You DO realize that you are the only one that continues to bring up Christianity? Religion has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Now I believe you are arguing just to be arguing, and therefore no longer worth the time it takes to type a response.

Well, I was asking him specifically if he would be able to do that.

I'm also willing to be some of those formally gay turned straight people who are now Christian as well are doing so to make others happy. I'm sure you do not have proof that every single one of them has no feelings at all for anyone of the same sex.

You girls have fun debating because from what I have learned...

I can not choose who I am attracted to.

I have no control who I can love or not love.

and feelings of love can not be turned on or off.

Thanks for that priceless advice!Maybe CNN can do a breaking newstory on this issue sometime.

I certainly cannot force myself to be attracted to someone I'm not attracted to. I can't force myself to love someone or not love someone either. Feelings can go away, but for me, they cannot be simply turned off. If you're able to do that, good for you. Many cannot.

Personally, I thing science is wasting its time looking or gay genetics. It would be far more advantageous to look for the genes that either inhibit or exibit respect for every human upon recogniton and figure out why so many people simply cannot look at a human without labels to help them judge.

Perhaps its an intelligence factor that's lacking, but either way, the world would be far better off finding the cause of so many people's inabiltiy to see other humans as like themselves and worthy of respect before the judgements come out.


As for some more recent social psychology perspectives: Several psychologists are beginning to examine homosexuality in terms of a spectrum. At one end are the completely heterosexual, and at the other the completely homosexual. Extending from the middle to are the bisexuals and the stength of attraction to either the homo or hetero side determines their position from the center.

I really like this idea because in truth, I have met with enough diversity to have seen the detail of such a spectrum. I find it so amazing to witness such diversity that I wish I could share that feeling with everyone, but that feeling cannot be shared unless diversity is embraced and welcomed into the mind and heart. And that can only happen when we recognize other humans (on sight) as like us instead of recognizing the differences over which we have no control.

VacantDreamer posted the links below on page 4, but I thought it to be worth repeating. Obviously, some people have such tremendous confirmation bias that these links will have no value for them - I'm reposting these for the open minded people in the silent audience.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6519
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20050128/is-there-gay-gene
http://www.livescience.com/health/080617-hereditary-homosexuality.html
http://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Pregnancy/3641
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17904267%2C16143171%2C12836730%2C10763427%2C9549243?dopt=DocSum

I am strongly of the opinion that we all have a potential capacity for choice which can trump our genetic inclinations in most areas. When it comes to sexuality, though, its very sobering to consider that asking a gay person to make hetero choices is comparable to asking a hetero person to make gay choices.

When asking ourselves to over-ride our genetic inclinations, a fair question is: "why bother? to what end?".

Um, no. Absolutely not.

99% of guys at clubs, maybe. I worked in a club environment before - me and my coworkers were subject to an endless stream of club-going women who were trying to get with us, and we were generally not at all interested. Its a cultural thing - those are not the kind of women I'm attracted to. But the majority of the guys who went to the club to have fun - they were generally interested in any and every woman who gave them the least bit of attention.

these studies show alot of MAYBES and potential correlations but I have to agree nothing yet PROVING someone is born 'gay'

to get back to the topic of the OP



The lawyer is not talking about population rate here. They are talking about the type of future of humanity - in my interpretation of the comment. In their point of view they are likely arguing that society as we know it depends upon the heterosexual familial unit and it is that unit or "foundation" as msharmony terms it which is the future they are trying to ensure. No doubt they distinguish a difference in the quality of the naturally reproductive heterosexual union. They would likely argue that the quality of our society would be altered should large numbers of gay/lesbian couples inseminate themselves and raise families or have friends accept their sperm as surrogates to produce offspring. It is the nature of the family unit which the lawyer is describing as the "future of humanity". It is society's preference for heterosexual family units which they are trying to protect not merely population growth. They would not argue and are not arguing here that they are concerned about a dramatic reduction in the number of births. Quite the opposite. They are concerned about a dramatic increase in the number of the "wrong kind" of births.



They would likely not want to see "people farms" where infants were conceived out of wedlock and raised communally without any single identifiable parents because of the quality of the differences between this form of lifestyle. The litigants wish to legislate advantages for traditional heterosexual monogamous unions to promote the heterosexual family unit lifestyle giving it advantages over all other lifestyles as a way of encouraging preferentially this type of future of humanity over other types of child rearing. Their reasoning would also likely apply to polygamous marriages and child rearing. Although it would be perfectly feasible for there to be large harems or large populations of children created by one king who impregnates all of his fertile female inhabitants of his kingdom for example - and both have been done many times in the history of humanity - it is not the type of future they desire for humanity. Sheiks cry foul.



http://www.news.com.au/make-polygamy-legal-sheik/story-e6frfkp9-1111116724474

On the whole, I think this interpretation is more likely to be an accurate reflection of the lawyer's intention than the notion that he's talking about population growth rate. To find out, I just spent a few minutes looking for the text that precedes and follows these statements in the lawyers actual argument.

I didn't find it, but I did find over a hundred online comments on many (liberal leaning, IMO) sites by people who interpreted that phrase as being related to population growth rate, and no comments from people who interpreted it otherwise. I see the prevalence of this interpretation as an interesting consequence of the lawyers grandiose phrasing: The future of humanity is at stake, here!

If anyone has a link to a more complete copy of the lawyer's arguments, I would be interested in verifying that the lawyer completely did not mean to imply growth rate.

A good majority - perhaps almost all- well educated scientist never portray science in terms of absolutes.

Does an X or Y chromosome determine the gender of a baby? OF COURSE, is that absolute - well no, there are dozens of X & Y chromosomes and how they line up and the manner in which they are turned on or off and..... We are still learning today.

We can predict some things (in genetics) with a very high percentage rate. In some cases science can even predict with certainty that a 'general' condition MUST follow. What cannot be predicted is prognosis - in other words how the condition will play out in life. But considering the magnatute of genes and the unknowns of how they interact with other genes and with environment it seems nearly impossible to predict in terms of absolutes. Therefore, when genes are found which seem to have relevance to a particular outcome, they are considered to be "genes that influence". That is about as absolute as we can get.

That's the reason I rarely suggest genetics as the major influence of homosexuality, even though I believe its true. I also believe that genetics are general applications which interact with a great many other factors to influence outcomes. This is one reason why I believe that homosexuality occurs on a spectrum.

As you know, the trial was NOT open for remote public viewing. So I’ve been trying to follow through blogs on the following website created especially for this purpose. Please keep in mind that the blogs are being written real time (as court is being held) and so there are many grammar and spelling errors. Also, as a warning, these blogs are written by supporters of Human Rights so at times there are comments by the writers which are not totally unbaised. Skip the comments and try to keep up with the actual trial content.

http://prop8trialtracker.com/

Scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on PREVIOUS POSTS. Scroll down as far as you like but you only want closing arguments look for the title that begins them. In effect you will be scrolling up for successive posts instead of down.

In following much of both trials and again with these closing arguments, there are many times I have been sickened at the bigotry and flabbergasted by the inconsistency of the defense. I have found it humorous in a cynical way which I don’t like admitting as I feel my own bigotry rise at those moments.

Most of all I am saddened that the court decided these proceedings should convene out of the public eye. I’m sure many movies will come out of this ‘closeted’ court case and like the Scopes Trial there will be heroes and villains, and phenomenal speeches which never really took place. The public will never know what could only be known through real time examination.

I will patiently wait for court transcripts to be made available – I’m sure many other will too. But transcripts have a way of being subject to ‘interpretation’ to a far greater degree than seeing it happen live. No text can compare to watching body language, listening to tone, and catching glances and EVEN the occasional reprimand or warning of a Judge as he directs what will be a new course of reasoning.

Red,

Thank you for the link! I wasn't able to find more info on the line of reasoning given in the OP, but its nice to have that resource.

This topic, as always, is silly. No one is going to win this debate.

I am gay, I am not ashamed of it. I dated women for several years to try and hide it but it always came back to being attracted to men. I will NOT lie, I will NOT decieve someone, just to be in a heterosexual relationship with someone I would never actually love. It's not fair to me or the woman who will eventually realize that I don't love her.

You can say whatever you like about homosexuality as I really don't care what most people think of it. It's a debate that will never be won nor will it ever end.

I know people that are "straight" and they have told me flat out that they are still attracted to someone of the same sex. You can be gay and in a heterosexual relationship. Doesn't change the fact that you are attracted to someone of the same sex.

You can argue it all you want, but if you are not in the shoes of the gay person in a straight relationship, you can't possible know what they are feeling.

who knows, who is to say what everyone else feels, I happent to unfortunately agree with Thomas on some level, that love is actually a choice we build ourselves up to and the SUBSTANCE behind it involves things much more complex than physical attraction


for me anyhow, love can TURN INTO attraction and rarely the other way around,, and I can love ANYONE if I give myself the opportunity and time to,,,,,,,gender doesnt really matter,,,,but I do make a choice of what person I will stay with, just like I choose if they will be short or tall,,,,its a preference,,,,we all have them,,,I just dont think they are hard wired or unchangable,,,


but wasnt the topic population control or some such thing? ..lol

That's pretty much it in a nut shell. Why so many think and feel they have any right to even voice their thoughts on gay people and their choices will always be a mystery to me. Seems it's the 'loving' scripture thumpers who say that they follow the teaching's of Jesus to love all and not judge that are the loudest.

To make a judgment call and label anyone is bad enough, but to say you just don't think their really like that, they aren't 'hard wired' they can change, it's not natural, it's a conscious choice..
la la la de da how the hell would you know? You don't know that's why it's so silly to say such things.

Who cares what people do with their life if it isn't interfering with your life. What is wrong with you people??? WTF!!!
Good gawd...live and let live. Why is that so hard to do, I can't grasp why other people's lives matter soooooo much to strangers.

And Foliel, don't ever be ashamed of who you are!!!! Ever

Back on topic....since their are over 6 billion beings on the planet, it seems an obvious that those who are gay have not slowed down the reproduction process. It's actually a ridiculous debate.

I agree, Foliel seems to be a beautiful person. For the sake of this forum where people are encouraged to share their opinions, I made the statement that I dont think sexual preference is hard wired,,,,but its not a condemnation, just my opinion

I happen to believe NOTHING is hard wired to the point that we lose our choice,and that everything about us is a choice born of environment and experience,,,

except maybe our natural appearance, our socially defined race, and our natural gender (by natural, I mean what nature defines at birth before man can make changes)

I just hate to see others who know nothing about people except that they are gay judge them..I think it's mean. Growing up around the strict LDS religion and knowing so many who loathed themselves because they were told how bad being gay was. I had a friend right out of high school who killed himself because he was gay and his mormon parents expected him to go on a mission for the church. They had been saving money for it from the time he was 4. It is generally just expected and I knew alot of young people who just didn't want to do it, not just gays....well obviously he couldn't serve if he was gay and he couldn't face telling his father, who was a bishop. So he choose to end his life. It was very sad. He hadn't even had sex at that point..he just knew he was attracted to the other boys and not the girls!

My younger sister is gay and she has been made the shame of the family by my very mormon mother...and many friends that took years to get comfortable with who they are. Gay people are sentient beings just like the rest of us..it's mean what society has done to them and I just abhor mean as much as I do violence.