey space and assuming that someone is either gay or isn't. A group of genes that is triggered by events at an early age or even just any group of genes, as opposed to a single gene is probably responsible for where you land on the sexual spectrum. A complex mix of genes ( the most likely fact) spread throughout the population would not be eliminated as simply as you believe.
Many people report being gay from a very early age, before any kind of concious choice is really possible about sexual orientation. In fact in the beginning these children don't know that homosexual feelings aren't the norm. Some even assume that everybody is gay. So how do seven and ten year olds make the "choice" to be gay?
And how can you say something is against natural law without even knowing what natural law is?
Res ipsa loquitur.
memor mori, mahalo.
First, check out the Wikipedia article on "Natural Law" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law for a description. Essentially it's a law that is because that's how things are, i.e. "All men are created equal," that exists regardless of political laws.
Now, I have to say that I diagree with your discourse on homosexuality here. The idea that it is a "choice" people make is one of the biggest myths still operating today, and even though it has not yet been pinpointed, I believe there is a genetic basis for homosexuality. Now, you're right in that if a creature does not reproduce and leave offspring, it's genes will not get passed on to the next generation. This isn't to say that all animals are obligate heterosexuals. Many animals (especially mammals) exhibit homosexual behavior. If you wanted to label them by human standards, I guess you could say they were "bi-sexual" as they still reproduce with females. Even so, male bonobos regularly engage in "penis fencing," male giraffes have sex with each other, dolphins do as well, and that's just the top of the list. Homosexuality, while a reproductive dead-end, seems to have important behavioral aspects to that, especially in terms of group bonding.
Now in nature, animals don't get "married." In fact there seem to be few that mate for life at all, but we human beings have set up a societal system where people are suppossed to pair up and settle down with each other. Thus, it is true a gay married couple won't produce a child (outside of artifical insemination) but that isn't to say that if we did not have the ethical and social systems we have in place they would not at some point procreate a child via a female. In fact, there may be some people who are attracted to both men and women but for whatever reason they decide to stay with or marry someone of their own sex, even though they could have just as easily ended up with someone of the opposite sex in other circumstances.
The actual basis for homosexuality is still being researched. It could be a simple change in brain chemistry (but NOT a mental illness), something in our genes, or even that we all have the potential to be homosexual in one way or another and it depends on socialization. The studies Kinsey did in the last century showed us that people are more deviant and there's more homosexuality than previously believed, and I think there's a definite social aspect to it. In certain situations (like the much stereotyped prisons or foxholes far from girlfriends and wives) homosexuality seems to show up often. Now, it could be said this is a choice, but is it a choice because we're predisposed to enjoy sexual gratification and bonding and in the absence of the other sex with try with someone of the same sex? I don't know, but it is something to be considered. Even if it is a "choice," what is it about or brains and sociology that allows for that choice?
In any event, homosexuality is not against "natural law." It happens often in nature, and humans are the only animals that have obligate homosexual pair bonding, and that's based on our social structure. I think your assertion that given enough time homosexuality will just disappear because homosexuals can't produce children is silly. Homosexuality in one form or another has always been with us, and I expect it will continue because it's not just about selectively breeding out a particular gene of a society, and I don't think it's ethical to try and do that even if it was the case. Is there a moral issue in some cases of homosexual behavior, perhaps, but I think it would be foolish to say there isn't at least a genetic predispostion either. Some people never feel normal until they come to terms with their different sexuality and it's not a fun thing for them. Thinking that they morally chose at an early age to be gay is ridiculous, and many people struggle with their feelings that other people say are abberant. How about accepting and loving these people instead of worrying what's going on in their bedrooms?
"The trouble with having an open mind is people insist on coming along and putting things in it"-Terry Pratchett
You started with "its not a choice" then said things like "socialization", "decided to stay...", "genetic predisposition". Well of course there is an imbalance but they do not allways have to be gay. There is alot of nurturing that goes into a choice like homosexuality(wether or not they want it) and to say its not a choice because its a hard one to make does not make sense to me. My wife has a genetic predisposition for alcoholism, which is not the same, but she does not drink any beverages with alcohol just in case. I think you can see the parallelism, its the classic nature vs. nurture with a new vail. Oh and the animals do it out of aggression and dominance not "love"
Some animals do it out of aggression and dominance, but some do it out of love (while some have cases of both). A really popular example of this is the pair of male penguins in the New York Zoo that are in a relationship (or as close to a relationship as a non-primata animal can have) and have actually "adopted" another egg and are raising it as their own.
---
"Our lives begin to end when we become silent about things that matter."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Live one day at a time, emphasizing ethics rather than rules."
-Wayne Dyer
THat is freaking awsome. I love it. Do you have a link to an article or anything?
Res ipsa loquitur.
memor mori, mahalo.
Not off the top of my head but I'll look for it when I get the chance (I'm going home for T-day this afternoon)...
Anyway, somebody actually wrote a children's picture book based on the pair (called "And Tango Makes Three")....I haven't read it myself, but I can almost guarantee when I adopt (eventually), that's going to be in my kids' library...
---
"Our lives begin to end when we become silent about things that matter."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Live one day at a time, emphasizing ethics rather than rules."
-Wayne Dyer
Just to go against the choice thing here: who would choose the stigma and intolerance that comes with being gay? I personally used to go to bed at night praying to God to please make me "normal" and straight. I would try to conform to gender norms and even exaggerate them just so I could seem like everybody else. Thankfully, I realized about two years or so ago that this isn't going to just go away because I want it to or because I "choose" to be straight.
Just think about it for a moment. I assume from your post that you are straight. Just imagine for a second if homosexuality was the norm and heterosexuality supposedly went against natural law and was discriminated against; would you be able to "choose" to be gay? Of course not. You would still be attracted to and fall in love with someone of the opposite sex; you just might try to closet that attraction so that nobody would know about it.
And although there seems to be a genetic component to homosexuality, the most conclusive studies make scientists think that it's due in large part to hormonal differences in the womb, causing gay men to receive less testosterone to the brain in utero than hetero guys and lesbians to produce less estrogen to counteract the testosterone to the brain. Transgenderism is thought to be caused by a stronger difference in the hormones and bisexuality by a smaller difference. By that process, it would be biological and natural, set at birth and most definitely not a choice.
---
"Our lives begin to end when we become silent about things that matter."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Live one day at a time, emphasizing ethics rather than rules."
-Wayne Dyer
I like that inb a person. I thought, due mostly to meating a promenet transgendered person, that transgender was a straight person that dressed as the oppostie gender (which is not really a problem for women anymore). I never seen any studies on this hormonal thing you speak of, which sounds interesting, do you have a source or link or something? And your right it might not be a direct choice, that does not make sense either, however i might have been taking a christian perception on from birth. Sorry, but i also think that hormones in the womb can be considered enviromental cause to maybe a genetic pre disposition but not a genetic, born that way reason...but its a fine line
all truths are easy to understand once discovered; the point is to discover them ~galileo
The studies can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the exact cause of it, but they do tend to show a great likelihood of prenatal hormonal deficiencies being a large factor (possibly connected with differences in the genome). Some examples of the study results from different people.
A woman by the name of Gerianne Alexander did a study she wrote about in an article titled "An Evolutionary Perspective of Sex-Typed Toy Preferences: Pink, Blue, and the Brain". She wrote: "Girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, for example, are exposed to high levels of adrenal androgens [hormones] prenatally. Some research indicates that postnatally they show greater aggression, enhance (i.e. masculine) visuospatial abilities, more masculine occupational preferences, and an increased rate of bisexual or homosexual sexual orientation in fantasy and/or behavior." The article was published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior (Vol 32 No 1 Pgs 7-14).
A man from the UK named Qasi Rahman was interviewed in 2003 and was noted as saying: "Because we know that performance on these cognitive tests depends on the integrity of specific brain regions, the differences implicate robust differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men and women and suggest that hormonal factors early in development (probably during the 1st trimester of pregnancy) produce these differences."
There have also been ties between lesbianism and polycistic ovary syndrome, of which was found: "that prevalence of this symptomless condition was 80% in the lesbian women they saw, compared with just 32% of their heterosexual patients," as reported by Martin Hutchinson for the BBC.
Note: Adult hormone levels have been found to have no bearing whatsoever on homosexuality. The only hormones that show conclusive findings are prenatal ones. Also, there are so many different kinds of homosexuals, bisexuals, heterosexuals and transsexuals/transgenders that it's likely that there are many factors that tie into each other to produce this. I think it's summed up best by Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse in their book Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate: "Some researchers propose that human sexual orientation is determined before birth, probably between the second and fifth month of pregnancy. It is during this time that the fetus is exposed to sex hormones, its sexual anatomy develops, and its brain is 'wired' in a manner appropriate to its biological gender....We should stress that hypothesized genetic and prenatal hormonal influences may be independent and exclusive of each other, or they may be interdependent and complementary. It is likely, indeed, that if there is a genetic element to the development of homosexuality, it probably works through prenatal and early childhood hormones."
Also, I just want to ask what you meant by there not being a problem with transgenderism in women. Were you speaking of biological women or transwomen (biological men with women's brains)? If you were talking about biowomen, let me just tell you that is completely not true. I happen to have been born female, and the fact that women are given liberty to dress like men and be "alpha-females" does not either help or fix the problem when a female-born person has a man's brain. Just the fact that he has a woman's body is detestable to him, his feminine name is an embarassment, and just having to go through life as female feels wrong. If you were to take a man and put his mind in a female body (if it was possible to transplant minds...), he would most likely find it unbearable. However free to express masculinity he was, he is not a woman and will not be happy until he can live in society as a man and have a male body (or as close to one as he can get).
Another thing is that transgendered people do not have to be straight, orientation-wise. A transman (FtM) or woman (MtF) can be straight, gay or bi, just like any other person. (Just for reference, orientation for transpeople is usually determined by the gender identity, not the sex; for example, I am a gay FtM, meaning I am a guy in a girl's body who likes other guys....I know it seems complicated...)
And one thing I didn't get....Were you comparing sexual orientation with religious preferences? I just didn't understand that at all...
---
"Our lives begin to end when we become silent about things that matter."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Live one day at a time, emphasizing ethics rather than rules."
-Wayne Dyer
Many people choose this...see evolutiongeeks comment
all truths are easy to understand once discovered; the point is to discover them ~galileo
Life is so complicated and interesting, I cannot wait till we figure it all out, if that is even possible.My religious thought was but a shadow and i was very rudly disturbed and had to go before i had a chance to develope it into any sort of understandability. I will try to figure out what i was getting at and let you know when i have more time. Thank you for the information...good stuff.
all truths are easy to understand once discovered; the point is to discover them ~galileo
Hi,
I appreciate your enthusiasm for this subject but your ignorance frightens me. The gay gene isn't going to die out, my friend - it's just not. Where do you think the gay gene comes from? Straight people reproducing. Of every species 20% is homosexual - why? You talked about how gays can't procreate - and then you mentioned adoption - you're on the right track but you're missing the mark. Have you ever thought of population control? Yes, my argument is that homosexuals exists so that we don't continue to procreate. When a community gets too big it dies, there's not enough food for everyone, there's not enough space, etc...
So I completely disagree with you that it's a choice. Why would anyone choose to be harassed, excluded from marital privledges and, in some instances, killed? You need to sit down and think out your argument some more, perhaps even hash out your ideas with a few gay friends before committing to anything. I'd be happy to help you hash sometime if you're interested.
Liz
"drink from that wishing well but may it never quench your thirst" - Indigo Girls
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/flnerd
Its just a suggestion, but maybe you should start there. If you don't know what "Natural Law" entails, then you aren't likely to be able to argue intelligently about what what is or is not consistent with it.
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.