+1 for homosexual rights!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070521/od_afp/britainanimalsgay_070521160344;_ylt=ArAYz5gWeX2acXt.F9P79c_MWM0F
Synopsis: A pair of gay flamingos are raising a chick at the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT) in Slimbridge near Bristol.
There goes the argument that homosexuality is unnatural :P
Synopsis: A pair of gay flamingos are raising a chick at the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT) in Slimbridge near Bristol.
There goes the argument that homosexuality is unnatural :P
posted by edwin at 12:37 am
9 Comments:
Whether or not homosexuality in human beings is a choice is quite ambiguous and unproven because there is evidence emerging that gender determination is not just based on whether you have XY chromosomes or dominant testes. There are molecular determinants of sex in the brain which may or may not be responsible to some extent for gender identity. (Read about it here and here.
But if it is true, then it means that gender is ultimately binary in the sense that males must mate with females and any deviance i.e. homosexual behaviour might be a variant medical condition which means it's not a lifestyle choice and can be corrected i.e. gays have a choice to be normal. But whether or not it's true will depend on future findings.
For now, it doesn't mean that homosexuality is natural in humans, because there is currently no evidence of that. So just because there's no evidence, you can't say it is the case just because it occurs in the animal kingdom (see tagboard). It's probably best to be cautious and say that it is unlikely to be natural unless there is concrete evidence that it is. Isn't that the more scientific approach that you frequently trumpet?
As I said in my tagboard, gender determination is very different from sexual orientation. I repeat: GENDER DETERMINATION IS NOT SEXUAL ORIENTATION. Please do more research before posting red herrings. This is the classic example of religion distorting science to support its views. More on that another time, but personally, I find this to be very despicable, if done intentionally.
This is especially so in this case because of the suicides that have resulted because of people being told that their homosexual behaviour is a choice that can be corrected. You can easily google to find various reports documenting this. Even the lady in charge of Jesus Camp admits that camps where you 'pray the gay away' have had an disproportionate number of suicides in comparison to the population.
We see more distortion of science in your appeal to the scientific method against homosexuals. Science tells us WHAT IS, not WHAT WE SHOULD DO. However, I believe in this case that the libertarian viewpoint makes more sense. If there is no evidence for the harm in homosexual activities per se, then people have no justification to oppose it. Your attitude masquerading as cautiousness is actually part of the NUTS syndrome that Sim Wong Hoo decried.
P.S. Really, really, really read and UNDERSTAND what science articles are saying before you use them to support your stand. You risk irritating people AND making yourself look foolish otherwise.
"Do you think this difference in gene expression in the brain explains anything about gender identity?
About identity, it says nothing [yet]. It might say something. So those genes are differentially expressed between males and females early during development. They're certainly good candidates to look at to be influencing gender identity, but they're just good candidates."
(emphasis mine) I said what I said based on this part of the interview.
To clarify:
I'm probably going to get shot down for this but what the heck. You can't exactly say for sure (because you're not gay) whether for example, a gay man still considers himself male in his head despite his attraction to other males. I think some do and some don't but there're no studies on this that I know of so I can't be certain either. And you can't say for sure that gender identity (as in the gender you perceive yourself to be) and sexual orientation (i.e. which team you swing for) isn't linked. I mean as normal, straight people, our gender identity defines our sexual orientation. So I suppose in general, since heterosexual relations are the norm, then there is quite a high chance it is linked. But if it's not linked, then please show me some evidence that it isn't linked.
And I made sure I didn't use absolutes in my response -- I said "But if is true" and I emphasised that it's unproven and dependent on future findings. So I don't see why you have to make it sound like I made a very flawed and absolute point when I merely offered an alternative and plausible (at least to me) idea in response to yours. Look, if you can't take what I say in a more constructive and less aggressive manner, it makes me quite annoyed because clearly, my opinions are only going to be shot down by you. A condescending approach to differing opinion only serves as a form of deterrent for opinion to be expressed on what you write about. Surely that is not why you react so strongly right?
Furthermore, I offered an opinion based on my understanding of the issue, which I accept to be less than complete. I did not mention any religious implication so your assertion that my response is a "classic example of religion distorting science to support its views" is really quite presumptuous and rather uncalled for because it's a personal attack. Just because a person is religious doesn't automatically mean that they can't say sensible things. And just because some proponents of religious ideas are extreme doesn't mean that every follower of the religion is equally blindly zealous as well. But perhaps, I am not the best person to be saying this considering my knack for saying things which backfire on myself.
And for the record, I don't have a negative opinion on homosexuals per se. People should have the right to do whatever they damn well please and that includes screwing people of the same sex if that floats their boat. The problem arises only if they wish to be religious homosexuals. But that is another issue altogether. I originally only wanted to point out that you can't use animal examples to justify human behaviour. Which I did. So there. Unless you want to refute what I said on your tagboard. You can just reply here instead of spamming my comment box which is clearly not suited for this sort of discussion.
As a matter of fact, I can say that gay men still see themselves as male. Why can I say this? I say this because of medical data on transexuals that indicate that if a person is physically a male but mentally a female, they will manifest symptoms of rejection of their body up to and including self amputation of the sexual genetelia. The fact that gay men do not, in general, cut off their own penises shows that they see themselves as males...who like other males.
As I said before, you are the one who is positing, without ANY support in the articles that you cite, that gender and sexual orientation are highly linked. Thus, you are the one who has to prove that gender identity and sexual orientation are linked in all people. The burden of proof is on you, not me.
Finally, you cannot deny that your postings, and indeed, your entire argument, is based on your religious belief. This belief is what is leading you to deny decades of research into homosexuality. This denial of religious motivations is exactly what the intelligent design group is doing, and whether conscious or not, you are following in the same footsteps. Besides, I do acknowledge when you say sensible things. Similarly, I will call you out when you say insensible things, as you have done thus far in this discussion.
Finally, it is very good that you acknowledge that what people do in their private time is their own business. I hope you keep this in mind when homosexuals in Singapore ask for legitimacy.
For the record, my article is meant to dispel the myth that homosexuals are 1) Unnatural 2) Always choose their lifestyle and 3) Are unable to raise young capably. I believe it has done so.
As for the religious rejection, if God has 'created' homosexual animals, who is to say that he also 'created' homosexual humans? I absolutely detest the whole: 'Love your neighbour, except when he doesnt agree with your ideology' hypocrisy that is a large part of Christianity.
P.S. My energetic rebuttal of your "But if it is true" point is due to the fact that your conclusion does not follow from the premises that you have set out because gender identity is not sexual orientation, thus my statement of the red herring fallacy! Having fallen for the fallacy in many discussions before, I feel that I MUST violently object to it so as to prevent similar fallacies for occuring in other people, including yourself.
Also, if you see the "classic example...support its views" statement as a personal attack, that means that you admit that your views are religiously motivated and the statement is justified. Or else, it would be irrelevant, and you could have provided evidence as to how your views are NOT religiously motivated.
As I said before, I feel strongly for this issue because christians have, directly or indirectly, caused the death of many gay people through the degradation of their self esteem leading to suicide. While such 'pray the gay away' camps may be run by fundamentalist or extremist christians, it is MODERATE christians who send their children to such camps, which is why they share the blame as well.
The american author Sam Harris makes the interesting point that moderate religion shares the blame for extremist actions because they provide the main support base, and funding, for the extremist factions of the religion. I make no statement about the truth of this claim, but it is an interesting point I think you should consider.
Actually I'm pretty sure there is absolutely no scientific evidence that homosexuality in humans in natural or a condition people are born with. My friends did their PW project on this and they couldn't find anything on it and if there were any evidence it'd be quite well-known I suppose. I think it might be possible that there may be a natural cause, but to be honest, it looks as if it's purely a matter of choice for now, which means that ultimately we've been arguing over something which is inconclusive inherently. For now at least.
As for homosexual couples being able to raise children as well as a stable, heterosexual couple, I don't think flamingo/penguin young being raised well can really show very much about human situations. But if you think so, then I can't say anything more in response. I prefer to think human beings are a lot more complex than animals.
I still think it's unfair to say that I am basing my thoughts on religious beliefs alone. If I were, I wouldn't even be suggesting the idea that homosexuality could be a congenital condition because religiously speaking, there is no way it is a natural condition. And it IS a personal attack, you took your preconceived notion of me and applied it to what I said even though I gave no real reason for you to do so. I merely disagreed with the way you chose weak examples to justify your rather absolute points and brought in a vaguely related idea. While it was an understandable conclusion to reach, it shows that you're incapable of separating opinion of who is saying something and what is being said really.
As for "Love your neighbour UNLESS..." ideology being hypocritical and a large part of Christianity, that's quite a sweeping statement. Granted that churches do encourage their congregations to not condone immorality, ungodly, etc. ideas like homosexuality, most churches would not go so far as to say discriminate against homosexuals or actively rally against them. Some do like that crazy church that runs the godhatesfags site, but for the most I don't think so, and in fact, Christians are still called to treat 'sinners' graciously. Furthermore, it has to be pointed out that the actual implementation of such 'noble' ideology is dependent on flawed human beings (being Christian doesn't mean people become Jesuses instantly) so it's not really a question of flawed doctrine but rather, imperfect execution. I mean we can't say we are immune from prejudice at all, we are but human after all. However, I am basing my observations on churches at home and so far I haven't really heard of any hardline anti-gay sentiment in the churches here either. So you can't really say it is a significant part of Christianity and not back it up with some stats.
To be honest, a lot of times you make very vicious claims about Christianity based on extreme, fundamentalist examples. And it's not wrong and your point that it is moderate funding that allows extremism is valid and something interesting to think about. However, you take the very idea of religion as a homogeneous entity (as in Christianity is like _____ based on ______) which is as I mentioned earlier, a very over-generalised assumption. For one, even though ideally, the Church should be universal and one body under Christ, it is clearly a fragmented organisation (it's not even really an organisation considering all the different denominations and interpretations of scripture by different groups). To say that every single faction is as bigoted, as cruel, as hypocritical is obviously wrong. I don't say that all army officers are inflexible, strict, domineering, etc. just because my experience with most army officers is bad. So in the same vein, if you're going to make statements conveying your disdain/frustration about certain Christian failings, please, specify. Don't generalise. All you had to say was "some Christians" rather than "Christians".
Secondly, ultimately, there is no overarching church authority for all Christians in the world. For example, you've seen and read how churches are in a capitalist type competition for congregations and the tithes which inevitably follow. So it should be clear that there's bound to be dodgy doctrine being perpetuated by certain churches. The Jesus camps and Pray the Gay Away (pretty catchy I have to say :P) concepts may be popular but it doesn't mean it's supported by all Christians. Condemning all Christianity based on a few dodgy churches is unfair.
Feeling strongly for an issue doesn't justify making sweeping statements. Your GP teacher never teach you meh? Haha.
OK, I'm really getting quite tired of arguing with you. I say arguing, because you clearly are not listening to my points. I shall attempt a point by point rebuttal and lets see where this goes alright?
1)For scientific evidence, google search Simon LeFay and twin studies. Random Twin studies show that between identical twins, the probability that one is gay given that the other is gay is 51%. This is a HIGHER correspondence than one twin having, say, type 1 diabetes given the other has it, which is at 38%. Of course, homosexuality isn't a disease, but we can use this to show that there is a strong genetic component to homosexuality. People often find what they want to look for. There has been about 30 years of research into this area and you not accepting that is like Michael Behe not accepting the evidence for evolution at the Kansas Trials.
2)Human beings are more like animals than you would care to admit, whether you prefer it or not. Ignoring it is what got you into this debate in the first place. Reference every single commercial drug in the market and animal testing. Before you say that these are unrelated, psychotrophic drugs are tested on animals as well.
3)"I merely disagreed with the way you chose weak examples to justify your rather absolute points and brought in a vaguely related idea."
I could say the same to you =). And I have no idea what you THINK you said, but I suggest that you read through your points again. Firstly, there is no evidence in the articles you cited to support your conclusions, and secondly your suggestion that homosexuality is a 'medical condition' that can be 'corrected' would be highly offensive to many homosexuals.
4)"most churches would not go so far as to say discriminate against homosexuals or actively rally against them." That is a false statement. Even in singapore, the churches were strongly against the government giving homosexuals equal rights and they have written open letters of protest. Actively rally against homosexuals? No way that could happen, right? =P "I am basing my observations on churches at home". So am I.
5) Regardless of the organisational structure of the church, christians hold common beliefs. Further, Christians act in similar ways to defend their flawed beliefs. Such as: 1) Rejection of evidence to the contrary 2) Asserting that the evidence is not enough 3) Attacking the way the opposing argument is laid out rather than the argument itself 4)Getting really pissed off at the opposing team and refusing to discuss further. And many more. At least you are not at stage 4 yet =)
6) It's amazing how some christians can say: oh, but its because we are men, so thats where all the problems in religion come from. And yet, they do not take the next step and think: 1)If I realise that its a fault, why am I not speaking out about it and 2)God is clearly not doing a very good job when the biggest evangelical churches in the USA, which, by the way, is the poster child of the religion at present, are mired in scandals of sex and money. Look, the problem isn't with the fact that they did wrong things. The problem is that they did, and are doing, wrong things WHILE preaching against the very things they are doing. And the rest of the christian world is helping by not blowing the whistle. Because they are fellow christians. Look, when that south korean guy faked a result in cloning experiments at least other scientists discovered it and discredited the work. You don't often see one pastor/preacher coming out to blow the whistle on a fellow pastor in cases like the New Life Church or the Catholic Church scandal.
7)"Feeling strongly for an issue doesn't justify making sweeping statements. Your GP teacher never teach you meh?" Again, I would say the same to you. The fact is, there is a coherent behaviour among christians, and that behaviour is wrong and dangerous and costs lives. Just because my arguments attack the behaviour (which most christians would support) doesn't mean that I am making sweeping statements.
As I have said many times before, your arguments are not cogent; that is, your conclusions are not supported by the evidence you present. Ignoring my evidence just because your friends who did a PW project didn't find evidence is a silly thing to do. Like it or not, you have chosen, as have I, to associate yourself with a flawed organisation, and rather than giving excuses for the behaviour of some members of the organisation I hope that you can, like me, question these members instead.
P.S. "Pray the Gay Away" is catchy, but just like the word "veal" is a euphemism for "tortured baby cows" and "Intelligent Design" is a euphemism for "Creationism", you gotta look behind the curtain!
Eh when you have 1 week left to your year end papers and spent most of this last term doing lab reports, you don't end up wiki-ing/googling things. Thanks for the info though haha, since you're SOOOOO free to engage in public enlightenment.
Not like u wiki/google things normally =P good luck for ur exams tho.
Post a Comment
<< Home