The Gay Brain - Updated

Ya'll still aren't getting the point. I used torturing babies because that's something we all agree on as being immoral. I was NOT equating that with homosexuality. My point is that one's predisposition to something CANNOT define whether its moral or not.

No one has actually addressed that point, so I guess ya'll agree. We need to find some way of defining moral other than, he was predisposed to it genetically... through their brain or whatever.
 
If I say, "X is not immoral because some people are born X, and X does not hurt anyone," I have included two premises in support of my conclusion. Someone else does not have to disagree with my conclusion (X is not immoral) to think one of my premises (some people are born X) is worthless as evidence of moral acceptability.

Little good ever comes of trying to learn about science through the lay press anyway. Peer-reviewed literature exists to transmit scientific information, while the lay press exists to turn a profit by entertaining readers. The differences in motivations and qualifications of the writers makes an enormous difference in the message that gets through.

For the record, I define morality in terms of my religion. Mine teaches that sex, aside from marital relations between husband and wife, is immoral, regardless of who or what is involved. All of us face temptation, so "being homosexual" is no more immoral to me than "being" anything else. My religion also teaches tolerance: actions can be bad but people are (imperfect but) good.
 
No, WE don't need to define morals when it comes to homosexuality. YOU can do that all you want. But, don't expect anyone else but YOURSELF to go along with it.
 
EasternHorn,
Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating forced or coerced treatment. There are many homosexuals who try to live a celibate life, or do seek treatment.
 
I loves the women. And I have yet to seek treatment for my condition, which I was most certainly born with.

I embrace my condition.
 
OC, I agree with your original point. Just because something is genetic does not make it moral. It appears you (technically) reserved judgment on whether or not homosexuality is moral, but it seems clear you think it's not. On that point we can disagree for the reasons many other posters have pointed out.

To the OP, it's an interesting study, but I agree with the concession at the end of the article that we'll probably never find a single "cause" of homosexuality. I think it's a combination of factors. Not all gay men are effeminate and not all gay women are butch, so I find it a stretch to conclude that gay men's brains are more similar to straight women (and gay women are more similar to straight men) generally. Perhaps it's true for some people, but I doubt it's a significant finding across a large population... the study cited in the article only looked at 90 people.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
One interesting point: If homosexuality does has a defined phenotype, does that renew hope that there may be a defined genotype as well? The answer is not all that simple.

If, on one hand, homosexuality is the product of say 5 genes/regulatory element variations which proceed to homosexuality under certain developmental conditions but a sixth genetic variation may allow it to proceed regardless of environment, then homosexuality is likely to be endemic. In this case, a society that allows homosexuals to express themselves without fear of reprisal will have a constant number of homosexuals. We don't know what that percentage would be since there remain a number of reasons for gays to stay in the closet. Depending on the number, this might have interesting implications for population control (i.e. a percent of your population won't have kids).

If, on the other hand, a smaller number of genetic variations can predispose an individual to homosexuality, then we may see an interesting phenomenon in which the number of gay individuals decreases over time in societies that allow them to express their sexual orientation. A gay individual who is never forced to "pretend to be straight" to the point of having children has an evolutionary fitness of 0 . While the genetic variations which lead to homosexuality would never be completely removed from the gene pool, we may see a smaller percentage of gay individuals as they voluntarily remove their genes from the population. It will be interesting to note how the gay community reacts to this phenomenon if it is recorded. I could see an interest in gay sperm donors specifically giving their sperm to artificially fertilize lesbian mothers (is it cheating if nobody involved enjoys it? The idiots on 3:16 killed that discussion before it started, but it would be funny).

Anyway, it would be cool to make this thread into a discussion with merit rather than a shouting match between people claiming that the other side is stupid (ironically, both sides are correct about each other).
"
 
I edited the original post to include this article also. It seems more informative but also speculative and opinionated. However, it does contain a link to the actual study which some people may want to read.

another link
 
MaduroUTMB

That was the most thoughtful and insightful post I've seen on this board in quite a while. I have wondered the same thing but wouldn't have been able put it as well as you have. I will be interested to see the replies.
 
chipper, do you consider gay sex between two consenting adults who are mongamous immoral? Gay couple, not cheating on anyone.
 
I have to ask my question again. Two people have suggested that the brain structure could be an effect of homosexuality, much like lefties having a stronger left arm. Is there any rational explanation for how that could happen?

It seems to me that the only reason anyone would consider that idea is to convince themselves that being gay really is totally a choice. Because I cannot imagine the mechanism by which having sex with dudes would change the structure of your brain.
 
I think it will be funny to see the shift (and we're seeing some of it here) from "No, it's a choice, they're not born that way", to "Okay so they're born that way, but it doesn't make it right!".
 
Creed,

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. The study suggests that the brain size affects homosexuality. I read it as something you are born with and not a choice. However, some people on this thread have suggested how do we know that the homosexuality didn't cause the brain change. I think I agree with you that this possibility makes no sense at all.
 
Red Five,
I haven't heard anyone on this thread, or board for that matter, make an argument that homosexuality was purely choice. I have only seen people make moral arguments about homosexual behaviour regardless of the cause.
Now as a Xian, I believe that all people are born with a sinful nature, and are totally depraved. I don't believe any person, or persons have done a single thing to satisfy the wrath of God. I believe we are all under wrath save for the work of Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross.
That means that every Xian is guilty of sin JUST as great as any person who has engaged in homosexual activity. The issue is whether or not that activity is sinful.
I would actually make the argument that not only are homosexuals born with a bent to sin, but every person is.
This is something that I don't think Xians talk about enough. There is not a single thing I, or any other Xian have done to deserve the love of God. God loves all because we are all made in the image of God, yet we are all born sinful due to sin as well.
 
I'm with THEU.

If my Christian beliefs are true, then EVENTUALLY all sins can be traced back to a gene. Its the fall. We inherited the bent from Adam.

I don't define my morals by "I can't help it" or by "if it isn't hurting anyone" I do things all the time in those two categories that I'm convinced are offenses to a holy God.

Do I believe homosexuality is an offense to God? Yes. However, I see it no different in scale to the times I look at lust at another woman who isn't my wife. In other words, yes its sin... but it shouldn't be seen as more grievous than the very sins I commit or struggle not to commit on a daily basis.

I've said this once and it bears repeating. We are on a very slippery slope as a culture if we define our morals based on genetics/brain predispositions. In that case, no one can be convicted of doing ANYTHING wrong... EVER. He shot his mother... we found the killing gene. He raped a 4 year old - its the rape gene. Redfive lost him temper - his wife can't get upset- its the anger gene. Your child slaps you - he couldn't help himself - its the "being a child" gene.
 
Eastern, I was responding to (I believe) THEU and kgp who suggested that we can't determine causation from this data, that maybe the brain structure was a result of acting gay. That didn't make any sense to me, and it seemed like a dodge to avoid concluding that there is a physical basis for homosexuality. I was trying to see if there was any science behind this alternate line of causation, or if it's just wishful thinking to support preconceived notions.
 
Creed,

Then we agree...that argument makes no sense to me. I could be persuaded with a solid peice of science, but I don't expect to see it.
 
Trying to dictate the actions of others and judging them based on your religious beliefs is disgusting to me. Maybe we can get NAIU's opinion on this, but I seriously doubt that he gives a rat's *** whether or not you think he's living in constant sin for being gay.
 
So I'll thow in my 2 cents here and its going to meander because I'm not going to quote anyone.

I don't need to see any scientific evidence about whether being gay is a choice or not. I know that it was not a choice for me because if it was I wouldn't have been gay. And yes, if there was a pill or an operation that could reverse being gay, there was a time in my life that I would have gladly signed up for it because I wanted with all my heart not to be gay. Having lived through that internal battle and lost, I think I am in a unique position to have a pretty ******* good idea that no matter how I turned out gay, the fact is I did and I didn't have a choice about it. I don't need to see any scientific evidence to know the truth of that.

I do understand why having the scientific evidence is important, because it does help to provide an explanation to those who claim that its a choice and evidence takes away some of the social stigma associated with being gay because it legitimizes the behavior is somehow natural.

Someone said that just because something is genetic doesn't mean its moral. I agree with that completely. However, I suspect that the poster has a different idea about morality than I do, and I suspect that the poster is making this argument because he wants the ability to continue to try to discriminate against gays just in case it is finally determined to be a purely non-choice related orientation. Where we differ is what we do with that determination. My rule is that if something isn't moral for you, then you should not do it. If something isn't moral for me, then I shouldn't do it. What this means is that I won't do what I think is immoral and you don't do what you think is immoral, and both of us leave each other alone. In other words, just because something isn't moral for you, doesn't mean you should pass a law making it illegal for me, unless what I want to do interferes with the rights of others to do what they think is moral.

Me being gay may be immoral to you, and that's great, I'm happy that you are trying to live by your moral code. However, I am extremely offended that you think your moral code is so much better than mine that I should be made to live up to yours whether I want to or not.

Finally, I've often wondered the same thing that Maduro asked about above. I don't think it would be bred out completely, because there will always be some gays that just refuse to deal with it and have kids with their wives, and there will always be some gays that have children through artificial means. However, I've often wondered if we would see a bell curve of sorts in gay population. The population grows as being gay becomes more socially acceptable, then tops off at some point, then starts to decline as fewer gays reproduce, thus passing along that heredity to smaller and smaller portions of the population. Interesting question, and I don't think we'll be able to have a really good answer for at least a generation.
 
So many erroneous assumptions thrown at me that I'm not sure where to begin.

We probably should have a thread on here about what makes morals. Its pretty obvious, that "because if feels good" isn't a good way of deciding morals. It's obvious that "just because its genetic" & "anything between two consenting adults" fails miserably too.

Now let me add another one. Moral relativism... that we all define what is moral to me. That just fails. Look, take any of these and take them to there logical conclusion and they just fail. Read this article in full to get an idea of what I'm talking about.The Link

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top