[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by gravity plus


It's either the persons choice or its how "God" made us. Is there any other possible way? I'm too tired to think of a third possibility...:

All I know is that I think I was just born this way...that would explain my crush on Nikki Wick in preschool, Christie Trower in kindergarden, Mrs. Sundby first through third grade, Brooke in fourth, Olivia Newton-John and Barbara Mandrell in fifth...I know, I know...too much information? :evil: :evil: :evil:

 

[Toshi]

Thanks to the light ribbing ( wait a minute, that doesn't sound right ) of rotecguy, it has come to my attention that I am overly fond of the phrase "peer-reviewed scientific journals." So from this point forth I will use the acronym PRSJ when referring to said class of literature in the future. My apologies, everyone.

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by LeatherFace


All I know is that I think I was just born this way...that would explain my crush on Nikki Wick in preschool, Christie Trower in kindergarden, Mrs. Sundby first through third grade, Brooke in fourth, Olivia Newton-John and Barbara Mandrell in fifth...I know, I know...too much information? :evil: :evil: :evil:

Oooogy!:heart:Just enough information to let the mind wander...

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by Toshi
Thanks to the light ribbing ( wait a minute, that doesn't sound right ) of rotecguy, it has come to my attention that I am overly fond of the phrase "peer-reviewed scientific journals." So from this point forth I will use the acronym PRSJ when referring to said class of literature in the future. My apologies, everyone.

Actually, we, uh *cough cough* hadn't noticed. But some of my peers reviewed this thread and told me about it.

 

[Toshi]

Originally posted by fourgivn1
Actually, we, uh *cough cough* hadn't noticed. But some of my peers reviewed this thread and told me about it.

The only reason I stress it so much is to avoid "references" that are just web sites. JF brought plenty of these "studies" to the table during the giant creationism thread of many moons ago, and I wanted to nip the possibility of recurrence in the bud.

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by Toshi

The only reason I stress it so much is to avoid "references" that are just web sites. JF brought plenty of these "studies" to the table during the giant creationism thread of many moons ago, and I wanted to nip the possibility of recurrence in the bud.

I hear you...which is also why I do my best (although I slip) to provide hard references, i.e., quoting from textbooks (at least) of those who have done the research and provide references to their sources. My post on the KJV being the most accurate of the Bible translations is an illustration of that.

 

[gravity]

Originally posted by ohio


You and gravity plus have got to be kidding me. Many gay couples that have children do it through a surrogate mother or father. Is it suddenly okay, because it's done the "good old fashioned way"? Some do it through IVF or sperm donation, but I highly doubt your against those methods when they're used to help a hetero couple with fertility problems. Give me a freakin' break.

Gay couples also adopt quite a bit more than hetero couples. Cleaning up the mess that all that unprotected, unaborted hetero sex left behind. They take kids with no parents, or abusive parents and give them a loving healthy home. Is that ALSO playing god, because those children were not naturally birthed to them?

there is a difference between taking in a child who's already been born, as to "wrongly" creating one. if a child is the result of an unwanted pregnancy, and the parents are unwilling/unable to care for him/her, adoption is the preferred alternative (as opposed to culling). however, deliberately conceiving a child via artificial methods, for people not naturally meant to be parents, is wrong IMO. can you explain HOW that is different to genetically modifying humans so that we no longer need to procreate, cos we can simply create new people at will? is that NOT playing God?

if you would like an example of what i mean, read Gillian Rubinstein's Beyond the Labywrinth. i have a copy sitting round which i can mail to the first person who asks for it....

startling revelations, children.

 

[Damn True]

IMO, yes.

If for some reason the woman I someday marry and I are unable to concieve I will not muck around with fertility drugs or IVF. It is my belief that if God wishes me to have children it will happen with or without medical intervention in the forms listed above.

I would consider adoption, but not without some serious thought and prayer on the matter.

 

[gravity]

Originally posted by rotecguy


Does this include Heterosexual couples who for some reason cannot conceive on their own?

heterosexual couples are naturally SUPPOSED to be able to conceive, so i don't have any problem with that. i don't think i'd ever do it though. helping heterosexual couples who have problems conceiving is like giving medicine to a sick person.... it simply puts them back in the state they are naturally intended to be in. by "natural" i don't mean as in "fate" type thing, i mean as in "what is given to a species by nature".

i guess it's all about where you draw the line. my general idea is that everyone should have freedom to do what they want, until it:
a) perverts nature
b) breaks the law
c) causes grief to anyone else

as well as my "playing God" argument, even if that were irrelevant, i don't think society is ready to accept gay parents yet.... maybe in a few generations' time, but there is still a lot of anti-gay sentiment. kids with two mums or two dads would undoubtedly be the brunt of teasing, bullying and general harassment.

edit: i also take DT's stance on IVF/fertility treatment. i'm not sure what they do or how they work, but if it's just "medicinal treatment" i guess i am ok about it...

 

[Toshi]

What makes giving sick people medicine any different? After all, they're supposed to die, right?

 

[Damn True]

It presents something of a contradiction, but by and large yes. Though there are those who would disagree.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by gravity

can you explain HOW that is different to genetically modifying humans so that we no longer need to procreate, cos we can simply create new people at will? is that NOT playing God?

Yes, I can. Because I actually took a class on Biotechnology. IVF and sperm donation does not alter the genetic code contained in the materials supplied by the mother and father. The two combine to form an embryo in exactly the same manner that would occur in the uterus after the act of intercourse between two fertile people. That is, the resulting child is no different. We do not decide which genetic traits it recieves from each parent nor do we modify and enhance the resultant DNA in the embryo. That is left to nature/God/chance; we are neither creating NOR altering life.

can you explain HOW that is in any way the same as genetically modifying human DNA. The processes actually do resemble each other slightly, but both the intent and result are completely different.

As for "playing God": God gave us the ability to think and reason, to invent and discover. Who are you to decide how far God wishes us to take these skills we were given, and use them? We genetically alter and modify DNA every day and have been doing so for about 30 years. The medications you are treated with, the food you eat (ESPECIALLY organic foods), and the clothes you wear; DIRECT genetic modification played some part in their creation.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by gravity


heterosexual couples are naturally SUPPOSED to be able to conceive

Thanks, gravity, for deciding for the rest of us, what is SUPPOSED to happen. There's a lot of "I'm not sures" and "I fee likes" in your statements. I'm going to base my opinions on science.

Humans are SUPPOSED to concieve humans. Science defines a member of a species as the resultant offspring of two members of the same species. As long as the embryo is the result of a combination of the genetic codes of TWO humans, then the embryo is human. If we alter or modify THAT code, then the genetic code of the embryo is no longer the result of the combination of two human genetic codes, and is therefore no longer human. That is where I draw my line, and it is not based on any "I feel likes" or "it's just not rights" or "nature didn't intends."

 

[Damn True]

I dont think there is anything morally wrong with IVF per-se. It is when we get into DNA manipulation and such that I think we are treading on ground we ought not to.

But IMO, if I and my hypothetical wife are not able to concieve I will treat it as Gods will and leave it at that.

 

[Toshi]

Originally posted by Damn True
I dont think there is anything morally wrong with IVF per-se. It is when we get into DNA manipulation and such that I think we are treading on ground we ought not to.

Why is this wrong? It's nothing different than choosing an attractive, healthy, and intelligent mate, just on a different scale.

 

[Damn True]

You can choose the cutest girl in the world but there is nothing you can do about combinations of recessive genes random birth defects, missing or double chromosomes etc.

I don't think it is our place, nor is it prudent to go mucking about with that kind of thing. It opens up too many grizzly possibilities.

 

[gravity]

Originally posted by ohio


Thanks, gravity, for deciding for the rest of us, what is SUPPOSED to happen. There's a lot of "I'm not sures" and "I fee likes" in your statements. I'm going to base my opinions on science.

Humans are SUPPOSED to concieve humans. Science defines a member of a species as the resultant offspring of two members of the same species. As long as the embryo is the result of a combination of the genetic codes of TWO humans, then the embryo is human. If we alter or modify THAT code, then the genetic code of the embryo is no longer the result of the combination of two human genetic codes, and is therefore no longer human. That is where I draw my line, and it is not based on any "I feel likes" or "it's just not rights" or "nature didn't intends."

correct.... what exactly are you arguing against? by saying "supposed to happen", i mean if you have a physically heterosexual couple (of nearly any species, bacteria and weird fish don't count) they will be able to conceive offspring, provided they don't have any illness, injury or otherwise abnormal physical condition. that's pretty obvious.
linking that to "humans are supposed to live", well obviously we are, being sentient beings we have an innate fear of death, so NATURALLY (like everything else) we try to elongate our own lives by developing medicines etc. This would IMO be classified "natural", ie it's programmed into us, ie it's "supposed" to happen. is that a reasonable use of the word "supposed"?


also, about the genetically modifying humans comparison.... i didn't mean as in the actual process. if you could just "hand out" ( <---- this is extremely exaggerated) children to any person/people who felt like being parents, wouldn't that have the same result as genetically modifying humans so sexual reproduction is obsolete? no, it's not the same thing, but it could have similar consequences.

you are right about "God giving us the power to make choices" though. nobody can argue with that, but my inclination is "don't play with other people's stuff without their permission". but that is completely my opinion, and has no evidence whatsoever.

good arguments Ohio
PM me your address and i'll send you that book.

 

[zibbler]

I normally don't get involved in controversial topics (I'm a peaceful person that hates arguments), but I have a question. Is there any scientific evidence as to whether there is homosexuality in the animal kingdom? ie. non-human homosexuality. Just curious. It seems to me that if homosexuality was a natural thing, then wouldn't that also hold true for animals as well? And if indeed there is no such thing as homosexual animals, then wouldn't that somewhat support the idea that homosexuality is a choice? Please don't flame me, I'm just really curious about this. I'm not trying to open up a new can of worms here.

 

[Toshi]

I have no idea about the validity of this source, but I've heard figures like those quoted below bandied about before: http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

In the approximately 1,000 to 3,000 species whose behavior has been well researched and described in the literature, approximately 450 have been shown to have clear homosexual behaviors. As we'll learn in this essay, homosexuality is not at all exclusively a western, European cultural pattern as some Christian and Muslim fundamentalists and Afrocentrists (and even some African politicians) have long maintained. It's not even unique to humans. And any homosexual behavior you care to name - anal sex, same sex kissing, long-term pair bonding between members of the same sex, courtship rituals unique to homosexual couples, all these and many more are all commonly found in the animal kingdom.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by gravity


correct.... what exactly are you arguing against?

In my definition, there is nothing that defines same sex parents, sperm/egg donation, or embryos created outside of the uterus as morally wrong or contrary to nature. They all create a human baby by scientific definition, with what research has shown to be little or no effect on the child's development. I don't understand your logic that allows a heterosexual couple to use these methods but refuses the same processes to a same sex couple. No mention either has been made of a single mother... in that case would it matter whether she was straight or gay? What if a gay couple recruited a surrogate mother or father to concieve the baby, and even used "natural, traditional" methods? Does that suddenly make it okay?

My problem with your arguement, is that you're starting with a conclusion that is based on your beliefs (homosexuals should not be parents), and then trying to find a logical way to fit (or shoehorn) science into that belief system. I don't think the science agrees with you. I think it's more valid for you to simply say "I'm not comfortable with gay parents." That I can't argue with.

Thanks for the offer on the book, but I won't trouble you. One of my parents that is an evolutionary psychologist, and a professor in social psych' and human sexuality, so I have access to some excellent writing on the subject as well as a pretty informed opinion when I ask for it.

Anyway, thanks for the responses.

 

[Toshi]

Originally posted by ohio
I also wanted to add (and I hope this doesn't sound condescending) that you [gravity] do an excellent job of debating for someone your age. Keep it up.

Ahhahaha, you're a jerk! Er, I meant to say that you do an excellent job yourself of debating, for someone of your (advanced) age.

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by ohio


In my definition, there is nothing that defines same sex parents, sperm/egg donation, or embryos created outside of the uterus as morally wrong or contrary to nature. They all create a human baby by scientific definition, with what research has shown to be little or no effect on the child's development.

I'd agree with the second two, but as far as human beings go, yes, same sex parents both have the capability to create a human being, but ONLY with a member of the opposite sex....doesn't that sort of go contrary to nature? (Creating a human baby with a member of the same sex)

As far as MY debating abilities go, I really don't care what others think, because I really can't change it right at this moment. Only time and research and all that will improve my half-a$$ed debating ability.

 

[fourgivn1]

Originally posted by Toshi

Ahhahaha, you're a jerk! Er, I meant to say that you do an excellent job yourself of debating, for someone of your (advanced) age.

Hahaha.....heeeheee...I got a good laugh out of that one. Thanks Toshi!

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by Toshi

Ahhahaha, you're a jerk!

okay, yeah, that was snide.... but he called my arguments "good." What's up with that?

 

[gravity]

Originally posted by ohio


In my definition, there is nothing that defines same sex parents, sperm/egg donation, or embryos created outside of the uterus as morally wrong or contrary to nature. They all create a human baby by scientific definition, with what research has shown to be little or no effect on the child's development. I don't understand your logic that allows a heterosexual couple to use these methods but refuses the same processes to a same sex couple. No mention either has been made of a single mother... in that case would it matter whether she was straight or gay? What if a gay couple recruited a surrogate mother or father to concieve the baby, and even used "natural, traditional" methods? Does that suddenly make it okay?

My problem with your arguement, is that you're starting with a conclusion that is based on your beliefs (homosexuals should not be parents), and then trying to find a logical way to fit (or shoehorn) science into that belief system. I don't think the science agrees with you. I think it's more valid for you to simply say "I'm not comfortable with gay parents." That I can't argue with.

Thanks for the offer on the book, but I won't trouble you. One of my parents that is an evolutionary psychologist, and a professor in social psych' and human sexuality, so I have access to some excellent writing on the subject as well as a pretty informed opinion when I ask for it.

Anyway, thanks for the responses.

my basic logic is this: if a person/people/thing is able to do something unaided, in this case conceive a child, but they are impaired in such a way as to prevent them being able to do it, they should be helped. ie, people who are sick should be given medicine to help them. however, someone who is born normal, should not be given, say, a third arm just cos they felt like it. in the same sense, heterosexual couples are able to conceive, barring some impairment. therefore, medically trying to rectify the impairment, so that they may be able to conceive, is ok IMO. i don't have much idea about surrogacy... i remember reading a story about a woman who went through a surrogate pregnancy for another woman, because the second one was born without a uterus..... that's a sad story, but i really don't know what to make of it. there is no way homosexual couples can conceive without outside help, artificial or via substitution (surrogacy), so to me that seems like giving them the aforementioned unnatural third arm....
IF a gay person conceives with a member of the opposite sex just so they can have a baby, i have no problem with that..... as much as it may seem otherwise, i don't have a problem with gay parents. i don't know enough (ok, very much at all) about psychological factors that affect homo/heterosexuality, so i can't say that someone shouldn't be allowed to have a child simply because they are gay or have gay tendencies. what about bi-sexuals, who have gay tendencies but may marry and conceive with a heterosexual of the opposite sex? they shouldn't be deprived of the chance to have a baby, so why should homosexuals who are willing to conceive naturally (even if it is the only time they'll have sex with a member of the opposite sex)?

unfortunately i don't know enough about IVF to really comment on it (evidently you do though Ohio). i know it still produces a "normal" human being, etc etc, but it does use an egg from a mother + sperm from a father, right? so if a gay couple try it, they will need a sperm donor, correct? so basically the baby has a random father....
then you have the "sexism" issue. if you allowed gay womento use IVF so they could conceive, gay men who wanted a child would want the ability to have children too. thus would come surrogate mothers, or truly the oft-mentioned "test tube baby", where embryos are grown in an artificial incubator etc. yes, it's still creating human life. no, i don't think it is a good idea. it MAY (or may not) lead to humans wishing to genetically modify themselves so as to become asexual, or the entire species, a single gender with artificial impregnation the only way to conceive.

as for single mothers, well i don't know. i guess i'd PREFER that any child was brought up in a family with two parents, because with only one role model, children only get one adult's philosophies. two parents, even if they're gay, provides two opinions to keep things in perspective. however, with so many marriages/long-term relationships nowadays going down the tube, i don't realistically consider marriage to have the same sanctity that it used to..... children are probably just as well off under any long-term/defacto relationship.

i think this is all about where you draw the line..... i don't like the idea of "artificially" creating life, nor do i like what i see as potential precursors to that (IVF, in particular being given to gay couples); whereas you (Ohio) don't have any problem with it as long as it is creating a human life, and not altering it genetically.

also, something to consider is that if kids grow up with gay parents, will they cop abuse from other people? probably..... society is changing, but a lot of people are still very anti-gay.


what i meant by "good arguments" Ohio, is that you obviously know what you are talking about, and you don't make assumptions or false claims. truly a difference of opinion.

 

[ohio]

That's good stuff, Grav. Thanks for taking the time to write that out.

 

[fluff]

I'm intrigued by the question of choice with regard to homsexuality here. Any actions we take in life are quite clearly a choice, therefore to be active sexually is a choice, whether you have sex with someone of the same sex or the opposite sex is also a choice.

Inclination and enjoyment are probably something different.

Therefore if someone who has previously been sexually active with members of the same sex has a spiritual awakening and chooses to become a christian then it may be that their desire to be a good christian overrides their sexual desires and they repress their natural inclination in order to conform to the Christian ideal. It would be entirely consistent for these people to see this as a conversion/spiritual experience and in fact probably the only way to rationalise a choice you have made (and that is something we all do).

The incidents of ministers being gay or involved in forbidden sexual relations (usually secretly) are case where the desire has overridden the choice (spirit is willing, flesh is weak etc).


My view is fairly, perhaps overly, simplistic. I see sexuality as a spectrum some people are attracted solely to members of the opposite sex, some to members of the same sex, some fall somewhere in the middle. Personally I would have no issue having sexual realtions with another man if I was sexually attracted to him. It hasn't occurred yet but does that mean it won't?

Do people chose to by gay? Yes. Just as people chose to be straight or celibate or bisexual.
The more important question is why? There appears to be some natural inclination toward sexual orientation that varies between individuals.

My question would be whether this is a product of genes or a product of environment?

Edit - I just remembered an important point:

Society is forcing people to categorise themselves by their sexual orientation/preference. As an interesting comparison the ancient Greek civilization (and probably many others) did not differentiate between gay and straight. Their sexual differentiation depended more on a person's role in the sexual relationship as the giver/taker/dominant/submissive partner.

Perhaps it is simply the fact the our society is based on the Christian paradigm that we have gay people?

 

[gravity]

Originally posted by fluff
I'm intrigued by the question of choice with regard to homsexuality here. Any actions we take in life are quite clearly a choice, therefore to be active sexually is a choice, whether you have sex with someone of the same sex or the opposite sex is also a choice.

Inclination and enjoyment are probably something different.

Therefore if someone who has previously been sexually active with members of the same sex has a spiritual awakening and chooses to become a christian then it may be that their desire to be a good christian overrides their sexual desires and they repress their natural inclination in order to conform to the Christian ideal. It would be entirely consistent for these people to see this as a conversion/spiritual experience and in fact probably the only way to rationalise a choice you have made (and that is something we all do).

The incidents of ministers being gay or involved in forbidden sexual relations (usually secretly) are case where the desire has overridden the choice (spirit is willing, flesh is weak etc).


My view is fairly, perhaps overly, simplistic. I see sexuality as a spectrum some people are attracted solely to members of the opposite sex, some to members of the same sex, some fall somewhere in the middle. Personally I would have no issue having sexual realtions with another man if I was sexually attracted to him. It hasn't occurred yet but does that mean it won't?

Do people chose to by gay? Yes. Just as people chose to be straight or celibate or bisexual.
The more important question is why? There appears to be some natural inclination toward sexual orientation that varies between individuals.

My question would be whether this is a product of genes or a product of environment?

Edit - I just remembered an important point:

Society is forcing people to categorise themselves by their sexual orientation/preference. As an interesting comparison the ancient Greek civilization (and probably many others) did not differentiate between gay and straight. Their sexual differentiation depended more on a person's role in the sexual relationship as the giver/taker/dominant/submissive partner.

Perhaps it is simply the fact the our society is based on the Christian paradigm that we have gay people?

good points.

i always sort of wondered why some people are gay, some are bisexual, and some are "straight". i suppose it's possible that it is a form of mental illness (but i do NOT imply that this is the case)..... but not in the usual context of illness. what i mean is that it could be what would otherwise be a "abnormality".... like why are some people left-handed, but the majority of people right-handed?

looking at other things, i'm starting to think that social factors are not important in determining somebody's sexuality.... it may be a choice, but i don't think it is one that is made consciously. why do i like rock music? who knows.... why do my parents hate it? who knows. i wonder though, if i were brought up with no social knowledge of audio at all (ie everyone being completely deaf), then i was miraculously given the sense of hearing, subsequently being suddenly subjected to the music i like now, would i like it? or do i just like it cos it's "fashionable" and it's what i've grown up with? it's not something i can explain, because i can't recreate my own life in different circumstances.

also, might it be possible that it IS genetic? ie a misnoma of X and Y chromosomes? if there is any abnormality in the chromosomes, ie an embryo starting off as a hermaphrodite, but eventually growing more as one sex but leaving hormones for the opposite sex or something, maybe that could cause it.

that is, assuming heterosexuality is "normal". which logically it is, seeing as it's necessary for reproduction.



oh and thanks for that Ohio.... are our differences sorted?

 

[gravity]

an interesting note...... this is one of the few controversial threads that hasn't deteriorated into mindless crap.

 

[N8 v2.0]

..at least not yet...

 

[Andyman_1970]

N8, you're like the Jesus thread bumper today..............you go girl..........(LOL j/k)

 

[N8 v2.0]

All the answers can be found in the Da Vinci Code...

 

[Andyman_1970]

All the answers can be found in the Da Vinci Code...

yeah and Jesus came to start a new religion............rrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggghhhhhhhhhtttttttt

 

[Reactor]

yeah and Jesus came to start a new religion............rrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggghhhhhhhhhtttttttt

Maybe he was dropped off by those Aliens Tom Cruise believes in?

 

[Andyman_1970]

Maybe he was dropped off by those Aliens Tom Cruise believes in?

Were they wearing matching track suits and matching nike sneakers?

 

[Echo]

 

[Reactor]

Were they wearing matching track suits and matching nike sneakers?

LOL!.

 

[Changleen]

The belief in the "evidence" of homosexuality as a genetic predisposition, or of the big bang, or of global warming and the ozone hole are as equally dependant on faith as any of this. So if you believe one, why not the other?

My guess is because of the things that come with it.

Holy crap DT, You just don't understand science do you?

 

[Reactor]

Holy crap DT, You just don't understand science do you?

That's generally the case with people who base their opinions solely on faith, because faith is the opposite of Science, which requires proof, or at the lack of any disproof. If he doesn't have "faith" in the ozone whole he should go to argentina without sunscreen.

 

[Changleen]

however, someone who is born normal, should not be given, say, a third arm just cos they felt like it.

Why the hell not? If we could give people third arms with little medical risk then why not do it? Is it harming anyone? What's your problem wih third arms?

there is no way homosexual couples can conceive without outside help, artificial or via substitution (surrogacy), so to me that seems like giving them the aforementioned unnatural third arm....

Again, this line of argument eventually precludes you from any type of human inspired intervention. If we cannot use our brains to devise ways to help these people, how can we justify the use of any medicine? If you argue it in reverse, that medicine is OK in certain circumstances, then why stop when enabling Gay couples to have kids? Because the Bible says so? Sorry, I think the Bible is a crock of ****. So are you telling me your belief in the morals of a 2000 year old book is more important than my world view? I'd personally rank allowing Gay couples to have kids way more acceptable morally than artificially keeping children with severe brain damage alive post birth.