Homophobia

[Shinra Executive]

But could homophobia be wiped out completely? Could religion really keep it around in the long-term, even after religion has left the world (if this is to happen)?

Homophobia will probably exist as long as mankind is around. I personally see it as irrational, but then again, irrationality is not an uncommon thing. *unfortunately*

As someone who grew up in the Catholic church, they're all pretty much the same. Iconoclasm, transubstantiation, infant baptism are all just wallpaper. The structure is essentially the same.

This has nothing to do with secularism vs. religion, really. It has to do with correct and incorrect. If the scientific data showed that there was no perceivable difference between the anatomical structure of the brain in a homosexual person and a heterosexual person, then the church would likely be right. However, it shows there is a difference, thus homosexuality isn't a choice, thus the church is wrong because observable, falsifiable data disagree with the church's stance.

The Church has PhD scientists and theologians. I doubt very seriously that what you just stated is true. In fact, that is an outright desperate attempt to twist the truth. One does not look at brain scans and deduce people are born gay.

Also, the Catholic Church is completely different then the non-traditional, Protestant/Baptist churches. It is on an entirely different paradigm of theology, all the way down to the basic notions of justification for salvation.

Mod Edit: Please do not double post. If you need to add more to a post, there is an edit button at the bottom of each post. Thanks.

 

[Harlequin]

2) Gay men's and women's brain more closely resemble the brains of wo/men of the opposite sex. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1815538,00.html

""As far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay," [Dr. Qazi Rahman] said."

Science is coming closer and closer to the conclusion that a person is born gay.

It's an interesting point you've made but I don't feel as if I have to be qualified in any of the fields those conducting the experiments are to see some glaring flaws in the methodology of the study. It's far too black and white and I don't think sexuality is as discernable as mathematics, which is more or less how they've decided to categorise it.

It takes a look at brain symmetry vs asymmetry and comes to an "either or" formula. If x then x, if y then y. But what of Bisexuals? There is no physical third alternative. So if the study's findings are to be believed then Bisexuals are simply pressumed to be lying to themselves one way or another.

But they aren't mentioned in the article at all. Nor are Pansexuals or Asexuals. Why? Perhaps because grey areas are full of political potholes.

And the man being interviewed on the BBC link is certainly full of politically driven reverential zeal. But he hasn't taken part in the study in any capacity so I can't take his opinion seriously, especially when a quick Google search tells me his specialist field is one that relies on the positive correlations of these findings which tells me he's even less likely to be impartial. He's a Psychobiologist of Human Sexual Orientation. How would you expect someone to react to results that validate their career?

Not to mention other things that become sexually objectified and arousing for some such as leather, animals, pain, etc.

The results at best prove an inclination, a contributing factor to sexuality (although more of a behavioural pattern we choose to label as gender based) but are by no means whatsoever a definitive outcome. A heterosexual man is by definition attracted to females, but not every female per se. Certain females. There are females who won't necessarily exhibit overbearing masculine traits that will turn the male off sexually. Why? Because of that particular man's nurturing. Because of what he's grown to associate with femininity. Why are some men attracted to petite girls? or large girls? well endowed girls? exotic girls? virgin girls? promiscuous girls? And what if he takes an interest in a man? The hypothesis states this couldn't possibly happen physically.

Society and circumstance invariably has a huge impact on gender roles, perceptions and attraction, the variations we've seen throughout history and indeed the cultures of the present day support this and I feel it's naive to believe that these factors are entirely (or even substantially IMO) effected by one's physicality.

And if it's not wholly determined at birth, it's not determined at birth at all. If a man born with a strong predisposition to be heterosexual (by the researchers' hypotheses) becomes a homosexual both their argument and yours has been entirely undermined. Do you genuinely believe this has never happened before? Perhaps in the case of a lifer in prison surrounded by men? Or the "closet case" who genuinely was attracted to women and got put off?

Essentially, if you took a brain scan and it revealed that you are "supposed" to be a homosexual how could you possibly argue that you're in fact heterosexual? Sorry, fuck what you know about yourself, your brain says otherwise. Ridiculous!!

I think that how I can deduce all of this purely at face value goes to show how this is a bogus study and a horrible way of forcing acceptance on other people. Maybe we should teach one another that what matters is who you are not how you got there.

It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on this Insanity Wolf

And I thought you were making some good points until you described religion as an obstacle of progress which I found arrogant and rather insulting. Christianity describes homosexuality as an abomination, but not as something unnatural and I fail to see how that's outdated in any way. It might not be within accordance with this blinding form of acceptance the western world is so desperate to implement but it doesn't advocate an impeachment on anyone else's God given right to free will.

I appreciate both religion and science and I don't believe they're opposites by any means as it seems you've suggested and that's probably how you feel about it. In which case, who's really being narrow minded and prejudiced?

---

There's one thing I found hilarious about the source you provided Jesse. One of the experts goes on to describe homosexual men as having more effeminate characteristics than heterosexual men and having more "feminized" character traits, essentially justifying the sissy stereotype you so strongly opposed!

Excuse me, but this study is bullshit. It's a half argument. Where are the specialists in Psychological and Social Human Sexual Orientation? Nowhere to be seen of course, because the ugly truth about society is the only way the vast majority will learn to accept something is if we force ignorance on ourselves, bury our heads in the sand and patronise one another.

 

[CassinoChips]

The Church has PhD scientists and theologians. I doubt very seriously that what you just stated is true. In fact, that is an outright desperate attempt to twist the truth. One does not look at brain scans and deduce people are born gay.

Sure they do. It's called scientific observation. The lie is looking at a book written several thousand years ago and deducing that homosexuality is unnatural.

Also, show me the baby. You're going through the labor of saying that the church has determined that homosexuality is unnatural, then show me the baby.

Also, the Catholic Church is completely different then the non-traditional, Protestant/Baptist churches. It is on an entirely different paradigm of theology, all the way down to the basic notions of justification for salvation.

Again, wallpaper. They all believe in the same zombie.

It's an interesting point you've made but I don't feel as if I have to be qualified in any of the fields those conducting the experiments are to see some glaring flaws in the methodology of the study. It's far too black and white and I don't think sexuality is as discernable as mathematics, which is more or less how they've decided to categorise it.

It takes a look at brain symmetry vs asymmetry and comes to an "either or" formula. If x then x, if y then y. But what of Bisexuals? There is no physical third alternative. So if the study's findings are to be believed then Bisexuals are simply pressumed to be lying to themselves one way or another.

But they aren't mentioned in the article at all. Nor are Pansexuals or Asexuals. Why? Perhaps because grey areas are full of political potholes.

The study only looked at homosexual men and women. I'm sure if they included other alternative lifestyles in their study, they would have tested for the subtle distinctions in brain anatomy that would have manifested as the other alternative lifestyles. However, the theory that can be gleaned from this is that it is likely that there are those distinctions, therefore those sexualities are likely just as natural as homosexuality.

And the man being interviewed on the BBC link is certainly full of politically driven reverential zeal. But he hasn't taken part in the study in any capacity so I can't take his opinion seriously, especially when a quick Google search tells me his specialist field is one that relies on the positive correlations of these findings which tells me he's even less likely to be impartial. He's a Psychobiologist of Human Sexual Orientation. How would you expect someone to react to results that validate their career?

Ad hominem arguments are logically fallacious. Unless you can objectively prove bias within the results or the operational means of his studies, you can't dismiss them. Also, if I want to study string theory, I go to a theoretical physicist. If I want to study kidneys, I go to a nephrologist. If I want to study human sexual behavior, I go to a psychobiologist.

Not to mention other things that become sexually objectified and arousing for some such as leather, animals, pain, etc.

The results at best prove an inclination, a contributing factor to sexuality (although more of a behavioural pattern we choose to label as gender based) but are by no means whatsoever a definitive outcome. A heterosexual man is by definition attracted to females, but not every female per se. Certain females. There are females who won't necessarily exhibit overbearing masculine traits that will turn the male off sexually. Why? Because of that particular man's nurturing. Because of what he's grown to associate with femininity. Why are some men attracted to petite girls? or large girls? well endowed girls? exotic girls? virgin girls? promiscuous girls? And what if he takes an interest in a man? The hypothesis states this couldn't possibly happen physically.

Society and circumstance invariably has a huge impact on gender roles, perceptions and attraction, the variations we've seen throughout history and indeed the cultures of the present day support this and I feel it's naive to believe that these factors are entirely (or even substantially IMO) effected by one's physicality.

And if it's not wholly determined at birth, it's not determined at birth at all. If a man born with a strong predisposition to be heterosexual (by the researchers' hypotheses) becomes a homosexual both their argument and yours has been entirely undermined. Do you genuinely believe this has never happened before? Perhaps in the case of a lifer in prison surrounded by men? Or the "closet case" who genuinely was attracted to women and got put off?

Essentially, if you took a brain scan and it revealed that you are "supposed" to be a homosexual how could you possibly argue that you're in fact heterosexual? Sorry, fuck what you know about yourself, your brain says otherwise. Ridiculous!!

Now you're getting into an argument that has remained unsolved for 500 years or more. Nature vs. nurture. You can have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism and not become an alcoholic. Does that mean that genetic link doesn't exist? Of course not. Society and/or upbringing and/or completely random happenings can absolutely alter brain chemistry and needs/wants/whatever. The human brain is amazingly malleable. But at our basic anatomical core, we're not that different from animals. And if homosexuality manifests naturally in orangutans, our closest living relative, then the most likely explanation is that homosexuality is a natural expression in humans as well.

And I thought you were making some good points until you described religion as an obstacle of progress which I found arrogant and rather insulting. Christianity describes homosexuality as an abomination, but not as something unnatural and I fail to see how that's outdated in any way. It might not be within accordance with this blinding form of acceptance the western world is so desperate to implement but it doesn't advocate an impeachment on anyone else's God given right to free will.

It's not arrogant when it's based on observation. What was the largest push against the heliocentric model of the galaxy? The church. Who is fighting the most against the Big Bang? Religion. Who has fought the strongest against evolution? Religion. What concept has been used throughout both British and American history to legitimize the repression of civil rights? Religion. Religion has always been in the business of hindering progress. Because if it keeps the people dumb and blind, they're more likely to be religious and fill the coffers with their tithes every Sunday. http://spq.sagepub.com/content/73/1/33.abstract

I appreciate both religion and science and I don't believe they're opposites by any means as it seems you've suggested and that's probably how you feel about it. In which case, who's really being narrow minded and prejudiced?

People who refuse to accept that homosexuality is a natural expression of human sexuality despite the scientific evidence that shows that it most likely is. That's who is being narrow-minded and prejudiced, because they are holding on to ideas and concepts that have no basis in scientific fact. That those concepts almost exclusively have a basis in religion may or may not be coincidental. I would lean towards may not, as personal experience has shown me that the most strident anti-gay proponents are religious. Or gay themselves and hiding it. But that's another thread.

Also, science and religion are at odds because science has no problem saying it is wrong when there is observable data proving that it is wrong. Religion, on the other hand, will hold on to incorrect information for as long as possible, even going so far as to imprison or kill those who have data that disproves a belief.

There's one thing I found hilarious about the source you provided Jesse. One of the experts goes on to describe homosexual men as having more effeminate characteristics than heterosexual men and having more "feminized" character traits, essentially justifying the sissy stereotype you so strongly opposed!

There's a difference between saying "All gay men are effeminate" and saying "Based on brain structure, homosexual men are more likely to express in an effeminate manner."

Excuse me, but this study is bullshit. It's a half argument. Where are the specialists in Psychological and Social Human Sexual Orientation? Nowhere to be seen of course, because the ugly truth about society is the only way the vast majority will learn to accept something is if we force ignorance on ourselves, bury our heads in the sand and patronise one another.

You mean like burying one's head in the sand and blindly accepting religion as having the answer for no other reason except that it says it does?

 

[Shinra Executive]

Sure they do. It's called scientific observation. The lie is looking at a book written several thousand years ago and deducing that homosexuality is unnatural.

You can knock the bible all you want, it's actually a collection of books written in throughout different centuries. It didn't magically fall out the sky one day. Secondly, a lot of people who are against homosexuality aren't even religious. Those such as yourself seem to be under the impression that liberal morals and atheism are synonymous, and they aren't. Behind all the bang and awe of popular atheists and liberal countries, most of the world in fact does not find homosexuality to be natural.
What your 'scientific observations' amount to is looking at brain scans. It is an observation, it just doesn't conclude with anything- it is after the fact of one subjecting their selves to homosexuality.
The lie is in misinterpreting science_

Also, show me the baby. You're going through the labor of saying that the church has determined that homosexuality is unnatural, then show me the baby.

The Church has determined homosexuality to be unnatural since it existed. It is nothing new, not by any stretch of a mile.
I don't know what you are talking about 'show you the baby'. I can show you tons. But let a gay couple adopt the baby- what do you think will probably become of that baby's sexuality? Be honest with yourself, stop laboring under denial.

Again, wallpaper. They all believe in the same zombie.

Yep, all 1.1 billion of them. The Church makes up literally half of Christendom, which puts the headcount of Christians at 2.2 billion total. That's a whole lot of people to go and speak about Christ as a zombie.
But wait, isn't it atheists who complain about bigotry?

 

[Harlequin]

Insanity Wolf

Come on Jesse that's weak!!! You've gone from presenting this study as the proof for why you're correct for making the assertion that people are born unto their sexuality, to backtracking through maybes about how it could possibly account for deviations.

First of all you're right that if we want to study human sexual orientation we would probably go to a Psycho-biologist. But what's wrong with going to a Psychologist on human sexual orientation? Doesn't fit the picture you might want to paint right? Not to mention that Dr Rahman didn't participate in the study and therefore the findings he's remarking on aren't even his own. Now I'm not dismissing the study, I'm dismissing the hypothesis they've made based on the findings for all the reasons I stated above which you dodged entirely by resorting to either vague possibilities or outright ignoring them. Dr Rahman doesn't even address the alternatives I've thrown up, his opinion to me is based on reverential bias.

There are only two alternatives to the hypothesis put forth. As stated above, if x then x if y then y. The hypothesis proves nothing if it is not water tight. If there are alternatives to consider the hypothesis by it's own dynamic either makes the assertion that these alternatives do not exist or it's complete bullshit. Which one is it? Does bisexuality not exist, or is the hypothesis bullshit? Please address this.

You haven't addressed the points I've made at all you've gleaned over them entirely. There is only x and y in this study. z has no place. And even if it does in another area of the brain which the study hasn't even began to account for at all, how on Earth does your source back up your assertion of fact? I've pointed at a discordance in the hypothesis and suddenly you're attitude towards it has gone from a concrete resolve to theoretical possibilities.

It's not arrogant when it's based on observation. What was the largest push against the heliocentric model of the galaxy? The church. Who is fighting the most against the Big Bang? Religion. Who has fought the strongest against evolution? Religion. What concept has been used throughout both British and American history to legitimize the repression of civil rights? Religion. Religion has always been in the business of hindering progress. Because if it keeps the people dumb and blind, they're more likely to be religious and fill the coffers with their tithes every Sunday. http://spq.sagepub.com/content/73/1/33.abstract

People who refuse to accept that homosexuality is a natural expression of human sexuality despite the scientific evidence that shows that it most likely is. That's who is being narrow-minded and prejudiced, because they are holding on to ideas and concepts that have no basis in scientific fact. That those concepts almost exclusively have a basis in religion may or may not be coincidental. I would lean towards may not, as personal experience has shown me that the most strident anti-gay proponents are religious. Or gay themselves and hiding it. But that's another thread.

Right. It's arrogant because it paints every single religion with the same brush. Also, the instances you're talking about almost exclusively refer to institutionalised religion, which is by no means the definitive construct of every religion. There are literally thousands of quotes in the Bible which emphasize the individuality of one's spirituality. If you're talking about institutions to me not only are you being arrogant but also incredibly ignorant.

I believe homosexuality occurs naturally but not as a dormant mental state but rather as an active influence from your surroundings. There is ample study to support my belief I don't even need to try and support it myself anymore.

Also, science and religion are at odds because science has no problem saying it is wrong when there is observable data proving that it is wrong. Religion, on the other hand, will hold on to incorrect information for as long as possible, even going so far as to imprison or kill those who have data that disproves a belief.

Humanity is the problem not Science or Religion. It's humans that react in the ways you've described. I'm not even arguing against it anymore.

There's a difference between saying "All gay men are effeminate" and saying "Based on brain structure, homosexual men are more likely to express in an effeminate manner."

But the hypothesis suggests no likelihood only concrete results. If there is a deviation the hypothesis isn't fact, just coincidence and therefore inconsequential. Therefore homosexual mens' brains must always resemble the structure of heterosexual females (Sissies, if you will). This of course is subject to whether or not you actually subscribe to all of that rubbish.

I'm not even going to argue the illegitimacy of this hypothesis anymore either, if anyone wants to believe it you're ignoring glaring oversights before even taking into account social factors.

You mean like burying one's head in the sand and blindly accepting religion as having the answer for no other reason except that it says it does?

Don't call me an idiot Jesse. If I was burying my head in the sand I wouldn't be entertaining this discussion. If you really believe people are religious because they bury their heads in the sand I pity you.

How can people not see that this bogus hypothesis undermines Homosexuality? We're talking about Scientists coming to the (far fetched) conclusion that in order to be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex, you have to exhibit multiple mental and neural characteristics of someone of the opposite sex. Essentially, you cannot be a man with a man's mentality and be sexually attracted to another man - this isn't physically possible. That type of homosexuality doesn't occur naturally. All the historical instances of it aren't genuine... according to these studies.

Bullshit!

...or Dennis is right about the sissies

 

[CassinoChips]

You can knock the bible all you want, it's actually a collection of books written in throughout different centuries. It didn't magically fall out the sky one day. Secondly, a lot of people who are against homosexuality aren't even religious. Those such as yourself seem to be under the impression that liberal morals and atheism are synonymous, and they aren't. Behind all the bang and awe of popular atheists and liberal countries, most of the world in fact does not find homosexuality to be natural.

What "most of the world" thinks is irrelevant. That's an argumentum ad populum, and is logically fallacious, because "most of the world" can be wrong. And I'm sure you've polled "most of the world" to come up with that information anyway.

What your 'scientific observations' amount to is looking at brain scans. It is an observation, it just doesn't conclude with anything- it is after the fact of one subjecting their selves to homosexuality.

The amygdala drives sexuality. Sexuality doesn't create changes in the amygdala.

The lie is in misinterpreting science_

Or ignoring it altogether.

The Church has determined homosexuality to be unnatural since it existed. It is nothing new, not by any stretch of a mile.
I don't know what you are talking about 'show you the baby'. I can show you tons. But let a gay couple adopt the baby- what do you think will probably become of that baby's sexuality? Be honest with yourself, stop laboring under denial.

Lol. That's a bit ironic, that denial thing. "Show me the baby" is a metaphor. Had nothing to do with gay parenting, but since you brought it up, based on the studies, there is no significant difference between kids raised by straight parents and those raised by gay parents. Except an apparent disregard for traditional gender roles, but that's, again, a different thread.

Yep, all 1.1 billion of them. The Church makes up literally half of Christendom, which puts the headcount of Christians at 2.2 billion total. That's a whole lot of people to go and speak about Christ as a zombie.
But wait, isn't it atheists who complain about bigotry?

So there are Christians who don't believe in the resurrection story?

@Insanity Wolf

Come on Jesse that's weak!!! You've gone from presenting this study as the proof for why you're correct for making the assertion that people are born unto their sexuality, to backtracking through maybes about how it could possibly account for deviations.

I'm fairly certain I've never used the word "prove" or "proof," only phrases along the lines of "most likely explanation." Also, I think you misread what I said. I meant that the study didn't need to address the alternative lifestyles you brought up because a) they weren't intended to be part of the study; and b) if homosexuality occurs in nature, then it stands to reason that bisexuality etc. also occur in nature based on the structure of the amygdala.

First of all you're right that if we want to study human sexual orientation we would probably go to a Psycho-biologist. But what's wrong with going to a Psychologist on human sexual orientation? Doesn't fit the picture you might want to paint right? Not to mention that Dr Rahman didn't participate in the study and therefore the findings he's remarking on aren't even his own. Now I'm not dismissing the study, I'm dismissing the hypothesis they've made based on the findings for all the reasons I stated above which you dodged entirely by resorting to either vague possibilities or outright ignoring them. Dr Rahman doesn't even address the alternatives I've thrown up, his opinion to me is based on reverential bias.

He may not have participated in the study, but he made those comments after reviewing the data put forth in the study. Your opinion is that he's biased, but what data do you have that corroborates your belief? Otherwise you're operating on your own confirmation bias.

There are only two alternatives to the hypothesis put forth. As stated above, if x then x if y then y. The hypothesis proves nothing if it is not water tight. If there are alternatives to consider the hypothesis by it's own dynamic either makes the assertion that these alternatives do not exist or it's complete bullshit. Which one is it? Does bisexuality not exist, or is the hypothesis bullshit? Please address this.

Again, the study did not address bisexuality. Bisexuality is different than homosexuality, therefore was not addressed in the study. Think of it as a sort of sexuality spectrum. Both are on the spectrum, but are different typologies. Similar to autism. Asperger's and hyperlexia are both forms of autism, but I can study Asperger's without studying hyperlexia and vice versa.

You haven't addressed the points I've made at all you've gleaned over them entirely. There is only x and y in this study. z has no place. And even if it does in another area of the brain which the study hasn't even began to account for at all, how on Earth does your source back up your assertion of fact? I've pointed at a discordance in the hypothesis and suddenly you're attitude towards it has gone from a concrete resolve to theoretical possibilities.

Again, I've consistently said "most likely explanation." How you've gotten "concrete fact" from that is beyond me. Because I understand that "fact" in science is only as good as your most recent set of data. Science says the sun rises in the east. If tomorrow the sun rises in the west, we have a new set of data in which to operate. The newest data says that homosexuality is innate, not learned or decided upon. For now, that's the most likely explanation.

Right. It's arrogant because it paints every single religion with the same brush. Also, the instances you're talking about almost exclusively refer to institutionalised religion, which is by no means the definitive construct of every religion. There are literally thousands of quotes in the Bible which emphasize the individuality of one's spirituality. If you're talking about institutions to me not only are you being arrogant but also incredibly ignorant.

Is religion (or the belief therein) or is it not the single biggest obstacle to gay rights? Alternatively, is there an argument against gay rights that is not based in religion?

I believe homosexuality occurs naturally but not as a dormant mental state but rather as an active influence from your surroundings. There is ample study to support my belief I don't even need to try and support it myself anymore.

Nature vs. nurture. Better men and women than us have tried to solve that conundrum and failed.

Humanity is the problem not Science or Religion. It's humans that react in the ways you've described. I'm not even arguing against it anymore.

I don't disagree. Religion in and of itself is just a concept. But when religion is being used as a way to repress others, religion is the problem.

But the hypothesis suggests no likelihood only concrete results. If there is a deviation the hypothesis isn't fact, just coincidence and therefore inconsequential. Therefore homosexual mens' brains must always resemble the structure of heterosexual females (Sissies, if you will). This of course is subject to whether or not you actually subscribe to all of that rubbish.

Hypotheses never suggest concrete results. Hypotheses suggest possibility or probability.

I'm not even going to argue the illegitimacy of this hypothesis anymore either, if anyone wants to believe it you're ignoring glaring oversights before even taking into account social factors.

Ok.

Don't call me an idiot Jesse. If I was burying my head in the sand I wouldn't be entertaining this discussion. If you really believe people are religious because they bury their heads in the sand I pity you.

I dunno, I stopped believing in fairy tales when I was five, so it's hard for me to see how a rational person comes to the conclusion that an invisible spirit guides the daily actions of 6 billion people for the purpose of its own self-glorification, while never actually revealing itself to its worshippers.

How can people not see that this bogus hypothesis undermines Homosexuality? We're talking about Scientists coming to the (far fetched) conclusion that in order to be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex, you have to exhibit multiple mental and neural characteristics of someone of the opposite sex. Essentially, you cannot be a man with a man's mentality and be sexually attracted to another man - this isn't physically possible. That type of homosexuality doesn't occur naturally. All the historical instances of it aren't genuine... according to these studies.

What is a "man's mentality"? That's not described in the study. What is described is the physical characteristics of a certain portion of the brain. What the study says is that a person born with this particular anatomical build is more likely to express as homosexual. You know, like if a person is both with a specific chromosomal anomaly, they are more likely to express Down syndrome.

 

[Harlequin]

You didn't use the word proof no but...

However, it shows there is a difference, thus homosexuality isn't a choice

Please explain how this isn't an assertion in regard to fact, but rather an assertion on likelihood. The "difference" in question is in regards to the study in the source you provided.

He may not have participated in the study, but he made those comments after reviewing the data put forth in the study. Your opinion is that he's biased, but what data do you have that corroborates your belief? Otherwise you're operating on your own confirmation bias.

And your reaction to the source you provided wasn't a product of your own confirmation bias?

The newest data says that homosexuality is innate, not learned or decided upon. For now, that's the most likely explanation.

You mean this study which at best provides a slight inclination to one side or another? How can you compare what you've just described as "likelihood" to something as factual as the Sun rising in the East? I know why you have, but it's a terrible comparison because one hasn't ever been proven, whilst the other may change but is an established fact.

Is religion (or the belief therein) or is it not the single biggest obstacle to gay rights? Alternatively, is there an argument against gay rights that is not based in religion?

You mean homosexuals being married in a Church? If a pastor wants to marry two of the same sex there's nothing religion can do about it. The bottom line is people can and will use whatever tools they can to defend their bigotry. I don't necessarily believe homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry, nor should a priest be forced to marry them and quite frankly even if every human being in the world accepted homosexual marriage it does not mean God will.

I don't disagree. Religion in and of itself is just a concept. But when religion is being used as a way to repress others, religion is the problem.

In the same way Science can be abused to decimate humanity. The Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs are an example. But I'm not foolish enough to blame Science as a concept because of humanity's heinous use of it. Science is a blessing when intentions are good.

What is a "man's mentality"? That's not described in the study. What is described is the physical characteristics of a certain portion of the brain. What the study says is that a person born with this particular anatomical build is more likely to express as homosexual. You know, like if a person is both with a specific chromosomal anomaly, they are more likely to express Down syndrome.

No but the specialists in the source you provided commented on male and female mental traits and brain structure.

And you're comparing sexuality and it's manifestation to a mental disorder? I don't believe the two are identifiable in the same way. Not to mention this "likelihood" business is in no way measurable. If it turns out as predicted, it is proof of the hypothesis, if it doesn't, it was only ever a possibility. Bullshit. People have the capacity to want whatever and whoever they desire and that includes the factors of choice and upbringing. People have the capacity for discipline, they can control their desires and they can be influenced by their surroundings.

Humans aren't base animals we are sentient beings. We do not respond solely on instinct, we respond to the world around us. Children are like sponges nurturing defines the person you are.

 

[CassinoChips]

You didn't use the word proof no but...



Please explain how this isn't an assertion in regard to fact, but rather an assertion on likelihood. The "difference" in question is in regards to the study in the source you provided.

"thus the church is wrong because observable, falsifiable data disagree with the church's stance." is the last bit of that sentence. Thus the implication is that if the data were to show that there was no difference, then the church would be correct, and homosexuality would be a choice. Everything is factual only in relation to the data.

And your reaction to the source you provided wasn't a product of your own confirmation bias?

Probably. The data does agree with my stance though, which is a significant difference. If you were to provide data that countermanded mine which I then dismissed out of hand simply for the sole reason that I disagreed with the data or the conclusion it put forth, that would be more of a true confirmation bias.

You mean this study which at best provides a slight inclination to one side or another? How can you compare what you've just described as "likelihood" to something as factual as the Sun rising in the East? I know why you have, but it's a terrible comparison because one hasn't ever been proven, whilst the other may change but is an established fact.

That's the point though. The "established fact" wouldn't be "established fact" if the data changed. Everything is factual in relation to data.

You mean homosexuals being married in a Church? If a pastor wants to marry two of the same sex there's nothing religion can do about it. The bottom line is people can and will use whatever tools they can to defend their bigotry. I don't necessarily believe homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry, nor should a priest be forced to marry them and quite frankly even if every human being in the world accepted homosexual marriage it does not mean God will.

Well until a god descends amongst us poor common stupid mortals and deigns to tell us what s/he really wants, we're left to our own devices. However, no, that's not what I meant. What I meant was that most of the reasons anti-gay rights activists advocate for their repression of homosexuals are based in religion. Therefore, religion is the biggest roadblock on the path to equality for LGBT people.

As an aside, no one (especially not me) is advocating that any religious institution be forced to have gay marriages. I'm fairly certain you didn't mean it that way, just more of as a flipside thing. But. Just to be sure.

In the same way Science can be abused to decimate humanity. The Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs are an example. But I'm not foolish enough to blame Science as a concept because of humanity's heinous use of it. Science is a blessing when intentions are good.

Fair point. The difference that I see is that people are much more likely to use religion as an excuse for their negative actions, and are much more quick to defend religion and insulate it against criticism.

No but the specialists in the source you provided commented on male and female mental traits and brain structure.

And you're comparing sexuality and it's manifestation to a mental disorder? I don't believe the two are identifiable in the same way. Not to mention this "likelihood" business is in no way measurable. If it turns out as predicted, it is proof of the hypothesis, if it doesn't, it was only ever a possibility. Bullshit. People have the capacity to want whatever and whoever they desire and that includes the factors of choice and upbringing. People have the capacity for discipline, they can control their desires and they can be influenced by their surroundings.

Humans aren't base animals we are sentient beings. We do not respond solely on instinct, we respond to the world around us. Children are like sponges nurturing defines the person you are.

I agree, the human brain is malleable. However, a child's brain is not a tabula rasa either.

 

[The Master]

You know, it wouldn't be such a big deal (the whole gay marriage thing) if it wasn't recognized under law and there weren't benefits behind it...

"Oh, but there are civil partnerships"

Yes, but it is not recognized as marriage and it doesn't provide the same benefits...

Get the law out of marriage and I would be glad to stop complaining about it...

 

[Squid]

Why would gay people want to get married anyway? Marriage is like a relationship killer!!

 

[The Master]

Why would gay people want to get married anyway? Marriage is like a relationship killer!!

I guess it has to do with the whole equality thing... I'm not too keen on it either tbh...

But what I do know is that it's different from marrying your sister or having more than one spouse... And God forbid someone make the STUPID argument about wanting to marry their pet

 

[Harlequin]

Look, I feel as if we're both coming to a natural middle ground of maybes and could bes. I think we've both agreed that homosexuality is at least something that occurs naturally whether it's nature, nurture or both. We've both agreed that the hypothesis discerned from the study only alludes to a likelihood rather than a predetermined sexuality.

I didn't necessarily mean you were suggesting religious institutions change their policies but there's a lot of people who campaign for change based on equality laws here in the UK, like female bishops and gay marriage. I was only throwing it out there to be sure myself.

The reason I feel religion is far more likely to be abused is because religion is a concept that touches on a person's humanity in a very intimate and individual way. Science is the means in which we measure the world which isn't as easy to frequently abuse.

EDIT Insanity Wolf obviously

 

[Shinra Executive]

What "most of the world" thinks is irrelevant. That's an argumentum ad populum, and is logically fallacious, because "most of the world" can be wrong. And I'm sure you've polled "most of the world" to come up with that information anyway.

There is no parallel between what an already homosexually induced brain looks like and the allegation of being born gay. The fruit of good science is being able to predict, and unless your scientific observation can predict that an infant will someday become gay, it is obsolete.