Tiger Al 0 Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Rainman, you've said this before in response to something I said and I didn't really respond before, but I will now. I think that some people are indeed born genetically gay, the same as addictions, diabetes, etc. As I've said before, I'm a recovering drug addict and I believe that that was a genetic occurrence. My dad was an alcoholic and his mother was addicted to prescription drugs. Having said that, I have free will to decide whether I will use drugs or not. While my actions are not bound by my addictive predisposition, I am still, genetically, a drug addict and will always be. In this same way, I'm sure that the homosexual can choose to live life as a "heterosexual" but he or she was born homosexual and would never be truly happy. Many studies have been done on the suicide rate of homosexuals and "closeted" living is a major cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,519 Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 I think that some people are indeed born genetically gay, the same as addictions, diabetes, etc. As I've said before, I'm a recovering drug addict and I believe that that was a genetic occurrence. My dad was an alcoholic and his mother was addicted to prescription drugs. Having said that, I have free will to decide whether I will use drugs or not. While my actions are not bound by my addictive predisposition, I am still, genetically, a drug addict and will always be.In this same way, I'm sure that the homosexual can choose to live life as a "heterosexual" but he or she was born homosexual and would never be truly happy. Many studies have been done on the suicide rate of homosexuals and "closeted" living is a major cause. Interesting comparison. I am at least open to there being a "genetic component" to homosexual attraction. But there's an inconsistency in your thinking here. You say that a homosexual could choose to live as a hetero, but would never truly be happy. Do you apply this same line of reasoning to your addiction? In other words, you can choose not to take drugs but will "never truly be happy" without them? My personal view on the nature/nurture debate: there may be a genetic component to homosexuality. But it's not determinitive and the degree to which that predisposition becomes "identity" is determined by environmental factors. In other words, people may be born with a propensity to be attraced to their same sex, but whether they will or not (and to what degree they do or don't) is affected by their upbringing, life experiences, childhood traumas, relationships with their parents, etc. And this is also why I do not equate homosexuality with race. One is behavioral, the other is purely biological/physical in nature. One has to do with how one "feels" or "identifies", the other has to do with how one looks. One is a trait that can and has been successfully (and happily) changed for some through things like counseling and therapy. The other is more or less immutable (aside from attempts at cosmetic surgery and the like). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Interesting comparison. I am at least open to there being a "genetic component" to homosexual attraction. But there's an inconsistency in your thinking here. You say that a homosexual could choose to live as a hetero, but would never truly be happy. Do you apply this same line of reasoning to your addiction? In other words, you can choose not to take drugs but will "never truly be happy" without them? I'm glad you asked me that. It's an inconsistent, or maybe an imperfect, analogy because addiction is a disease and homosexuality isn't. I was merely showing how, by another example, genetics is at play, IMO. Although the drug addict, in active addiction, may BELIEVE he or she will never be truly happy without drugs, it's certainly not a case that I'd try to prove. Perhaps a better analogy might be one using intelligence (not education). I think we are each born with some degree of intelligence that can be tweaked somewhat by learning or lack thereof, but in effect, you are either born intelligent or you're not. It's a genetic trait that we have no control over like hair, skin or eye color. And this is also why I do not equate homosexuality with race. One is behavioral, the other is purely biological/physical in nature. One has to do with how one "feels" or "identifies", the other has to do with how one looks. One is a trait that can and has been successfully (and happily) changed for some through things like counseling and therapy. The other is more or less immutable (aside from attempts at cosmetic surgery and the like). I wasn't equating sexual orientation with race, I was comparing them as far as society's and the military's rejection of them based on false assumptions of them as people and servicemembers. But, what if there was some legitimacy in how one "feels" or "identifies"? Imagine if good ol' heterosexual TitanTiger was somehow forced tomorrow to live your life as a gay man. Could it be something that you could grow accustomed to and maybe even learn to like? I don't think it would be for me, either. I would probably still "feel" heterosexual although I wasn't practicing it heterosexuality. But, I understand, maybe, why the idea of homosexuality as a genectically derived trait is unacceptable to you. It's because it's not a religious belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,519 Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 But, what if there was some legitimacy in how one "feels" or "identifies"? Imagine if good ol' heterosexual TitanTiger was somehow forced tomorrow to live your life as a gay man. Could it be something that you could grow accustomed to and maybe even learn to like? I don't think it would be for me, either. I would probably still "feel" heterosexual although I wasn't practicing it heterosexuality. At the risk of sounding like an absolutist, I'm stone-cold positive that I'd never grow accustomed to that or learn to like it. I'd just be celibate. But, I understand, maybe, why the idea of homosexuality as a genectically derived trait is unacceptable to you. It's because it's not a religious belief. Actually, it isn't that the idea is "unacceptable" to me on a religious basis. I believe we're all born with a predisposition to sin, but I don't view sin as something that's acceptable to do. Whether it's hardwired or merely a predisposition coupled with environmental factors, that has no bearing on it from a moral standpoint. My main objection to homosexuality being a completely genetic trait (immutable, hardwired, etc.) is that there is no science to prove such a firm position. As with alcoholism and other behavioral issues with genetic components to them, genetics are not determinitive. IOW, whether or not such predispositions or tendencies manifest themselves is dependent upon environmental factors. Plus there are examples of people who felt like and lived as homosexuals, yet decided that they weren't happy that way. Though at that moment they felt no attraction to the opposite sex, they no longer wished to be homosexual for various reasons (primarily moral) and they successfully changed their "orientation". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger12 46 Posted December 12, 2003 Share Posted December 12, 2003 Ranger12, I know that because you're a religious man you have a problem with the gay lifestyle and I'm glad to see that you're able to separate your beliefs in how you should conduct yourself from how you'll allow others to conduct themselves. That's respect and that's a good start. Your concerns about showering with a gay man are understandable, but, I'd be willing to bet that at some point in the Army you already did and you didn't even know it. I mentioned the homophobic thing because it seems that alot of people get labeled that way because they do not agree with the lifestyle and that is as narrow minded as the ones the accuse of being narrow minded. I probably have showered with a gay man before, but at least I did not know, but if I caught him looking, then it would not take a rocket scientist to figure out. Most straight guys go as far as to even avoid making eye contact while in the shower. Just like a woman knowing I am a guy and showering with her would probably make her uncomfortable, which actually is highly unlikely given my good looks and charm. Now as for the "gay gene". It is hogwash and yet to be proven because it does not exist. First of all, as Christian, I don't think our Lord creates people in a way that contradicts His Word. But, let's take away the religious philosophy and go with the bs of evolution for all you Darwin followers. Why would nature evolve into something unnatural and would serve no purpose for the survival of the species? Isn't that what evolution is all about? You see either way, a "gay gene" makes absolutely no since. Homesexuality is a choice and should never be compared to race because that is not a choice, that is who you are. It also should not be compared to genetic dieseases like diabetes and etc. I get kind of tired of sin, any kind of sin, being passed on as a genetic thing or a mental thing(except for those that are truly mentally impaired). We all have a choice and need to learn to live with the consequences of our choices. Gays have rights and they should be able to serve, but since their lifestyle is a choice, the better be ready to live with they consequences of that choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 At the risk of sounding like an absolutist, I'm stone-cold positive that I'd never grow accustomed to that or learn to like it. I'd just be celibate. In that case, do you think you should still be barred from military service? Plus there are examples of people who felt like and lived as homosexuals, yet decided that they weren't happy that way. Though at that moment they felt no attraction to the opposite sex, they no longer wished to be homosexual for various reasons (primarily moral) and they successfully changed their "orientation". It sounds like they were shamed into becoming "straight". I could have a strong attraction toward black women but choose to marry a white woman to avoid the social ramifications of an interracial marriage. My main objection to homosexuality being a completely genetic trait (immutable, hardwired, etc.) is that there is no science to prove such a firm position. There IS science that strongly suggests it, though. Remember, we've just recently tapped into the world of DNA for practical purposes. As with alcoholism and other behavioral issues with genetic components to them, genetics are not determinitive. IOW, whether or not such predispositions or tendencies manifest themselves is dependent upon environmental factors. But, the genetic component is still there. Obviously, the predisposed alcoholic would not show those symptoms if he never drinks alcohol. Because it is a psycological disease, I agree with you that environmental factors play a significant role in addiction. That's why abstainence is a must for the chemically addicted, because the addictive trait never goes away. We've kind of gotten away from the topic at hand, though. The question still remains, "Is it alright to force gays to deny their homosexuality in order to join/remain in the military?" It seems to me that the sin thing isn't legitimate because we don't exclude people from the military who engage in premarital sex and most Christian religions would consider that sinful, willful behavior. The military isn't a religious entity, anyway. We don't exclude people from serving because they're Catholic, Baptist, Hindu or atheistic. We don't extend an invitation to them because they are any of those things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM4AU 336 Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Forced to deny? NO! Should it be an issue? NO! Hetero / Homo, you are there to do a job. Why would it be important to let everyone around you know your preference? What purpose does that serve? If your orientation causes you to be a weak link in any way you should be released. That means for both! If you are so preoccupied by your libido, I don't want you around me regardless of which sex you are attracted to. That goes for the military or my civilian job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Forced to deny? NO! Should it be an issue? NO! Hetero / Homo, you are there to do a job. Why would it be important to let everyone around you know your preference? What purpose does that serve? If your orientation causes you to be a weak link in any way you should be released. That means for both! If you are so preoccupied by your libido, I don't want you around me regardless of which sex you are attracted to. That goes for the military or my civilian job! Abrasive as usual...but surprising!!! Wow. Thank you, MDM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Now as for the "gay gene". It is hogwash and yet to be proven because it does not exist. This same line of reasoning could probably have been applied to electricity, x-rays and the atom. In fact, that's the same argument some people use to deny the existence of God. He can't be proven so He must not exist. But, let's take away the religious philosophy and go with the bs of evolution for all you Darwin followers. Why would nature evolve into something unnatural and would serve no purpose for the survival of the species? I'd think that it would be impossible for anything that nature evolves into to be considered unnatural. One of the definitions of 'natural' is, "The genetically controlled qualities of an organism." Gays have rights and they should be able to serve, but since their lifestyle is a choice, the better be ready to live with they consequences of that choice. I think that's as good as I'm gonna get from you so I'll take it! Good job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM4AU 336 Posted December 13, 2003 Share Posted December 13, 2003 Abrasive as usual... Get over it already! :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutboy 0 Posted December 13, 2003 Author Share Posted December 13, 2003 CCT, would you say that it was fair for one of your gay friends to be fired from his job for no other reason than his being gay? Twenty four countries including the UK and Israel don't discriminate against homosexuals. A mistake of discontent in my job doesn't get someone killed. You have to have a content group in order to successfully work together during conflict. The questions and emotions that arise from this causes discontent among the troops. NO, that's a misconception aimed at preventing progress. Many nations around the world allow openly gay service members and they have no more morale problems than we do, probably less than we currently do. By asserting strongly that this causes discontent amongst the troops, you're merely imposing your phobia onto an entire group. The Armed Forces should hold meetings on this to identify any problems anyone might have with this. Once implemented, a recruit would know going in that he would be working alongside gays, just as he does in regular society. He then has the option of NOT joining if his phobia against gays makes him uncomfortable and he's expected to follow military rules if he DOES join, which means having respect for his fellow soldier. BTW, many of the issues being used today to try and prevent gays from serving in the military were used back in the 60s to try and keep schools segregated. It's hard to believe today that less than forty years ago, we didn't want to share schools, restaurants or public restrooms with blacks. Integration only proves what you can do when you knock down a wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutboy 0 Posted December 13, 2003 Author Share Posted December 13, 2003 Now as for the "gay gene". It is hogwash and yet to be proven because it does not exist. First of all, as Christian, I don't think our Lord creates people in a way that contradicts His Word. So, everyone that God creates is perfect? Children are born daily in this world with two sets of genitals, male and female. Which sex does God want them to be? If they make the wrong choice, are they condemned to an eternity of Hell? There is undeniably a difference in men and women in their genes that make them crave the opposite sex. Why is it so hard to imagine that a sexual screwup such as two sets of genitals can happen but a gene that controls our sexual urges CAN'T be switched? At one time, alcoholism was declared by some to be a genetic problem and the same people declaring that homosexuality is not a genetic problem were declaring that alcoholism wasn't. There was no known gentic link, so it just wasn't true. Well, today scientists have found a gene in earthworms that causes alcoholism. Their work isn't complete yet but conventional wisdom is that there's one for humans as well. By ASSUMING that homosexuality is a "choice", you're making the assumption that we are all attracted to both sexes. Are YOU attracted to men? Of course not. Your male body is programmed to be attracted to the soft curves of the female form, not the hairy, block-shaped male body. The question then is WHY are some men attracted to men and some women attracted to women? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.