Your argument, though well articulated, does not carry much weight until the issue of personal choice is addressed. You believe, and your argument assumes this belief to be commonly held, that homosexuality is a personal choice. Unfortunately the public discussion in major media makes no dispute over the argument by homosexual advocates that their sexual preference is not a matter of personal choice.

To those who have become convinced that homosexuality is at least plausibly not a matter of individual choice your argument is discredited. In order to carry more weight, the public would need to once again accept that homosexuality is a matter of personal choice (which was the prevailing belief before the activists engaged in their long campaign to alter public perceptions of their lifestyle).

I don’t mean to argue that it is not a matter of personal choice - only that the public discussion fails to make that argument. Those who believe it is a choice continue to believe it and those who don’t believe it is a choice try to convince everyone else that it is not a choice and is thus worthy of protected class status.

Thank you Connor, for pointing this out. Yes, it has been mostly overlooked by all the recent commentary about the involvement of the church in the Protect Marriage Amendment. Your observation that it probably will not be affected by the outcome of the vote is also right on, in my opinion. I agree with your opinion that a choice of a sexual preference should not be a protected class under California law.

However, I’m sure you are aware that the current argument is that it is not a choice, but a biological fact that some people are born with same sex attractions. I think that is the basis for the court’s decisions. They do not see it as a choice as we do. The battleground is choice vs biology right now.

Connor,
I think you are over simplifying things when you say “that an individual can arbitrarily and randomly change their sexual preference “. What evidence do you have to prove that statement? Are there some studies you are referring to or simply anecdotal evidence?

Sure, the gay community is ecstatic over this decision, because they can now sue anybody who they perceive has wronged them in any way on the basis of their sexuality.

This is also a pretty broad statement. While there may be some radicals who have every intention of using this as an attack tool, is it not possible that the vast majority of homosexuals genuinely want to engage in the same kind of loving, and protected relationship that I enjoy? It is possible to disagree with gay marriage, or in this case granting legal protection to sexuality without assuming that your opponent is only motivated by the most vile of motives.

After reading your post, it is clear you don’t approve of the idea of any protected classes (which I can understand). However, given that they do exist, do you think that religion should be a protected class (ie, you can’t discriminate based on someone’s relgious preference)? If so, how would that be any different than not being able to discriminate based upon someone’s personal and private sexual behavior?

I get the feeling from your tone that you object to these events primarily because they present a possible threat to the church (ie, the church would be forced to accept gays). I sometimes wonder if the church wouldn’t be better off if gays were a completely respected and accepted class within the organization. Just as inter-racial relationships were condemned (by church leadership) as being of the devil only a few short decades ago, but now are accepted, maybe the time will come that God will decide that gay relationships aren’t as bad as they used to be.

Considering that evidence, the ruling of the Court is all the more disturbing. As the commentator you quoted suggested, we could grant protected status based on the foods we like - anchovy eaters could turn that to their benefit.

Connor,

You fail to address the fact that sexuality is not the only protected class that is a personal choice. Religion, family status and political affiliation are all protected classes that are based upon choices an individual makes. I am glad that these choices are protected, so that I can choose to belong to a certain religion and not have to fear consequences at work or any other place. So that I can choose my political ideals and not have to answer to an employer, and to choose whether or not I want to be married with fear of repercussion. I can understand you are concerned about the legitimization of gay marriage, but being ignorant to the definition of “Protected Class” has caused your argument to be extremely weak.

I agree with Jacob. That was one of the points I was trying to make in my far wordier post.

Linked to your post from Bloggers 1st Ammendment Rights - Appeal for moral support

No, I do not. If I choose to be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for example, then I should be willing to face whatever consequences may result from that decision.

Somehow when I read the first question (about whether Connor thought that religious preference should be protected) that his answer would be no. Establishing one religion by the power of government should be prohibited, but in a country where the legal system is based on choice and consequences (as ours should be) I should be free to choose my religion, but that should not negate your freedom to treat me differently based on your perceptions of my choice. If I don’t like the consequences I am free to alter my choice.

Connor -

I can get behind your position that there should be NO protected classes at all. Just like I can mostly support the idea that there should be no “hate” crimes laws. If you hurt or kill someone, you are punished for that. That said, we do take motive into account in charging and sentencing — if I killed someone because he harmed my daughter, I would hope the court would take that into account and be a bit more lenient. However, if I killed someone because he stole my sand wedge — or solely because he was black or Korean or a Jehovah’s Witness — I’d expect somewhat harsher treatment.

But in terms of sexuality being a choice, you are simply clearly wrong. The behavior is a choice, yes, but so is your “behavior” to write or throw a ball with your right hand. If you happen to be right-handed — you might be a lefty. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Sexuality is no more a choice than handedness is. Left-handedness affects a small percentage of the population. Science doesn’t know specifically what causes it, although current consensus is that it’s a combination of genetic factors (like sexuality, it’s not 100% genetic, because identical twins can be differently handed and/or have a different sexual orientation) combined with hormone levels in utero. Interestingly, that is also the current consensus on the causes of sexuality.

There are many studies that indicate (not prove, indicate) a biological basis for sexuality. (Twin studies, finger length, brain morphology, fraternal birth order, etc.) I have seen NO studies that even indicate, let alone prove, that sexual orientation is chosen.

Just as a person can choose to use their non-dominant hand to accomplish everyday tasks, a heterosexual could choose to engage in same-sex conduct, and vice versa. But the action doesn’t change their core orientation.

Sexuality exists on a continuum. Some people are exclusively heterosexual, others exclusively homosexual. Many are bisexual to one degree or another, but most move toward heterosexual behavior because it is supported by societal norms. Plus, being homosexual can get you killed if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. (Consider Matthew Shepard or Lawrence King.)

I appreciate your intellectual honesty re protected classes, but as far as sexuality being a choice, that’s one you need to let go of.

Jeffrey Robinson provides a very refreshing way to look at the origins of same-gender attraction.

http://www.theguardrail.com/transcript.htm

I invite everyone to read the whole thing… it completely changed my perspective.

Tom: Science doesn’t know specifically what causes it, although current consensus is that it’s a combination of genetic factors (like sexuality, it’s not 100% genetic, because identical twins can be differently handed and/or have a different sexual orientation) combined with hormone levels in utero. Interestingly, that is also the current consensus on the causes of sexuality.

That consensus far from undisputed. A great many reputable scientists reject that point of view.

Jeff: do you have any reputable scientists who believe it is a choice?

Jeffrey Robinson, as I said, holds a similar point of view. Brent Slife, Ed Gantt, and Richard Williams believe that agentic factors are heavily involved. Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

There is a difference in believing that agency plays a significant role in same-gender attraction and saying that people deliberatively choose to be gay. The truth is, people don’t experience it that way… but Jeffrey Robinson explains how and why people can experience the condition as being outside of their control, even though their agency is involved all along.

Robinson seems to be more of a therapist than a scientist.

Brent Slife is also a psychologist — and at BYU.

Ed Gantt — same thing.

Richard Williams — associated with NARTH, hardly a reputable source.

Can you point me to any actual research (not theoretical musings) that anyone (even these guys) have done that indicates sexuality is chosen?

That was an insightful point of view Jeff, thanks for sharing the link. It left me wanting to reach out in compassion to anyone who struggles with something that I may not understand- whether it is homosexuality or not.

Connor -

You could choose your ACTIONS, but not your preference.

The Mac vs. Windows comparison is sophistry at best. You could also start using your non-dominant hand to write with tomorrow. Wouldn’t change you from a righty to a left, or vice versa.

Connor,
There are so many things I want to respond to, but I’ll try to keep it concise.

As I noted in my last comment, self-identification (in this case, regarding sexuality) is a choice.

I was typing my question while you were typing this response. While I think the semantics of “self-identification” versus “inherent trait” serve to confuse the issue, I understand your point. However, if you are going to stand here and argue that the government has no business creating protected classes (which I can agree with), but then turn around and say that we should be using the governemnt to define the marriage relationship, then I think you are being inconsistent. In a previous thread I mentioned that I didn’t approve of the idea of using the governemnt to legislate private relationships. You said that you agreed in theory (a perfect world), but since the government is involved, we need to influence the government. Now, you are saying that the government should get out of the business of legislating protected classes. Why are you willing to fight the government involvment in one case, but not the other?

So much for loving relationships (if you define love as fidelity, longevity, and commitment).

I went to the link you provided, which was an anti-gay evangelical website. They did not provide any references to back up their claim that some Dutch study actually exists or says what they say it does. I hope you can do better than that to try to help me believe that Gays are actually all a bunch of sex crazed maniacs. Besides, I think if you did a study of early twenty something straight men in a lot of US cities, their “stats” would probably not be that much different than the alleged gay stats.

I sustain a prophet of God as a seer. I believe that, like Wilford Woodruff did regarding the polygamy decision, our leaders know what consequences we will face as an institution if this law passes.

Ok, interesting point. Are you saying that if these laws pass, the church will have to accept homosexuals and that will be a horrible thing? Because, in the case you are citing the government forced the church to reject polygamy and accept monogamy, and yet the church went on. Perhaps the same will hold true about homosexual relationships. I find your dismissive “Don’t hold your breath” to border on arrogance. Unless you have some special insight into the future, I’m not sure I would be so bold. The mormon polygamists of the late 19th century said the same type things. The racist mormons of early church history (if the late 1960’s is still considered early) said the same things about inter-racial relationships and the priesthood, and yet look at us today. While I respect your decision to support the church leadership on this issue, it is still unclear to me if they are acting in their official capacity as “prophets” or simply as men with opinions. Because past embarassments to the church have been dismissed as being merely the opinions of men rather than official doctrine, I wonder if this episode will one day be looked on in the same way.

Tom,

Ad hominem arguments at best.

Jeff -

Not at all. I merely point out the potential bias of these men.

In addition, I asked if you could point me to any scientific studies — EVEN BY THOSE MEN — that indicate that sexual orientation is chosen.

Have you any?

Connor,
I’m not going to labor under the pretense that I have a testimony. That should make it easier for you to understand where my viewpoints come from. I am not so afraid of apostasy that I won’t use my own judgement to evaluate the directions given by church leadership.

You used a quote from McConkie to show that only the current revelations are relevant. And yet, later you referred to the doctorine and covenants that said that when they speak as moved upon by the Holy Ghost, their words are scriptures. How do you then reconcile the fact that McConkie said that we should disregard his earlier preaching because he was speaking with “limited understanding”. If the words of the prophets are to be believed as the words of God, I am unable to accept that they can at one time pronounce the word of God one way and then change their mind later and claim that they were speaking with limited understanding. Either God knows and reveals the truth from the beginning, or he didn’t reveal anything at all. I can’t accept it both ways. If the current revelation about blacks and the preisthood is correct, why was it not always correct? Why did God allow the “prophets” to speak in his name for 140 years preaching something that was false? Unless you think the racism of the past wasn’t false? Was it good then, but bad now? What changed if not just the current “whims” of society which you have derided?

Is it possible that the church leadership is operating under limited understanding about this issue? If you have a testimony, you say no. But without a testimony, their actions seem to me consistent with the historical pattern I have observed. Namely, they adopt problematic social views that ultimately become outdated. They initially fight change, but once change is forced upon them, they continue to go on and receive a revelation telling them that the supposed bad thing wasn’t really that bad afterall.

Tom,

EVERY researcher has a bias. There is no such thing as “unbiased” research. A majority of scientists have a bias towards biological reductionism. They then define any scientist that does not believe in biological reductionism as “disreputable” (for that very reason). Hardly intellectually honest.

But you cite three men from one institution that won’t let you remain employed if you don’t hew to their line, plus one man from an organization whose sole purpose is to push sexuality as a conscious choice. I think the bias is pretty heavy there.

And still, I’ve asked (now for the third time) for you to provide any studies — even by one of those four clearly-biased men — that indicate that sexuality is chosen. So far, nothing.

Connor -

It’s relatively easy to find such studies. Google “biological basis homosexuality” and you’ll come up with several. Here’s something from Stanford, one of America’s premiere institutions of higher learning and scientific research. http://news-service.stanford.edu/pr/95/950310Arc5328.html

“If those studies prove false, then, the only other option to assume is that the orientation is a choice.” First, have ANY of these studies been proven false? Some have said sample sizes were too small or conclusions were reached that weren’t supported by the actual findings, but no one has yet disproven that the more older brothers you have, the more likely you are to be gay. That’s actually a statistical fact. No one has disproven that if one identical twin is gay, more than half the time the other twin is, too. Finger length, brain morphology — all of these indicate sexuality is biologically based.

Nothing — NOTHING — suggests that sexual orientation is a choice, certainly not the personal experience of millions and millions of gay people. There are a handful who have changed their behavior, but virtually all report they felt their first sexual stirrings were for people of the same gender.

If you want to be intellectually honest, you have to debate with some level of credibility. As I said, I can accept that there should be no protected classes. (Easy for me, white middle-class male, to say.) But to suggest that sexual orientation is chosen? The thought makes reason stare.

Connor,

You are absolutely correct… I thought that California had written this protection into the constitution already… I read the dang opinion and George fooled me. The California legislature in 2003 wrote this, ” “[e]xpanding the rights and creating responsibilities of registered domestic partners would further California’s interests in promoting family relationships and protecting family members during life crises, and would reduce discrimination on the bases of sex and sexual orientation in a manner consistent with the requirements of the California Constitution.

George used this to overturn Prop. 22. He read the work of the legislature into the constitution, even though it was not a constitutional amendment.

You are correct… that is one of the really big problems with this decision.

I also beleive that the George Court has unconstitutionally deinstitutionalized marriage so that there are no more “husbands” and “wives” in California law. That’s why there is only “Party A” and “Party B” on California marriage licenses these days.

Tom,

I’ve found many. I won’t link to them here. Why? Because you can find them just as easily, and you will dismiss them all as being biased and “guilty by association” with NARTH.

Simply put, science CAN’T prove agency. The best present scientific framework can do with agency is consider is a “wild card” yet to be explained by biological factors. That is because they have already accepted the biological paradigm (absent any proof… the biological paradigm is one of many ways to interpret the data, not something proven by the data).

To chime in on the free choice thing… Everyone thinks that free choice means “easy choice.” We have the free choice to make Christ Jesus Lord in our lives. We also have the free choice to live to serve God. If the former is easy it is only because of the labors of Christ for us. The later is certainly no always easy.

We have the free choice to be excellent at whatever we so desire to achieve… Yea, that’s easy.

The path to greater liberty is almost always the harder path. The choices that lead to imprisonment to the weakness in life are almost always the easiest.

Sorry Connor, I wasn’t trying to threadjack. Frankly, I think I was addressing the same topic as you. I simply feel that most of your reasoning and logic used to support your position is based in a belief that homosexuality is evil. This is a moral judgement that I assume you derive from your religious faith. If that is true, then an evaluation of the background of your faith seems to be a legitimate way to evaluate and understand your reasoning.

As far as the topic at hand as you see it, I am unconvinced that homosexuality is a choice. I certainly don’t remember ever making a choice about liking girls. I just always felt that way. I did have to make choices about how I was going to behave, so I agree with you that there is choice in behavior, but the actual preference doesn’t seem to me to be chosen. I am assuming that even if homosexuality was established to be a biological and unchosen condition you would still oppose it due to your religious faith. Is that not correct? If so, than debating choice or biology is useless because you won’t change your mind either way. I would be happy to be shown wrong, but it doesn’t seem this is really a debate where anyone can or will change their mind. Minds have already been made up, and people are just searching for justification to support their cause. If homosexuality was shown to be biologically based, would you then support it being included in the protected classes? I hope you don’t consider this a further threadjack as I truly believe this is the heart of the debate.

Not exactly shying away from the controversial issues, are we Connor?

Why are we even ARGUING the choice issue? How is this relevant to the issue of legal discrimination? Many “non-choice” characteristics of a person can be discriminated against (tall people in the NBA, African-Americans with better Achilles tendons running track, people without horrendous lisps and inborn jaw damage recording books on tape, heavy dyslexics NOT writing prescriptions, etc.).

I don’t believe that “the Church” (meaning, in this arena, the LDS Church) has an official statement on the choice of the matter. The myriad factors involved in something like homosexuality make it practically impossible to test for in a laboratory setting. Does traumatic childhood abuse lead to truancy, unemployment, vandalism or homosexuality, or does it merely awaken existing urges within an individual?

Besides, when Connor’s talking about “changing” his orientation (hypothetically), he’s talking about his personal identity and not the personal inclinations. I could go register with the Workers’ Party tomorrow and that wouldn’t make me any more of a Marxist, while Communist sympathizers could be shouting it up with the paranoid types at Eagle Forum meetings. The mere fact that an individual who isn’t necessarily homosexual can identify as a homosexual introduces instability and potential duplicitous behavior into the system, as nearly all of these discrimination laws do. Knowing whether somebody discriminated against somebody requires a depth of knowledge I can’t hope to attain in this lifespan.

As a l-l-l-l-libertarian (Gosh that’s hard to say in 2008), I propose that we leave the gubmint out of it. I don’t know whether homosexuality is a choice (conscious or unconscious, as JeffT suggests) or a product of genes and environment, or if it varies from person to person.

P.S. Educated people who believe that homosexuality is a choice WILL flock to groups like NARTH or the FLC (or BYU for that matter, as nearly any other university would create problems for them). As I have no way of knowing whether their research predates their personal opinion on the subject, I’ll admit that their group affiliations have little to no effect on their credibility. The same goes for Tom’s more accepted Ivy League blokes.

Chosen. Not Chosen. What a Headache.

I think we can sum up the Church’s position on the matter as this:
1.) “Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God…” (The Family A Proclamation to the World)
2.) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. (The Family A Proclamation to the World)

Finally the Prophet Mosiah taught that: “For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord,”

The Lord nor the church has never said that homosexual attraction is a sin. It is not a sin to be attracted to a member of the same sex. Neither do we choose (regardless of gender) who we will feel feelings of attraction to. It is when we choose to have sex with someone we are not married to that we sin.

From my point of view the whole reason we are on earth is to be tested. To see if we would keep the commandments. Not just the ones we are biologically predisposed to keep, but all of them. We all have commandments that we are predisposed biologically to disobey. For some, it’s sex (whether with a man or a woman) for others it’s pornography. For others it’s alchohol and for still others it’s financial dishonesty. Homosexual sex is a sin. Heterosexual sex outside of marriage is a sin. ANY TIME we know a commandment and we choose to disobey it it’s a sin.
I have sinned. You have sinned. We all have sinned. Who gets to say whose sin is better?

Jeff -

I’ve read some of the NARTH stuff. None of it is real scientific inquiry. It’s a lot of theories with no experimentation to back them up.

You’re probably a relatively smart guy, and you must realize that it’s only a handful of (biased) organizations who are attempting to put lipstick on the pig of an idea that sexual orientation is chosen. Meanwhile the rest of the world scientific community are discovering actual EVIDENCE that sexual orientation is a complex interaction of biological activity that is fixed by birth or very shortly thereafter.

But if you can’t reconcile the real world with your religious beliefs, I’m afraid there is nothing I can do for you.

I tend to believe that there very well may be a strong genetic component for some people to have homosexual inclinations. I also think that for some it may lean more toward the “conscious choice” end of the spectrum. And there are probably many who fall in the middle somewhere.
As far as the church is concerned, it really doesn’t matter. It seems that in our culture, if homosexuality is proven to have a biological basis then we should accept the behavior or lifestyle as not being a sin. But there are some who are born with a genetically-influenced inclination to be angry, abusive, addictive (all of which if acted upon would be sin). We all have our own weaknesses and inclinations that make the gospel hard to live in some way. This is just another one of them.
Science has shown that there is a strong biological basis for addiction. Should there be a protected class for these people too?

As far as the church is concerned, it really doesn’t matter. It seems that in our culture, if homosexuality is proven to have a biological basis then we should accept the behavior or lifestyle as not being a sin. But there are some who are born with a genetically-influenced inclination to be angry, abusive, addictive (all of which if acted upon would be sin).

The question here is again about our role in civil society. Anger and abuse generally involve other people, so — sinful or not — acting out on anger in an abusive way is, and should remain, illegal.

But sexuality affects only the consenting adults involved in the relationship — unless you believe that the mere existence of homosexuality affects the broader culture in negative ways. And that’s an entirely other debate.

Acting out abusive inclinations on another person is illegal. Being angry, being addicted, or having some type of mental illness is not illegal (and shouldn’t be). Each of these traits could possibly have a biological basis. Should they become protected classes so employers, etc cannot discriminate on that basis?

Carissa -

Have the angry or the addicted been discriminated against for decades — if not centuries — the way gay people have? Is there a rash of “alcoholic-bashings” I haven’t heard of?

Besides, an angry or addictive personality is generally not a terrific employee (or renter), and so a business owner can (and should) discriminate based on that. But only on an individual basis. Homosexuals, on the other hand, HAVE been discriminated against. There are still 14 (I believe) states where an employer can fire a person SOLELY because they are gay. Gay people are still being beaten and killed with frightening regularity in this country — simply because they are gay.

Tom, is that your criteria then for making a protected class? Level and extent of persecution?

I’m generally fine with NO protected classes. But if you’re going to have them, they ought be based on real threats, real discrimination. Race, age, disability — these have all been discriminated against and our society is trying to find ways to make sure people are treated equally. All I’m saying is that gay people have been persecuted and discriminated against pretty heavily - far more than the “angry” or “addicted.”

Carissa, spot on! Tom, you’re missing the point of the choice thing Connor is talking about. The point is, whatever one’s core orientation, and whatever amount of choice is or isn’t involved, one’s identity as either homo- or heterosexual is something one chooses to take upon themselves. Most people will feel obligated to identify with their inclinations on some principle of being who they really are. However, you or I or anybody could “identify” as homosexual, heterosexual, sandwich eater, tofu eater regardless of inclinations or palette. The law cannot know your inclinations, only what you profess to identify with. Thus the law is fundamentally based on a choice. Granting people litigious power based on something completely in their control (the identification one way or the other) is a very bad move.

Thinking about identity gave me another idea. Just like sexual identification, I can choose another manifestation of my identity, my name. I could go change my name to banana hammock. People might find that offensive, doesn’t mean I should be in a protected class. Doesn’t mean I should be able to sue my business partner for not wanting my new name on company letterhead.

Vontrapp -

you or I or anybody could “identify” as homosexual, heterosexual, sandwich eater, tofu eater regardless of inclinations or palette. The law cannot know your inclinations, only what you profess to identify with.

It’s an interesting point. So as long as I identified as heterosexual, you’d be cool with letting me marry a man?

Tom, that’s quite a proposition (no pun intended). I can just imagine the kid going: “WAIT a minute. . . he’s not gay!”

I actually think that a crime based on hatred is worse than a crime brought on by anger or frustration. I prefer to think that I’ll be all right as long as I don’t piss off somebody with a Glock, but it’s harder for people to feel safe if gangsters start going after geeks or people with bad posture or folk with glasses. I’d be a sitting duck, in other words.

Besides, existing laws involving violence already take into account the mental state of an individual preceding a crime. “Aggravated assault” or different classifications of murder or manslaughter exist based on qualifications like provocation, self-defense and neglect. Adding hate crimes to the mix isn’t that much more.

But we’re talking about crimes involving violence. Freedom of assembly necessitates freedom of exclusion, or it’s requirement of assembly. Every time we hire somebody we’re using some form of “discrimination” in the sense of selecting one choice from another. Some discrimination is hateful and some is based on necessity (hiring whoever’s best for the job, independent of accreditation, etc.). Yes, allowing businesses to hire whoever they want may result in racism, sexism or any number of other “-isms”, but that’s a consequence of freedom.

Tom,

It is not a person’s religious persuasion or academic affiliation that invalidates a study. It is the study’s methodology that makes it valid or invalid. You stated that there are several studies that support your position. I do not believe you. If it is true, name them! Be specific.

When I was in college at Eastern Washington University, my textbook stated, “Despite extensive research to prove otherwise, there is NO indication that would suggest same sex sexual orientation is a genetic or a biological pre-disposition.”

After six years of research on violence and sex crimes, I found plenty of evidence to show that the majority of gay pedophiles that were in prison had been molested before they became gay. Statistics on gay pedophiles that had molested or raped young boys showed that gay pedophiles had on average150 child victims.

We had men from a gay coalition come talk to my Sociology class about the need for government funding so adult gay mentors could counsel teenage boys who had been raped by gay men. He said that the victims needed to understand that if the sex act involved in the abuse or crime felt good, that meant the boys were gay and that was ok. He reasoned that funding for gay counselors was necessary because of the extremely high suicide rate and the extensive alcohol and drug use that was prevalent in the gay community.

I listened to him speak for about 35 minutes then raised my hand. I told the speaker that there was a large panel of light switches on the wall in the front of the room. If I turned the switches on with my hand, the lights turned on. If I used a ruler to flip the switches, the lights went on. If I turned the switches on with a hairbrush, the lights still turned on and the lights didn’t say, “Oh my gosh, I’m hairbrush oriented!” The lights just knew that there circuits were working properly.

Our bodies were created with circuits that stimulate sexual feelings. Those feelings lead to sexual intercourse which often results in pregnancy insuring the propagation of the human race.

There are many things that can switch on our circuits. If a man rapes manipulates or sexually molests a boy in a manner that switches on his sexual circuits, it doesn’t mean the boy is gay. It means that some selfish person inappropriately stimulated another human being whose circuits are working properly. Thankfully that unnatural act never results in pregnancy.

If you can’t bring forth solid specific scientific proof to support your premise or to disprove Connor’s premise, you have no argument just an opinion… one that I strongly disagree with.

Try here first: http://toddshammer.wordpress.com/2006/06/09/biology-and-homosexuality/

Then google “The Science of Gaydar.” There is a New York Magazine article that discusses several of these studies.

I read the article in the Atlantic. Several interesting quotes:

“Psychiatry not only consistently failed to show that homosexuality was a preference, a malleable thing, susceptible to reversal; it also consistently failed to show that homosexuality was a pathology.”

“Whatever the uncertainties ahead, though, the important point is that the genetic work is already fairly compelling. A new Bailey and Pillard genetic study of lesbian twins, to be published soon in the Archives of General Psychiatry, echoes the researchers’ original male-twin findings with strikingly similar results. “We’re getting a lot of consistency where we should be getting it,” Bailey says.”

“Even at this relatively early date, out of the web of complexities it is becoming ever clearer that biological factors play a role in determining human sexual orientation.”

“Five decades of psychiatric evidence demonstrates that homosexuality is immutable, and nonpathological, and a growing body of more recent evidence implicates biology in the development of sexual orientation”

I couldn’t access the Commentary articles, as they are available only to subscribers.

Also, here’s a link to the New York magazine article I referenced earlier: http://nymag.com/news/features/33520/

Tom,

You don’t have a case. Could you point to some scientific studies that can be evaluated for their merits. Magazine articles and opinion don’t cut it for me.

Chemistry and biology are not opinion sciences. Credible studies point to facts not suppositions. The sources that you point to draw conclusions NOT based on facts, but rather based on agenda.

Connor,

The Card article parallels the factual conclusions I found in my 6 years of college research on the topic.

Janet, you no doubt have a good point when arguing that just because gay sex may be pleasurable to an individual, that doesn’t make someone gay. However, much of your other arguments focus on the behavior and tendencies of gay pedophiles. That’s a rather dispicable group of people to be basing your evaluations of gays upon. What if the behaviors of all heterosexuals were judged based upon the actions of hetero pedophiles?

Also, you have called out Tom insisting that he provide you with a study confirming biological influences determine sexual preference. Did you point out any studies indicating the opposite that I missed somewhere in the thread?

One observation I made about this debate is that those who are against gay sex for moral reason automatically take the position that gayness is choosen. This allows them to feel justified in their quest to justify their moral judgement. However, I get the feeling that many of the other side approach the situation under the assumption that there is nothing inherintly immoral about gay sex and therefore are only interested in understanding it. I know there are people on both sides of the issue that don’t fit those stereotypes, but they seem accurate to me.

I don’t think any class deserves any protection against discrimination. As a brown person growing up in San Diego, it didn’t feel as if there was an issue. Once I moved around the country, it was clear that the rest of the country wasn’t so accepting. I currently reside in Arizona where the sherrif carries out “sweeps” for undocumented immigrants who are brown.

Initially, I was annoyed. But at the same time, I started to wonder why anyone would want to be accepted solely because everyone else was forced to accept them.

To this point, homosexuality is not something that is visible for everyone to pick out of a crowd. The only reason an employer would know about homosexuality in one’s personal life is because that person disclosed their personal life in the workplace.

It is very similar to religious discrimination. Nobody knows your faith until you start telling everyone what it is. If you keep it to yourself until it is appropriate to discuss it, discrimination for faith wouldn’t happen. Once you start to include everyone into your practice, whatever it may be, you open yourself to discrimination for your decisions.

Personally, I don’t want the kind of government that can guarantee that there is no discrimination. (just as I’m not sure I want the kind of government that can stop all bad things from happening)

Tom, you miss the point again. I don’t care what you identify with, I still don’t think you should marry a man (that is, if you are also a man). That’s still not the point even. The point is I don’t think you or anyone should be afforded special protection just because you *choose* to identify as a homosexual. You might be a homosexual and have no choice in that matter, whatever, but someone else can choose to “be a homosexual” (the identity thing) just so he can start suing people for not being hired or whatever.

“You might be a homosexual and have no choice in that matter, whatever, but someone else can choose to “be a homosexual” (the identity thing) just so he can start suing people for not being hired or whatever.”

Don’t you think the court might want to see some evidence? Religion is a protected status, and that is a chosen behavior.

Brandon,

I addressed gay pedophile behavior because I researched it for six years in college. I do not base my opinion on gays only because of my research.

A relative of mine is a self-proclaimed lesbian. Do I love her? Absolutely! Do I approve of her behavior? Absolutely NOT! When I observe her and her friends, do I see happy women who are fulfilled and satisfied with life? NO! Would my approval of their behavior, or the public’s acceptance of her sexual orientation, make her happy and fulfilled? NO! If she could marry one of the many partners she has had make her happy and fulfilled? Are you kidding… it would only make her divorced! Was she born a lesbian? NO! She was dominated, abused then raped by a lesbian, and then magically she became a lesbian.

Well perhaps you are right, it isn’t fair to base my opinion of the whole based on a few. So let me tell you about (I’ll call him Franz). Franz married a woman and got her pregnant so he could have a child. While his wife was pregnant, he moved in his gay lover stating the man was just an old friend who was down on his luck and needed a place to stay until he could get back on his feet.

When the baby was six months old, Franz’ friend was still down on his luck and living with them. Franz and his wife decided to move to a new apartment. Franz moved to the new apartment, with the help of his friend, while his wife was at work. When his wife got home from work, everything had been moved.

His wife excitedly drove to her new apartment and knocked on the door which was locked because Franz’ friend had her key. When Franz opened the door, he told his wife he was gay, his friend was his lover and they were keeping everything including the baby. Franz had already filed for temporary custody stating his wife was an unfit mother.

My bishop asked me to take in Franz’ wife and help her get her baby back. The process was educational to say the least. I had an entire gay community calling my home to talk to Franz’ wife to tattle on each other because they had been screwed (pardon the pun), I mean jilted.

“Franz left the baby with a drug addict so he could go out with another man… when I got home I found ____ OD’d and the baby was crying on the floor.”

“Franz left the baby with an alcoholic he found on the street so he could go to a ‘gay’ strip club with another man and the baby is at ____ bar.”

“I turned (Franz new lover) in to the Air Force because he left me for another man. I know how you (Franz’ wife) feel… he (Franz) didn’t even send me a valentine!”

When we got to court Franz’ ex-employer was there to testify about Franz feeling up the customers in a TUX store. When they fired Franz, he tried to burn down the store. He ended up going to jail for it.

I was also present on the Air Force Base when one of Franz’ lovers was being drummed out of the military because he couldn’t keep his hands to himself.

I served a subpoena to one of Franz’ lovers in front of a gay bar full of drag queens and heard their foul talk and observed their obscene behavior.

When Franz brought his wife her things, he added a box of his own things. I saw the magazines with porn on the cover. I saw the gay sex nick-nacks. I saw the filth.

What I didn’t see that year out of the gay community was anything decent, normal, virtuous, lovely or of good report.

But perhaps it isn’t fair to judge gays based on the scriptures, six years of research and the behavior of an entire gay community…

I think burglars and abusers should be a protected class. After all, these tendencies can be passed down through families and very often are. Burglars might really need the money and stealing might be the only life skill they were taught. And those who abuse or hurt others were usually the victims of abuse, as well. If this argument seems to be ridiculous, consider this: there is more evidence that violence is a genetic tendency than there is for homosexual tendency being part of the genetic makeup.

Now, I do not “hate” or even “dislike” homosexuals. I just have a completely different concept of sex. In today’s society sex seems to be an activity people participate in for the pleasure it brings them. I believe Satan has fostered this attitude to distract all of us from an eternal truth. In my lexicon of beliefs sex is the natural act used for the procreation of new life. Because procreation is one of the fundamental commandments a loving God gave to his children He made it an act that humans would be able to enjoy. But He has given us guidelines in how to use this sacred power: In a marriage and for procreation (or to celebrate that goal). To me, any other form of sex is abusing a sacred power and therefore a sin.

In essence, some of you are telling me that I have to abandon my beliefs on the sacredness of sex in order to validate your actions. That simply will not happen, and while I can honestly say that I do not hate any of my fellow beings I do not agree with all the choices people make. And I do think it is a choice. I choose not to have sex before marriage and I’m 25 years old. If I can choose not to have sex then choosing to have sex (regardless of the gender of the partner) is a choice.

“it isn’t fair to base my opinion of the whole based on a few. So let me tell you about (I’ll call him Franz)”

So it’s not fair to base your opinion on a few, but it is fair to base it on one?!

How about I tell you the story of my friends, a couple who will be married in about six weeks, and how “Gene” has looked after “Terry” after Terry had a heart attack and nearly died — and has since had three hospitalizations? Or about my doctor and his partner who adopted a little boy who had languished in foster care? Or my friends who have been together 35 years? Or another doctor I know, a lesbian who every year volunteers for several weeks, providing free medical care to poor communities in Central America?

I think burglars and abusers should be a protected class. After all, these tendencies can be passed down through families and very often are.

Except burglars and abusers have victims. Men and women in consensual relationships do not.

I believe Satan has fostered this attitude to distract all of us from an eternal truth.

An imaginary being has no place in a discussion of an issue of civil law.

An imaginary being has no place in a discussion of an issue of civil law.

Sorry you feel that way. I suppose you feel the same way about God?

So it’s not fair to base your opinion on a few, but it is fair to base it on one!

So you know a few great guys that are gay. Is that the basis of your opinion? Perhaps it runs deeper? Are you gay?

If you reread Janet’s comment very carefully, you will see that there were several men involved in the aberrant behavior and several victims.

Think about the Catholic priests and the trusting boys. No victims? Yeah right!

A chosen behavior that goes against the majority of people’s belief in God’s commandments has no place being the basis of lawsuits. Allow Catholic adoption services to follow their convictions. Let you gay doctor friends inseminate lesbians. Perhaps your gay and lesbian friends could pair up to make babies the “natural” way.

Making it a requirement that a straight doctor must service the gay community in that way or loose their license to practice their chosen profession is WRONG! No victim here? – Yeah right! Churches should be allowed to preach their beliefs without risking going to jail. Apparently your religion is Atheism. You want your chosen religion to be alone in a protected class. Perhaps all religion should join you in a protected class so that we can practice our beliefs. Making sexual orientation a protected class to enable gays to harass others with lawsuits because others don’t accept the gay religion and beliefs is wrong, Wrong, WRONG!!!

As for the reality of Satan and God, I’m sorry for you. I know that one day you will have to face God. Then you will realize that God is real, that he has standards and your belief system is not in line with his and there will be consequences.

I believe that you and I will never agree on this issue so we must agree to disagree. I will spend my time henceforth doing everything I can to thwart your legal movement. Thanks for that. This will be my final comment on this post as I have work to do. I suggest that anyone who feels the same way I do check out Connor’s Orson Scott Card link then contact your state and national legislators.

So you know a few great guys that are gay. Is that the basis of your opinion?

What I was saying is that it’s easy to find individual examples of good and bad behavior in any group. Overall, however, the only reason you can come up with to deny civil marriage equality is because you have chosen to believe that manuscripts ranging from thousands of years old to hundreds of years old are, in fact, the inerrant words of an imaginary superbeing. And that’s cool. I stand ready to fight and die to protect your right to believe in that superbeing and worship same as you wish. But under the Constitution of the United States, your belief in HF has the exact same legal standing as my belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Perhaps it runs deeper? Are you gay?

Wow — did you just have your gaydar tuned or something?

Think about the Catholic priests and the trusting boys. No victims? Yeah right!

Those would be children, so they can’t consent, so they are, in fact, victims

A chosen behavior that goes against the majority of people’s belief in God’s commandments has no place being the basis of lawsuits.

According to the Supreme Court, it does, actually.

Allow Catholic adoption services to follow their convictions.

Sure. As long as they don’t expect tax breaks.

Perhaps your gay and lesbian friends could pair up to make babies the “natural” way.

In fact, that is just what one of my gay friends has done. He’s the father of adorable twins, and he is deeply involved in their lives.

Making it a requirement that a straight doctor must service the gay community in that way or loose their license to practice their chosen profession is WRONG!

Would you allow a Christian doctor to refuse to serve a Muslim?

Churches should be allowed to preach their beliefs without risking going to jail.

Absolutely. Apparently you haven’t been following the exploits of Fred Phelps. Unless he’s in jail and I haven’t heard of it, the First Amendment is doing pretty well.

You want your chosen religion to be alone in a protected class. Perhaps all religion should join you in a protected class so that we can practice our beliefs.

I think religion is already in a protected class, but I could be wrong on that.

Making sexual orientation a protected class to enable gays to harass others with lawsuits because others don’t accept the gay religion and beliefs is wrong, Wrong, WRONG!!!

Not quite. Sexuality is now a protected class and will protect gay people from being discriminated against simply because of an accident of birth. In case you didn’t know, there are still many places in this country where a person can be fired or denied housing SOLELY because they are gay.

And have you noticed that the military has discharged several dozen (70-something, I think) Arabic and Farsi speakers who were vital participants in the war on terror — simply because they were gay?

As for the reality of Satan and God, I’m sorry for you. I know that one day you will have to face God. Then you will realize that God is real, that he has standards and your belief system is not in line with his and there will be consequences.

When the end comes and you embrace the void, and there’s no veil for you to put your hand through and make the secret handshake, you might think - “Dang - I wasted that whole life — the only one I got — on narrow-mindedness, hypocrisy and false prophets who manipulated me for my money. Oops.”

I will spend my time henceforth doing everything I can to thwart your legal movement.

And I yours. If you haven’t noticed, my side has a pretty decent lead in the race. Homosexual behavior is perfectly legal in this country. 75% of Americans (and 73% of active military) think gays should be allowed to serve in the armed forces. The California Supreme Court just handed us a huge victory, Prop 8 is behind in the polls (and will likely remain behind since the Proposition can be described on the ballot for exactly what it is — eliminating a right) and Barack Obama is poised to become President (at the same time the Democrats extend their majority in Congress), which means the repeal of DOMA and the appointment of fair-minded Supreme Court justices.

Thanks for that.

No. Thank you.

Janet,
I am glad you responded, but sad that you missed the entire message of my post. Instead of realizing how odd it seems to me to base your opinon of gays upon the behavior of gay pedophiles, you proceed to point out that two of the gay people you have known were either a horrible human being or an unhappy, abused human being. Both seem to be extreme examples, with behavior that may or may not be related to their sexual preference. Is it not possible that a heterosexual might also be a deciver and take advantage of a sexual partner? Is it not possible that a heterosexual might also be promiscuous and unfullfilled in their life? The answer to both of these is yes. So in my opinion, you haven’t exactly differentiated the behavior of some gays from the behavior of some heteros. Besides, using anectodal evidence to establish the evilness of homosexuality seems to border on scare tactics to me, because as you can see, people like Tom can come back and give anectdotal evidence that refutes yours (besides, his stories seem so much happier).

I choose not to have sex before marriage and I’m 25 years old. If I can choose not to have sex then choosing to have sex (regardless of the gender of the partner) is a choice.

Dawn,
choosing to have sex and choosing who to have sex with are two very different things. Choosing to have sex is, by definition, choosing. However, whether sexual preference is choosen is not really confirmed or refuted by your ability to remain abstinent for 25 years.

I think this conversation is complicating things that are very simple. We have a difference in opinion over whether people should be expected to contain their innate desires. Accepting those born with homosexual tendencies to keep them in check, is no different than to expect men to abstain from pornography. Unlike homosexuality though, almost all men are born with a propensity to be lured by pornography. This is obviously genetically imprinted, but we are expected to keep these desires in check. Brandon and Tom, to want one to be accepted is the same as the other. The church will no sooner accept homosexuality than they will pornography. It seems neither of you really read the linked Card article, where this is clearly articulated. Genes play a huge part in whether you have a tendency to become an alcoholic, a drug addict, or a gambler. However, church teachings show (and many years of sociological anecdotes), that certain behaviors should not be tolerated regardless of your desires.

Unlike homosexuality though, almost all men are born with a propensity to be lured by pornography. This is obviously genetically imprinted, but we are expected to keep these desires in check.

Evidence, please.

Besides, indulging in pornography is not illegal. Neither is homosexuality.

Plus, I think a better example is handedness — you CAN choose to use your non-dominant hand to write, throw a ball, etc. But why? I understand that some may choose to control their behavior in certain areas (drinking, gambling, pornography, dancing, pork-eating) due to religious constraints. But you may NOT insist on my restricting MY legal behavior in order to meet YOUR religious standards.

Brandon and Tom, to want one to be accepted is the same as the other. The church will no sooner accept homosexuality than they will pornography.

Porn is in the eyes of the beholder. There is some definite homoeroticism in the illustrations in the paperback copy of the Book of Mormon. All those big arms — it’s like a softcore Tom of Finland book.

It seems neither of you really read the linked Card article, where this is clearly articulated. Genes play a huge part in whether you have a tendency to become an alcoholic, a drug addict, or a gambler. However, church teachings show (and many years of sociological anecdotes), that certain behaviors should not be tolerated regardless of your desires.

I did read the entire Card article. And again, why must I contain my drinking, gambling, drug use (or sexuality) to meet a religious standard. My indulgence in any of those is limited only by civil law. I don’t drink and drive. Don’t drink much, either, to tell the truth. My gambling is limited to poker — and I’m actually a winning poker player, so I’m actually benefitting my family with my poker playing.

You tolerate my legal behaviors, and I will tolerate yours.

Religious standards? Tom, this proposition does nothing to outlaw homosexuality. To assert that religious standards are being imposed through law in this case is completely asinine.

Connor - I was responding to Trent, actually.

Besides, my point has been that it is entirely religious standards that are being used to defend the denial of marriage equality.

Yours is a misguided conception of government. Advocating law free of any morality is not republicanism, it is libertinism.

I’m certainly more of a libertine than you, I’d imagine, but I don’t stand for libertinism. Law is not free of morality, but it should be based on a morality with which most of us agree. I’m all for laws against murder, rape, theft, etc. Crimes with victims. I’m less interested in laws against drugs, pornography, suicide, etc. Not a libertine, but probably a libertarian. (Or libertarian light, as I do think we need driver’s licenses, building codes, etc.)

Connor -

I’m not sure I’m following you here. Are you saying the supporters of Prop do not rely on religious arguments, but only moral ones?

If so, don’t you think they are pretty far off the mark, since homosexuality is not defined as immoral under US law? (Actually, I’m not sure if anything is defined as immoral under US law — only lawful or unlawful.)

The “moral” codes that are being used to fight marriage equality are entirely based on religious proscriptions, so in this case, morality does equal religion.

Tom, I wasn’t saying I was telling you what to do. Where in the world are you coming off? Seriously, stop trying to put words in others mouth. When did I ever say I wouldn’t tolerate homosexuality? Your posts are becoming ludicrous, painting people in wide brushes when they are simply trying to explain a position. You keep jumping back and forth with your arguments so that whatever someone says you can attack them on something. I see three separate issues you are fighting. All I wanted to point out, is there is a moral issue that is in line with other things many religious people hold. With requiring a state to recognize marriages and make them a protected class, you are essentially forcing citizens to involuntarily support (through taxes and lawsuits) what they see as wrong. The whole thesis of this from Connor was that they shouldn’t be a protected class. You keep bringing up other protected classes, without admitting that Connor disagrees with any protected class. We aren’t even talking about a law prohibiting homosexuality, why do you insist on talking about it like that is what we are proposing?

Plus, I think a better example is handedness — you CAN choose to use your non-dominant hand to write, throw a ball, etc. But why?

Since you insist on bringing this example up, how about this. There are lots of sports teams that “discriminate” on handedness. Left handed pitchers are a premium in baseball purely because of what hand they throw with.

And why would you change what hand to write with? Raphael Nadal is right handed from birth, switched to left hand because a lefty is harder to play in tennis. Just a small useless piece of info

The “moral” codes that are being used to fight marriage equality are entirely based on religious proscriptions

So non-religious people could not possibly be against the idea? I think for the most part you are right about it largely coming down to religious motivations, though. Religious conviction is (I believe) the biggest thing standing in the way of same sex marriage. I fear what that will lead to in the future.

Where in the world are you coming off? Seriously, stop trying to put words in others mouth. When did I ever say I wouldn’t tolerate homosexuality?

I don’t think I said that. But you don’t seem to be tolerance of marriage equality.

But I didn’t mean to hank you off or anything.

With requiring a state to recognize marriages and make them a protected class, you are essentially forcing citizens to involuntarily support (through taxes and lawsuits) what they see as wrong.

True. Just as I have been forced to allow churches to have tax breaks I don’t think they should have. Just as KKK members and Muslims have to accept Jews as a protected class.

The whole thesis of this from Connor was that they shouldn’t be a protected class.

Which I basically agreed with. My point was, if you are going to have protected classes at all, I don’t see any reason why sexual orientation shouldn’t be protected, when religion (also a “self-identifying” class) is.

We aren’t even talking about a law prohibiting homosexuality, why do you insist on talking about it like that is what we are proposing?

Sorry if I gave that impression. I don’t think you are talking about laws against homosexuality — just against marriage equality.

There are lots of sports teams that “discriminate” on handedness. Left handed pitchers are a premium in baseball purely because of what hand they throw with.

They discriminate primarily on skill level. But yes, being a lefty is an advantage in certain sports.

And why would you change what hand to write with?

If you are a lefty and are tired of smudging your ink, you might want to be right-handed. Nadal is likely ambidextrous, as is Phil Mickelson.

But the broader point is still there — why try to change a core aspect of your nature? Or rather, why should one be compelled to change a core aspect of their nature in order to achieve civil equality?

why should one be compelled to change a core aspect of their nature in order to achieve civil equality?

This is a bit misleading. The “civil equality” you speak of is in the form of economic-type benefits that result from a voluntary contract that has a certain value to the state. It has not been determined that same sex relationships have that same value (to the state), thus the lack of benefits. It’s not as if people are being denied basic human rights simply because of their orientation, although it seems to be presented this way.

Carissa,

You are smart.

It has not