sexual orientation and innate choice

[quadz]

This op-ed piece appeared in yesterday's paper
yesterday's paper:

A way to keep marriage holy and sacred

By Roy Dixon
December 4, 2008

On election night, I was in Memphis, Tenn., attending the 101st Annual Holy Convocation of the Church of God in Christ. A little after 10 p.m., I was returning to the Marriott Hotel and while in the elevator, I heard a loud roar, thunderous applause and great rejoicing.

When the door of the elevator opened, the sound was even louder, almost deafening. Someone shouted, “They just declared Obama the next president of the United States.” I personally rejoiced at this historic event because what had just happened was something I thought I would not see in my lifetime.

After the initial celebrating and speeches had ceased, my thoughts turned to my home state of California to find what was happening, especially regarding Proposition 8. I had worked hard to get it passed and had no way of getting information on the issue that evening.

The next morning, the national news picked up the fact that Proposition 8 was leading and later that it won 52 percent to 48 percent. Then came the angry response from the opposition being expressed in many ways. I asked myself, “If the results were reversed, would we have reacted in the same manner?” The answer is, “NO!”

In 2000, voters passed Proposition 22 with 61 percent of the vote cast, which changed the California Family Code to formally define marriage in this state as between a man and a woman. In 2004, same-sex marriages were performed, which were subsequently judicially annulled. Eventually, this led to a decision announced on May 15, 2008, of the California Supreme Court, which by a 4-3 vote struck down Proposition 22.

I realize that being a senior citizen, I might be missing something and do not understand the present generation.

So, I sought the help of an 18-year-old student to express what I have taught as a pastor and his belief on the subject of same-sex marriage. His response:

“I do not support same-sex marriage and homosexuality. I believe God wants us to keep marriage holy and sacred, between one man and one woman. In the Bible, it states that 'homosexuality is an abomination.' (Leviticus 18:22)”.

Yet, that does not mean we don't want homosexuals to come to our church. We welcome them because all of us have fallen short of the glory of God. God loves all those he created. He does not hate gays, and neither does the church. God is just displeased with the behavior because homosexuality is a sin and against his will.

The Lord loves all of us because we are his children. We are the sheep, and he is the shepherd. When we sin, we stray away from the Christian “flock.” Although once we are found, God welcomes his sheep back with a loving heart and open arms. The church welcomes those who have sinned. “What would the church be if there were no sinners?”

Certainly not perfect because nothing or no one is perfect. Except Jesus. He is perfect, and he wants to love us all and take care of us in the perfect kind of way.

Proposition 8 is not discrimination. It is a way to keep marriage holy and sacred the way God intended. Have you seen a “gay” restroom? A “gay” water fountain? A “gay” waiting room? Have you even heard of a “gay” person being lynched in the news recently? No, because those things that I named are true issues of discrimination.

Homosexuality is not a race, gender, religion issue. It's about choice and behavior. Everyone has encountered discrimination, because of the way they are shaped, the way they talk or even the color of their skin. Homosexuals were not born that way. They choose to like the same sex.

God has a plan for all of us, and we should not hinder or look away from that plan. He wants the best for us. Proposition 8 is God's will. He is the father, and every father has rules. Fathers make rules because they love their children. And children should obey the rules their fathers have given them.

As a pastor of 23 years, I believe the principles of the Bible, and I will continue to use it as my guide.* Bishop Dixon is pastor of the Faith Chapel Church of God in Christ in San Diego.

Okay then.

Question number one: How can anyone cite Leviticus as an exemplificiation of 'what God intended' when Leviticus is chock full of tribal dogma that people conveniently ignore?

Question number two: "They choose to like the same sex" ... As gays point out, they can indeed choose not to have sex.  Just as heterosexuals can choose not to have sex.  But can you choose who you're attracted to?


Comments?

[|iR|Focalor]

Well, just to play devils advocate for a moment... if Michael Jackson is attracted to young sickly boys, that doesn't mean that he should be allowed to fuck or marry them.

Personally, I don't give a shit what homosexuals do. If they want to get married and have kids, go for it. I'm not saying that I like homosexuality at all, there's nothing that ruins my appetite more than seeing two grown men making out in front of me.  Seeing two women doing the same thing grosses me out too... unless they are really good looking women. And let's face it, most lesbians don't affect the appearance of a female that a straight man would be attracted to (long hair, makeup, feminine attire, etc). Any woman that would dress like that, 9 times out of 10 she is actually bisexual, not homosexual.

These people think that they are fighting to keep the US from becoming some kind of modern day Sodom and that eventually God will become so pissed that he'll rain fire upon the US and destroy us all like he did way back when. These crusaders are fucking blind. They're only paying attention to this one issue because it's the only one where their outdated system of beliefs still has a foothold. Take Las Vegas for example. Gambling (a sin) is legal. Prostitution (a sin) is legal. Drinking (a sin) is legal 24 hours a day, the bars NEVER close, you can wake up at 5am and walk into a bar and order a double scotch on the rocks instead of coffee. They don't publicly bitch about Vegas as much anymore because no one wants to hear it. These bible-thumping twits haven't even pulled their heads out of the sand long enough to realize that prostitution is actually legal in MOST states! The government doesn't advertise it, but whorehouses are basically legal. There are plenty here in Georgia. They use the term "spa" and "massage", but it isn't hard to tell exactly what their business is especially when they all advertise in the local free adult entertainment publication that is available at most XXX video stores and head shops. They pay a licensing fee to the state and keep detailed records about the girls that work there. A lot of people think, "Oh, those asian massage parlors aren't allowed to do sexual things, if the police came in there and caught them they would shut them down." Wrong. They KNOW what is going on, and as long as they pay the proper fees, the local government allows them to operate. It's a fact that call girls and escort services are legal too. Once again, as long as they are registered and pay the proper fees to the state, they allow them to operate. They also advertise in the local adult entertainment publications. You'll see all the ads in the back of it, and at the bottom of each ad you'll find their state registration code listed. This lets you know that the person is doing it legally and that they have been checked recently for STDs.

If these Christianazi's really like things to be strict and by the book, perhaps they should move to one of the muslim dominated countries where they follow the edicts of the old testament a lot closer than we do.

[quadz]

Well, just to play devils advocate for a moment... if Michael Jackson is attracted to young sickly boys, that doesn't mean that he should be allowed to fuck or marry them.

Definitely agreed:

Well, just to play devils advocate for a moment... if Evil Spock is attracted to young sickly boys, that doesn't mean that he should be allowed to fuck or marry them.

I'm sure we're agreed on that but I'm not sure what it proves?  (Unless we are talking about something besides sexual desire as an innate drive. (Or, "innate choice" as the title says.))

I'm talking about what secks you get the hots for.  That's it, for now.

(Or more specifically, whether you think you can change which secks you get the hots for. )

[[BTF]Defiant!]

Homosexuality is genetically defined, which nullifies the dismissal that "homosexuality is just a choice".  Homosexuality can be shown in twin studies, is common in animals (like us!), etc..

Homosexuality is not pedophilia.  Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they like little kids (not that anyone here said that).  A major difference is that homosexuality is between two consenting adults in the same way that heterosexuality is.  To put it another way, you wouldn't use pedophilia to argue that heterosexuality is not right, right?

A Prop 8 solution is to give both groups what they want:   Split the religious aspect from the state/legal aspect.  So, there is a legal "union" and a religious "marriage".  So, for example:
 1) A Catholic church would not allow gay marriage because it doesn't match Catholic doctrine.
 2) The state can form unions, but they wouldn't be religiously recognized
 3) A Unitarian church could allow gay marriage, but it wouldn't be recognized at other churches.

Allowing or not allowing gay marriage isn't going to hide the gayness.  Get over it.  The people at my work who are staunchly anti-gay don't seem to recognize that they work with gay people!  It's a stereotyped view.

The bottom line is that laws restrict rights, and rights should only be restricted when you absolutely sure it is the best thing to do, with gay marriage why the hell do you or the state care?  It is a civil rights issue that will come to pass.

[DaHanG]

I probably should care more about this issue more than I do, probably because I think the gay right to marry will inevitably come (within a decade or two). Also, the issue itself isn't on the same level of magnitude as previous Civil Rights issues in American history like slavery/segregation/economic oppression/etc.

What bugs me is the citation of scripture in the 21st century to deny others equal rights. If an issue fails the reason test, it should not pass the legislative test. End of story.

Also, this has nothing to do with Pedophilia, which denies the consent of and harms a child. Two consenting adults, gay or straight, should be able to do whatever they want in their private lives, so long as it does not harm others.

It would be funny if another religion claimed that not only does God support gay marriage (and being gay generally), but he actually prefers it due to much needed population reduction. The evidence for the truth of knowing God's mind to be operating in this way would be equal to the Christian gay-is-an-abomination stance: zero.

But what then happens when there are such religious disagreements? Do we just do a pure democratic vote and let the majority prevail? Should reason ever play a role?

[deft]

HELLO IT WAS ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE 

 

[|iR|Focalor]

Homosexuality is genetically defined, which nullifies the dismissal that "homosexuality is just a choice".  Homosexuality can be shown in twin studies, is common in animals (like us!), etc..

LMAO! There is a gay gene? If gayness were hereditary, then it would be logical to assume that eventually the gene would phase itself out.  I've yet to see any reputable studies that would suggest such a thing, do you have references to site for that claim? I know it's not a particularly rare thing to see one male dog hump another male dog, but I've never heard of a male dog that would refuse to hump a female dog (which would indicate "canine homosexuality")

Until I see any scientific/medical proof that there is in fact a "gay gene", I will continue to be of the opinion that homosexuality is as much of a choice as what kind of music you prefer to listen to. It may not be a conscious choice, but it is a choice, one that is directed on a subconscious level through conditioning. Even using THIS reasoning, there is no grounds for banning gay marriage. Let's face it, the issue's main hurdle is the fact that religious nuts want to impose their own lifestyle on others. They feel that their definition of "perversion" is more important than the civil liberties of others.

[[BTF]Defiant!]

Not surprisingly the general scientific conclusion is that it is both nature and nurture.

Twin studies help relate associations or causes by comparing identical twins, with fraternal twins, with adoptive twins.. where they all would share statisically similar environments but have different genetic relations.  If there was a genetic relation, then those with stronger genetic ties would have similar homosexual behavior, which is what the data shows.  For example: there was a national study of every twin in Sweden:

Overall, genetics accounted for around 35 per cent of the differences between men in homosexual behaviour and other individual-specific environmental factors (that is, not societal attitudes, family or parenting which are shared by twins) accounted for around 64 per cent. In other words, men become gay or straight because of different developmental pathways, not just one pathway.”   http://www.physorg.com/news134052249.html

This alone, this is enough evidence to say homosexuality is partially genetically based. 

Other references:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D0CE7DD143AF934A25751C1A967958260
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D0CE7DD143AF934A25751C1A967958260
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation


2) Also, there is also a discussion of your statment that if it were genetic, how could it be reasonably passed on?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Sexual_orientation_and_evolution


3) If you talk with someone who is gay, some state the same feelings and desires as heterosexuals do..  they just aren't interested in what they aren't interested in.   Not something that's just a trival or whimiscal choice.    Consider it this way, what if this was the Twilight Zone and you were transported to an identical Earth, but gay was the only way (sure this is ridiculous example); but, could you just "go with it"?  Would you be able to change your preference?   Hell no I couldn't, even if it was a crime.

[deft]

 

[|iR|Focalor]

they just aren't interested in what they aren't interested in.   Not something that's just a trival or whimiscal choice.

That's kind of why I used the example of tastes in music. As the first article mentioned...

though they say other factors like social conditioning may be important.

They can study the rates and stats all they want, but that alone will never convince me. That's why I used the term "scientific/medical", I was hoping to read something based on actual observation of DNA components in tandem with the collected stats. THAT would be the fascinating part of it. Wouldn't it be cool if they could isolate some specific gene and alter it? Eventually we could develop a "gay vaccine" and make it lot easier for prisoners to pick up the soap.

[quadz]

I know it's not a particularly rare thing to see one male dog hump another male dog, but I've never heard of a male dog that would refuse to hump a female dog (which would indicate "canine homosexuality")

Except this does happen in some animal species.

Same sex pairs of penguins have been observed to mate for life, and refuse sex with the other gender:

http://animalsvoice.com/edits/editorial/news/features/gay_squeak.html

As well as sheep (rams), which while not a species which forms permanent pair bonds, has still been observed to have individuals which, given a choice between a male or female partner, prefers its same gender:

http://animalsvoice.com/edits/editorial/news/features/gay_squeak.html


etc. etc.


Regards,

[[BTF]Defiant!]

they just aren't interested in what they aren't interested in.   Not something that's just a trivial or whimsical choice.

That's kind of why I used the example of tastes in music. As the first article mentioned...

though they say other factors like social conditioning may be important.

I don't follow your point here. 

They can study the rates and stats all they want, but that alone will never convince me. That's why I used the term "scientific/medical"

Are you saying you refuse scientifically significant evidence, or are you saying the evidence isn't significant?

, I was hoping to read something based on actual observation of DNA components in tandem with the collected stats. THAT would be the fascinating part of it. Wouldn't it be cool if they could isolate some specific gene and alter it? Eventually we could develop a "gay vaccine" and make it lot easier for prisoners to pick up the soap.

Of course I disagree, since my motivation here is to argue that someone's sexual choice is their own business (as long as it doesn't hurt others etc..).  To me, the suggestion of "fixing people" sounds a bit like removing people's interest in alcohol at birth because of all the problems alcohol causes upon society.  Wait, the alcohol example actually does have a sadly true aspect while the gay example doesn't actually hurt anyone.  Go figure.

[myamagical]

Based on what I learned in psychology, a gay person is born that way...

My gay friend is one of the smartest and nicest people I know. Another guy that hung out with people that lived on my floor last year is also pretty cool. (He listens to the same stuff I do, how awesome is that, lol) Anyway, we did a psychology project together and pulled it off pretty well.

I'm going to use the corny line that "Gays (and bisexuals) are people too" because they are. They are just like you and me except that they just happen to be attracted to the same sex.

I don't see any reason to deny them the same rights heterosexuals have.

Plus this one's great at lip syncing and dancing... I haven't seen a guy move so good unless they're on the Ballroom Dance team.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhhBvhdfPV4&feature=related


P.S. Zanna Don't - Awesome play!!!!

[[BTF]Defiant!]

WARNING - do NOT click the link Mya posted.   I wish I could "un-see" the first three seconds I saw.

[quadz]

WARNING - do NOT click the link Mya posted.   I wish I could "un-see" the first three seconds I saw.

Hahaha... being the contrarian that I am, I had to click anyway...

I wholeheartedly agree... I turned it off before 5 seconds... and yes, you can't "un-see" that.