"Change" Bothers Some: The Counter-Argument Gay-Marriage Activists Don't Want You To See

1. The research is quite compelling that sexual orientation is biological in origin. Homophobia is a learned behavior and the comparison is fatuous if not offensive. Please spare me the "gay gene" BS. Scientists haven't found racial genes either.

2. You still have not provided a single way in which one couple's same-sex marriage affects any other couple's "traditional" marriage.

3. You are trying to prove religious belief. Science starts with a hypothesis. Conclusions are drawn from the observations of tests. You are starting with a preordained conclusion and then selectively using tests and observations to support that conclusion.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association have formed the “Just the Facts Coalition.” In 1999, they developed and endorsed “Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation & Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators and School Personnel.” It includes a number of quotations from major professional organizations expressing concern about reparative therapy and other methods of attempting to change an individual’s sexual orientation. One example is the American Academy of Pediatrics, which stated: “Therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation.”

David Hart
http://www.tips-Q.com

liberty. That was recognized by the Founders in the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution was written to protect and defend it.

The powers of the federal government are only those therein enumerated, and marriage is never mentioned. Thus, the federal government has no-nil-nada-zip-zilch authority to either codify or proscribe marriage.

Liberty means that one can do whatever he wants, subject only to his not infringing on another's right to same. Realizing the need for a priori knowledge and definition, constitutional amendments include the "necessary and proper" clause. That is why we proscribe shouting "fire" or, for that matter, firing a handgun in a crowded theater.

David's point #2 trumps. Please note that there is no constitutional right to not be offended. Offense is taken, not given; inferred, not implied.

It matters not whether you favor or abhor "gay marriage". Just understand please that the federal government has no constitutional authority to deal with it.

I believe you are wrong on EVERY count. Sorry.

To your #1: Clearly there is a contradiction in what you've drafted. Don't you see it?

To your #2: You failed to note that this is a series. Do you think I will ignore my own plan?

To your #3: I am not trying to prove any religious belief - unless you believe that following logic is a religious act. In that case, I stand guilty.

Maybe you should read my essay again, for it shows that even if we accept that there is a biological basis for homosexuality, that basis is morally and philosophically irrelevant. My sense is, due to the real emptiness of your remarks here, you could not have read what I've written.

Peace.

BG

You, too, could not have read my essay. Since this is the first in a series (as clearly stated from the outset), you have jumped the gun. How does David's #2 "trump" anything I've written here when I have not yet written about the pursuit of liberty or happiness?

Stick around: You'll see that David's #2 is really rather problematic. It's even pretty vapid.

Bliss!

BG

I'd love to see the VAST research, you know, the "conclusions [that] are drawn from the observations of tests" (your words), that prove "homophobia is a learned behavior," as you say.

Of course, all I wrote is that "a reasonable case can be made that aversion to homosexuality is not a choice but the result of evolution’s conditioning." Not an overly bold assertion, really. But do you doubt that I could make such a reasonable case?

Peace.

Bill Gnade

There is a considerable body of research on homophobia which I will get to later.

About 5% to 7% of the population is gay. For, the CNN exit polls last November, 4% of participants identified as gay.

The following are confirmed by numerous published and peer reviewed studies:

1. The more older brothers you have, the more likely it is that you will be gay. This effect has been confirmed to exist when the siblings are raised in different homes. This effect has been confirmed NOT to exist when the older brothers are adoptive. This effect is the most reliable predictor of sexual orientation known to science.

2. If your fraternal twin is gay, the probability is 25% (five times the occurrence in the general population) that you will be gay.

3. If your identical twin is gay, the probability is 50% (ten times the occurrence in the general population) that you will be gay.

David Hart
http://www.tips-Q.com gaynewsservice.com

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/Current_Directio ns_preprint.pdf

Gregory M. Herek, a researcher at the University of California, Davis, prefers the term "sexual prejudice". in contrast to homophobia. he notes that "homophobia" was "probably more widely used and more often criticized", and observed that "Its critics note that homophobia implicitly suggests that antigay attitudes are best understood as an irrational fear and that they represent a form of individual psychopathology rather than a socially reinforced prejudice." He preferred "sexual prejudice" as being descriptive and free of presumptions about motivations, and lacking in value judgments as to the irrationality or immorality of those so labeled.

A prejudice is a learned behavior; Sexual orientation is a biological trait. Do you get the difference?

Indeed, I DO get the difference. The question is, do you get the difference?

I have NOT said that there is NO biological origin for homosexuality. In fact, every behavior in the strictest sense is rooted in biology: I defy anyone to describe a single human behavior that is NOT rooted in biology. What I have EXPLICITLY said is that CAUSALITY is irrelevant, and that homosexual activists MUST agree with this assertion. PLEASE read what I wrote: you are arguing something that is not only a red-herring; you are arguing something that is ancient history.

Moreover, there are all sorts of things that are INDEED genetic that we ALL consider abnormal. Are you suggesting that because homosexuality has biological causes it is therefore morally justifiable? Really? Is there "biological proof" for such a claim?

I DO NOT think you want to go down this road, at least with me. You have clearly made an erroneous assumption about what I have written: had you been paying attention, you would not have taken the tack you have.

Also, do you believe I cannot make a reasonable case that homophobia is biological, a product of evolution? Is not social conditioning (not my argument) both biological and evolutionary? And have you explored the presuppositions of the "studies" you've cited?

Lastly, have you read Jeffrey Satinover's stellar "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth?"

Peace.

Bill Gnade

"Are you suggesting that because homosexuality has biological causes it is therefore morally justifiable? Really? Is there "biological proof" for such a claim?"

That's a religious judgment. Homosexuality is perfectly normal and perfectly moral. It is the lawful behavior of consenting adults regardless of your interpretation of scripture. It requires no biological "proof" to be moral. My grandmother kept a kosher home. While she thought that pork and shellfish were an "abomination" (which, in biblical times meant "unclean"), she passed no judgments on those who chose otherwise. She certainly never tried to outlaw the sale and consumption of lobster.

"Homophobia" is an inaccurate and imprecise label.
http://www.tips-q.com/content/our-vocabulary

Prejudice is a learned behavior. It is taught in some houses of worship and it is passed down from parents. It was expressed in similar terms in Loving v. Virginia based upon religious beliefs that were expressed with the same degree of certainty:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Religious beliefs, which one CHOOSES to embrace, should not be used to justify bigotry.

You wrote:

"Homosexuality is perfectly normal and perfectly moral."

Thanks for conceding my point (which is what I said HAD to happen).

Since you STILL have not read my essay, I will post here its most important point: Please name a single MORAL act that must ONLY be committed by people BORN a certain way.

If homosexuality is "perfectly normal and perfectly moral," then IT CAN BE CHOSEN. Do you STILL not understand this?

As for this being a religious discussion: no it isn't. I have no interest in what Scripture says, none whatsoever. This is about following the logic chain.

Lastly, you have left little room for me to conclude anything other than that you do not know what you're talking about. Sorry. It's clear you are in over your head.

Peace.

BG

"If homosexuality is "perfectly normal and perfectly moral," then IT CAN BE CHOSEN. Do you STILL not understand this?"

I understand your assertion. I do not agree. Left handedness, blue eyes, dark skin and brown hair are all perfectly normal and moral. None of those traits can be chosen and neither can sexual orientation. That leaves little room to choose behavior.

"a reasonable case can be made that aversion to homosexuality is not a choice but the result of evolution’s conditioning"

There is nothing reasonable or even sensible about that proposition. It cannot be substantiated.

"Moreover, there are all sorts of things that are INDEED genetic that we ALL consider abnormal. Are you suggesting that because homosexuality has biological causes it is therefore morally justifiable?"

Ah, perhaps the pedophile argument (Hart's corollary at work)? No. Only that sexual orientation isn't mutable. After all, you suggested that sexual orientation is changeable in contrast to skin color. You are basing an argument on an incorrect premise.

"Gay rights activists “reject” the idea that it would be immoral to choose homosexuality"

Which one(s)?

"But what is it about homosexuality that is so intrinsically unpleasant that only those “born” a certain way can participate in it?"

That, too, is a flawed construction. "Intrinsic" implies an essential element. Your statement is gibberish.

"Besides, we all know sexual behavior is volitional. "

"We all know?" Utterly irrelevant to the issue of sexual orientation and attraction.

Overall, this is a nice try at pseudo erudition. It fails primarily for stating opinion as fact and a stream of non sequiturs, flawed constructions and miscorrelations of cause and effect. You are not nearly as smart as you seem to think you are. I'm done with you and this thread.

As I've said, you're in over your head. The only "pseudo" aspect of what has been presented in this thread is what YOU have contributed. It is evident that you are NOT interested in either logic OR science; you are an activist committed to a blatant political agenda.

What is particularly saddening to me is that you STILL don't understand what is being debated here. You are either incompetent, or you are being deliberately obtuse (out of fear, perhaps).

OK. Eye color is NOT a choice. Fine. Now let's say I have blue eyes. Please, tell me, is it IMMORAL of me to choose medical help to have my eye color changed to brown?

OK. My skin is a pale white. I did not choose this. Is it immoral of me to choose to change the color of my skin with tattoos or some other treatment?

OK. So I was born WITHOUT a biological trait for homosexuality. Why is it immoral for me to choose to become a homosexual? Why MUST I be born gay for my homosexuality to be morally and socially justifiable if homosexuality is, as you said, "perfectly moral"?

This is my last attempt at clarifying for you what is clearly a frightening argument for gay-rights activists. Your ad hominems and red-herrings have done nothing to either advance your particular cause (whatever that is) or to undo the fact that you don't realize you don't know what you're talking about.

PEACE.

BG