RE: The Religious Right should support gay marriage

RE: The Religious Right should support gay marriage (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

vincentML -> RE: The Religious Right should support gay marriage (1/30/2014 7:43:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Your source is an outdated reference. Try to catch up. The Bearman and Bruckner study I cited earlier and this study by Francis both follow the two you just cited. The references I cited were from 2004 and 2005, respectively. The Bearman and Bruckner study you linked was from 2002. The hidden clue to this fact lies at the bottom of the first page where the date appears disguised as "March 2002," the meaning of which was possibly obscure to you. K. Yes, my error about the date of the Berman research. The Francis research however is from 2008, post dating anything you have linked. Its abstract has the following quote: Although having multiple older brothers has a positive coefficient, it is not significant. Moreover, having any older sisters lowers the likelihood of homosexual or bisexual identity. For women, I find that having an older brother or having any sisters decreases the likelihood of homosexuality. Family structure, ethnicity, and education are also significantly correlated with male and female sexual orientation. Therefore, the maternal immune hypothesis cannot explain the entire pattern of family-demographic correlates. The findings are consistent with either biological or social theories of sexual orientation.  Moreover, the paper you linked from 2005 has this in its abstract: The present study failed to find significant associations between number of older brothers and these traits. Thank you for making the case against your proposition. Sometimes it is a short slide from the mountain top of certainty to the swamp of uncertainty. Try to stay dry.

Rule -> RE: The Religious Right should support gay marriage (1/30/2014 9:57:15 AM)
FR A lot of water will flow through the Tiber before the issues concerning the origin of homosexuality are resolved.

PeonForHer -> RE: The Religious Right should support gay marriage (1/30/2014 10:23:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule FR A lot of water will flow through the Tiber before the issues concerning the origin of homosexuality are resolved. That's OK, just so long as the Tiber's water is heterosexual water.

Kirata -> RE: The Religious Right should support gay marriage (1/30/2014 6:32:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Moreover, the paper you linked from 2005 has this in its abstract: The present study failed to find significant associations between number of older brothers and these traits. That's true, but the operative phrase in the abstract remains: Later fraternal birth order (FBO) is a well-established correlate of homosexuality in human males. There is a reason why it is a well-established correlate, and the authors found the same result. A significant FBO effect (homosexual males predicted to have more older brothers than heterosexual males) was apparent when the data were cast in a two-by-two table However, they were comparing FBO with measures of masculinity, which is not the same thing. The study compared FBO with subjects' performance on a mental rotations test and the masculinity-femininity subscale of the EPP. As there appears to be an assumption here that gays are less masculine, the resulting failure to track with FBO seems at least to me unsurprising. I'm not sure why you are so opposed to the idea, aside from an interest in playing a game of oneupmanship, but FBO remains an established correlate of male homosexuality. K.

tweakabelle -> RE: The Religious Right should support gay marriage (1/30/2014 6:44:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule FR A lot of water will flow through the Tiber before the issues concerning the origin of homosexuality are resolved. I think you mean "the origin of homosexual behaviour" here. There is no dispute about where and when "homosexuality" originated. IIRC, the concept of homosexuality was first defined c 1870, and I believe it first entered the dictionary c1890. Interestingly "heterosexuality" followed it into the dictionary c 1906. All this was part of a 19th century project to understand sexual behaviour 'scientifically', a project that resulted in the invention of the concept of "sexuality" and its classification along rigid gender based lines. So, the idea that a person could be defined and categorised by their sexual behaviour - the notion of sexuality as most of us understand it today - is a comparatively new idea, less than a century and a half old. It didn't really achieve its place in popular discourse until the middle of the last century, a prominence greatly boosted by the increasing popularity and influence of psychoanalysis, largely following Freud's work.

vincentML -> RE: The Religious Right should support gay marriage (1/31/2014 4:29:36 AM)
quote: I'm not sure why you are so opposed to the idea, aside from an interest in playing a game of oneupmanship, but FBO remains an established correlate of male homosexuality. Francis (2008) showed FBO was a weak correlate at best and that the underlying uterine hormonal hypothesis was far fetched. My main purpose is engaging in discourse on topics that interest and entertain my curiosity. If you read earlier in the thread you will see that I addressed the genetics and brain differences reported for gay men and transgendered people. Sorry to see you take personal affront when someone replies to your comments. But, we are allowed to reply in this forum, like it or not.

vincentML -> RE: The Religious Right should support gay marriage (1/31/2014 4:39:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Rule FR A lot of water will flow through the Tiber before the issues concerning the origin of homosexuality are resolved. I think you mean "the origin of homosexual behaviour" here. There is no dispute about where and when "homosexuality" originated. IIRC, the concept of homosexuality was first defined c 1870, and I believe it first entered the dictionary c1890. Interestingly "heterosexuality" followed it into the dictionary c 1906. All this was part of a 19th century project to understand sexual behaviour 'scientifically', a project that resulted in the invention of the concept of "sexuality" and its classification along rigid gender based lines. So, the idea that a person could be defined and categorised by their sexual behaviour - the notion of sexuality as most of us understand it today - is a comparatively new idea, less than a century and a half old. It didn't really achieve its place in popular discourse until the middle of the last century, a prominence greatly boosted by the increasing popularity and influence of psychoanalysis, largely following Freud's work. The categorization has fairly recent historical roots but disapproval of the behavior seems to be Biblical. I wonder how you resolve that seeming contradiction.

MsMJAY -> RE: The Religious Right should support gay marriage (1/31/2014 4:52:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Rule FR A lot of water will flow through the Tiber before the issues concerning the origin of homosexuality are resolved. I think you mean "the origin of homosexual behaviour" here. There is no dispute about where and when "homosexuality" originated. IIRC, the concept of homosexuality was first defined c 1870, and I believe it first entered the dictionary c1890. Interestingly "heterosexuality" followed it into the dictionary c 1906. All this was part of a 19th century project to understand sexual behaviour 'scientifically', a project that resulted in the invention of the concept of "sexuality" and its classification along rigid gender based lines. So, the idea that a person could be defined and categorised by their sexual behaviour - the notion of sexuality as most of us understand it today - is a comparatively new idea, less than a century and a half old. It didn't really achieve its place in popular discourse until the middle of the last century, a prominence greatly boosted by the increasing popularity and influence of psychoanalysis, largely following Freud's work. The categorization has fairly recent historical roots but disapproval of the behavior seems to be Biblical. I wonder how you resolve that seeming contradiction. There is no contradiction. The Bible is about one specific culture of people who had a very large, very specific and at the time very unusual, set of laws that they used to distinguish themselves from surrounding culture. Even they did not refer to homosexuality as some kind of special categorization. They did not even have a name for it. It was merely seen as one of many sins or violations of their law. Most of their laws concerning sexuality were written in an attempt to increase their population, protect their cultural identity and protect family bloodlines.

Kirata -> RE: The Religious Right should support gay marriage (1/31/2014 4:53:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Francis (2008) showed FBO was a weak correlate at best and that the underlying uterine hormonal hypothesis was far fetched. Unfortunately, Francis was wrong and so are you. This “fraternal birth order” (FBO) effect has been replicated numerous times, including in non-Western samples. ~Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 2011 quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Sorry to see you take personal affront when someone replies to your comments. But, we are allowed to reply in this forum, like it or not. A personal affront? My goodness, mind-reading now too? I'm done here. Please continue on your own. K.

GotSteel -> RE: The Religious Right should support gay marriage (1/31/2014 7:35:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML The categorization has fairly recent historical roots but disapproval of the behavior seems to be Biblical. I wonder how you resolve that seeming contradiction. She's differentiating between homosexuality and "homosexual behavior". While bisexuality seems to have been relatively common in the classical era, there's a narrative that homosexuality as we think of it is a much more recent concept. I'm not sure that I'm describing this very well, let me try again, guy fucks guy as an activity is very old (probably predates our species). But guy who fucks guy as a physical identity is a newer concept. The catholic church still hasn't really caught up to the paradigm shift, that's what the trying to convince gay people to be straight is about.

Moonhead -> RE: The Religious Right should support gay marriage (1/31/2014 8:37:01 AM)
It's hardly just the catholic church, sadly: most of these loathsome degaying camps are run by the flakier flavours of baptist, rather than catholic.

dcnovice -> RE: The Religious Right should support gay marriage (1/31/2014 9:32:17 AM)
quote: The categorization has fairly recent historical roots but disapproval of the behavior seems to be Biblical. I wonder how you resolve that seeming contradiction. One thought that's come up in my reading again and again is that the Biblical authors saw same-sex activity as a willful choice to defy God. It was not until folks grasped the concept of a homosexual orientation that they could see gays and lesbians as acting in accord with their own innate natures.

vincentML -> RE: The Religious Right should support gay marriage (2/1/2014 7:45:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: The categorization has fairly recent historical roots but disapproval of the behavior seems to be Biblical. I wonder how you resolve that seeming contradiction. One thought that's come up in my reading again and again is that the Biblical authors saw same-sex activity as a willful choice to defy God. It was not until folks grasped the concept of a homosexual orientation that they could see gays and lesbians as acting in accord with their own innate natures. In Nigeria such behavior carries a maximum judicial death sentence. A trial of seven men was prevented by a lynch mob hostile to the defendants. I have read recently that evangelicals from America have been influential in promoting anti-gay laws in African nations. Perhaps someone else has more info on that. In any event, it appears the Biblical/Quaran injunction is still operative.

Rule -> RE: The Religious Right should support gay marriage (2/1/2014 8:00:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML The categorization has fairly recent historical roots but disapproval of the behavior seems to be Biblical. I wonder how you resolve that seeming contradiction. She's differentiating between homosexuality and "homosexual behavior". While bisexuality seems to have been relatively common in the classical era, there's a narrative that homosexuality as we think of it is a much more recent concept. I'm not sure that I'm describing this very well, let me try again, guy fucks guy as an activity is very old (probably predates our species). But guy who fucks guy as a physical identity is a newer concept. The catholic church still hasn't really caught up to the paradigm shift, that's what the trying to convince gay people to be straight is about. [sm=goodpost.gif] Well done, GotSteel! As I have been saying forever, there appear to be two types of homosexuality in men.

vincentML -> RE: The Religious Right should support gay marriage (2/1/2014 8:02:06 AM)
quote: There is no contradiction. The Bible is about one specific culture of people who had a very large, very specific and at the time very unusual, set of laws that they used to distinguish themselves from surrounding culture. Well, if you discount 2000 years of Christianity you can say the Bible is localized to a specific culture. I am suggesting that despite the late naming of the behavior the admonition against it has historical continuity. Tweak is saying, I think, that the categories are new from the late 19th C, implying MAYBE that folks did not make the distinction earlier and that the artificial categorizing is at the root of today's conflict. But again maybe or more apparently to me there has been a binary model of sexual preference continuously since biblical times except that until 1890 or whenever "it knew no name."

vincentML -> RE: The Religious Right should support gay marriage (2/1/2014 9:55:53 AM)
quote: I'm not sure that I'm describing this very well, let me try again, guy fucks guy as an activity is very old (probably predates our species). But guy who fucks guy as a physical identity is a newer concept. I think we are saying the same thing. However, I don't think categorization removed the admonition. Although, I suppose it can be argued it has helped spur acceptance in the West. But other factors have been at play too. The Stonewall riots, the Feminist movement of the 70s, the Civil Rights movement, etc. OTOH you might argue that categorization has made it easier or even spurred the bible thumpers in their opposition. I hope those contradictions make sense. Relating to the OP this is one way religion is controlling people.

dcnovice -> RE: The Religious Right should support gay marriage (2/1/2014 10:23:03 AM)
quote: In Nigeria such behavior carries a maximum judicial death sentence. A trial of seven men was prevented by a lynch mob hostile to the defendants. I have read recently that evangelicals from America have been influential in promoting anti-gay laws in African nations. Perhaps someone else has more info on that. In any event, it appears the Biblical/Quaran injunction is still operative. This is interesting--and heartbreaking--but it doesn't address what I said. From my perspective as a gay man, the landscape is sharply mixed. There's been amazing progress--some of which, such as gay marriage, I never expected to see in my lifetime. And there are places where bigotry remains in the most hideous forms. To be honest, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

vincentML -> RE: The Religious Right should support gay marriage (2/1/2014 2:14:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: In Nigeria such behavior carries a maximum judicial death sentence. A trial of seven men was prevented by a lynch mob hostile to the defendants. I have read recently that evangelicals from America have been influential in promoting anti-gay laws in African nations. Perhaps someone else has more info on that. In any event, it appears the Biblical/Quaran injunction is still operative. This is interesting--and heartbreaking--but it doesn't address what I said. From my perspective as a gay man, the landscape is sharply mixed. There's been amazing progress--some of which, such as gay marriage, I never expected to see in my lifetime. And there are places where bigotry remains in the most hideous forms. To be honest, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. [:)] Probably because my point sometimes evolves while I think and write on an issue. I agree the landscape is sharply mixed. I found this that might be interesting: There are at least 83 countries where homosexuality is condemned in the criminal code; 26 of these are Muslim countries and in seven the death penalty for persons presumed guilty of homosexual acts makes sexual minorities extremely vulnerable. In spite of such obstacles, same-sex relationships do take place, even in the most repressive countries. Sometimes the very segregation of the sexes allows for intimacy between people of the same sex without it being considered abnormal. There are positive examples of same-sex relationships to be found in different Muslim cultures, e.g. in travelling theatre and musical groups and in poetry. Controversy regarding the position of Islam on homosexuality is ongoing, as the Qur'an is far from clear on the issue. There is also a strong connection between homophobic assaults by fundamentalists and those directed against women who do not “behave”. Sexuality and sexual conformity may be the focus of attention by fundamentalist forces because individual choice and autonomy, especially for women, is seen as a threat. Despite a threatening environment, sexual minorities are organising and becoming more visible in Muslim countries and communities; whether mainly political, social or religious in their motivation, these organisations all aim at breaking the isolation faced by sexual minorities. The above suggests that religion is just a tool to preserve heterosexual male hegemony. I guess Patrimony is the more direct word. SOURCE

Rule -> RE: The Religious Right should support gay marriage (2/1/2014 2:26:49 PM)
No, it is a tool to force these savage type homosexual men to procreate their homosexual alleles.

vincentML -> RE: The Religious Right should support gay marriage (2/1/2014 2:30:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule No, it is a tool to force these savage type homosexual men to procreate their homosexual alleles. You really should abandon the rigid simplicity of Mendelian math and look at the variance of forces involved in the development of a human child.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.054688E-02