Re: Re: RELIGION POLITICS Homosexuality (was Ron )

[Guest guest]

On 1/9/08, Val <listval@...> wrote:

> There's an element of choice in religion, too, but we still protect

> it as a class. A lot more people change their religion than change

> their sexual orientation.

>

> So if religion's a choice, and we don't protect things that are a

> choice, why are we protecting religion?

I agree with you that these situations are analogous (far more

analogous than homosexuality and sex or race). I was not trying to

say that, because there is choice involved (or whatever you want to

call the non-deterministic factors), we should not protect the ability

to make that choice. I was merely trying to address the issue of

whether homosexuality is completely hardwired -- and as far as I know

the evidence contradicts this rather than supports it.

Religion is not a matter of entirely free will. There is no such

thing as " free will " in the sense that one makes decisions in a

vaccuum. But there are elements of influence and elements of choice,

and we protect the ability to make the choice, we disallow some types

of discrimination and allow others. Most people would object to

hiring discrimination based on religion, but hardly anyone would

demand, say, that Jews have a right to receive communion in a Catholic

church.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Don't Jews have the right to receive communion if they fulfill the requirements

that Catholics must satisfy (I am quite ignorant of them).

You've never really defined what you mean by 'hardwired', and you're still

seemingly claiming that homosexuality is a 'choice', and you're claiming that

there is no analogy between sexual orientation and race, though you've never

addressed the context in which it was made.

Religion is certainly a matter of free will in the sense in which the term is

usually used.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " Masterjohn " <chrismasterjohn@...>

> On 1/9/08, Val <listval@...> wrote:

> > There's an element of choice in religion, too, but we still protect

> > it as a class. A lot more people change their religion than change

> > their sexual orientation.

> >

> > So if religion's a choice, and we don't protect things that are a

> > choice, why are we protecting religion?

>

> I agree with you that these situations are analogous (far more

> analogous than homosexuality and sex or race). I was not trying to

> say that, because there is choice involved (or whatever you want to

> call the non-deterministic factors), we should not protect the ability

> to make that choice. I was merely trying to address the issue of

> whether homosexuality is completely hardwired -- and as far as I know

> the evidence contradicts this rather than supports it.

>

> Religion is not a matter of entirely free will. There is no such

> thing as " free will " in the sense that one makes decisions in a

> vaccuum. But there are elements of influence and elements of choice,

> and we protect the ability to make the choice, we disallow some types

> of discrimination and allow others. Most people would object to

> hiring discrimination based on religion, but hardly anyone would

> demand, say, that Jews have a right to receive communion in a Catholic

> church.

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

On 1/9/08, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> > I'm sure I'm going to get flak for this but , there's no way you

> > can equate homosexuality...a behavior, with race!!!!

> It seems pretty well established at this point that homosexuality is

> caused by physical characteristics of the brain. IOW, you're born

> that way... just like you're born with whatever ethnic ancestry you

> have. As such they seem quite comparable.

I find it utterly impossible to believe that this can be the case when

the concordance rate between identical twins is around 20% and at the

very most around 50%. How is it possible that two people can share

100% of the same genes, and 100% of every aspect of the in utero

environment, but their brains can develop in such different ways

within that very frame of time, that by the time they come out, one is

irreversibly determined to be homosexual and the other is irreversibly

determined to be heterosexual?

Chris

[Guest guest]

Suppose that homosexuality is caused by a 'physical characteristic of the brain'

(I frankly don't think that this is particularly important).

that physical characteristic may may actually cause a predisposition to become

gay, depending on other factors - who knows what they are - experiential,

environmental, etc...

So, the root cause may be something in the brain that is present at birth, but

it isn't a done deal that anyone with these brain characteristics will actually

become a homosexual.

This is really so simple, and you're struggling so hard. Why?

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " Masterjohn " <chrismasterjohn@...>

> On 1/9/08, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

>

> > > I'm sure I'm going to get flak for this but , there's no way you

> > > can equate homosexuality...a behavior, with race!!!!

>

> > It seems pretty well established at this point that homosexuality is

> > caused by physical characteristics of the brain. IOW, you're born

> > that way... just like you're born with whatever ethnic ancestry you

> > have. As such they seem quite comparable.

>

> I find it utterly impossible to believe that this can be the case when

> the concordance rate between identical twins is around 20% and at the

> very most around 50%. How is it possible that two people can share

> 100% of the same genes, and 100% of every aspect of the in utero

> environment, but their brains can develop in such different ways

> within that very frame of time, that by the time they come out, one is

> irreversibly determined to be homosexual and the other is irreversibly

> determined to be heterosexual?

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> > It seems pretty well established at this point that homosexuality is

> > caused by physical characteristics of the brain. IOW, you're born

> > that way... just like you're born with whatever ethnic ancestry you

> > have. As such they seem quite comparable.

>

> I find it utterly impossible to believe that this can be the case when

> the concordance rate between identical twins is around 20% and at the

> very most around 50%. How is it possible that two people can share

> 100% of the same genes, and 100% of every aspect of the in utero

> environment, but their brains can develop in such different ways

> within that very frame of time, that by the time they come out, one is

> irreversibly determined to be homosexual and the other is irreversibly

> determined to be heterosexual?

Ack. I misspoke; I'm not sure why I lapsed into the colloquialism

that " you're born that way " , but it doesn't really reflect my views.

Epigenetic factors, for example, cause identical twins to physically

diverge over time as they come into play more and more; I don't see

why epigenetics couldn't be one factor (or rather one class of

factors) which influences the development (or lack thereof) of

homosexuality.

Also, I'm pretty sure that I've read that just as nursing twins don't

necessarily receive equal nutrition from their mothers (a fact which

can probably be more readily and dispassionately observed in other

species) twins in utero don't necessarily receive identical

nourishment and aren't necessarily exposed to identical hormonal and

chemical signaling. I don't have any references for that at hand, but

if true, it could definitely contribute.

And then of course even identical twins have different life

experiences, different chemical exposures, different nutritional

intakes, and so on, from the moment they're born on.

Finally, as Gene suggests, there may be some genetic factors which

predispose one towards developing homosexuality (unfortunately that

makes it sound like a disease, but I merely mean it in the sense one

would of any physical trait) without causing it in every single case,

in which case even subtle variations in environmental factors from one

twin to the other could make the difference.

So the mere fact that concordance isn't 100% with identical twins is

far from strong support for the notion that there's some element of

" choice " or " spirituality " to sexual orientation, particularly when

you consider the available evidence of differences in the structure of

gay people's brains.

-

[Guest guest]

,

> Ack. I misspoke; I'm not sure why I lapsed into the colloquialism

> that " you're born that way " , but it doesn't really reflect my views.

Ok.

> [snip] I don't see

> why epigenetics couldn't be one factor [snip] Also, I'm pretty sure that I've

read

> that just as nursing twins don't necessarily receive equal nutrition from

their

> mothers ... I don't have any references for that at hand, but

> if true, it could definitely contribute. And then of course even identical

twins have

> different life experiences, different chemical exposures, different

nutritional

> intakes, and so on, from the moment they're born on. Finally, as Gene

suggests,

> there may be some genetic factors which

> predispose one towards developing homosexuality. [snip] So the mere fact that

> concordance isn't 100% with identical twins is

> far from strong support for the notion that there's some element of

> " choice " or " spirituality " to sexual orientation.

Essentially, you have a lot of " could's. " It sounds to me like this

evidence, then, is at the stage of a not-so-developed hypothesis,

rather than a strong theory or an established fact.

I more or less agree with you, although I think that twins are likely

to have the least differences in in utero exposure of any two

individuals and identical twins are likely to have the least

difference in life experience. I do not discount eiither as a

possibiilty, especially the latter, but their explanatory power in the

case of identical twins seems to be greatly reduced compared to their

explanatory power for people who are not identical twins.

Either way, who could question that experience helps form who we are?

Absolutely no one would dispute that. But sorting out the mechanism

of experience, and what that means in terms of differentiating " who

you are " from " what you do " and what is and isn't affected by " free

will " and " choice " is not so obvious at all.

On the other hand, it is really, really obvious to virtually everyone

that being white or black or male or female is entirely " who you are "

and not at all " what you do " and doesn't involve any " free will " or

" choice. "

>particularly when

> you consider the available evidence of differences in the structure of

> gay people's brains.

Are these structural differences present at birth? Before sexual

maturity? What is the causal effect of experience on these structural

differences, versus the causal effect of these structural differences

on experience?

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > ,

>> >

>>> >> Ack. I misspoke; I'm not sure why I lapsed into the colloquialism

>>> >> that " you're born that way " , but it doesn't really reflect my views.

>> >

>> > Ok.

>> >

>>> >> [snip] I don't see

>>> >> why epigenetics couldn't be one factor [snip] Also, I'm pretty sure that

>>> I've

>>> >> read

>>> >> that just as nursing twins don't necessarily receive equal nutrition from

>>> >> their

>>> >> mothers ... I don't have any references for that at hand, but

>>> >> if true, it could definitely contribute. And then of course even

>>> identical

>>> >> twins have

>>> >> different life experiences, different chemical exposures, different

>>> >> nutritional

>>> >> intakes, and so on, from the moment they're born on. Finally, as Gene

>>> >> suggests,

>>> >> there may be some genetic factors which

>>> >> predispose one towards developing homosexuality. [snip] So the mere fact

>>> that

>>> >> concordance isn't 100% with identical twins is

>>> >> far from strong support for the notion that there's some element of

>>> >> " choice " or " spirituality " to sexual orientation.

>> >

>> > Essentially, you have a lot of " could's. " It sounds to me like this

>> > evidence, then, is at the stage of a not-so-developed hypothesis,

>> > rather than a strong theory or an established fact.

>

> ? Why are they needed to refute what you said?

> .....

>

>> >

>> > Either way, who could question that experience helps form who we are?

>> > Absolutely no one would dispute that. But sorting out the mechanism

>> > of experience, and what that means in terms of differentiating " who

>> > you are " from " what you do " and what is and isn't affected by " free

>> > will " and " choice " is not so obvious at all.

>

> no ­ neither is it important, really, in this issue ­ except to those who want

> to draw the line of what discrimination is and isn¹t along these borders.

>

>> >

>> > On the other hand, it is really, really obvious to virtually everyone

>> > that being white or black or male or female is entirely " who you are "

>> > and not at all " what you do " and doesn't involve any " free will " or

>> > " choice. "

>

> It¹s entirely obvious to anyone with the slightest bit of sense that Œbeing¹

> homosexual isn¹t a choice ­ to be differentiated from individual actions of

> homosexual, which of course are actions.

>

> It really seems to be that you have blinders on when it comes to what is being

> said, and are obfuscating with Œscience¹ misapplied.

>

>> >

>>> >> particularly when

>>> >> you consider the available evidence of differences in the structure of

>>> >> gay people's brains.

>> >

>> > Are these structural differences present at birth? Before sexual

>> > maturity? What is the causal effect of experience on these structural

>> > differences, versus the causal effect of these structural differences

>> > on experience?

>

> Who cares. Gay people don¹t choose to be that way.

>

>> >

>> > Chris

>> >

[Guest guest]

By saying that gay people don¹t choose to be this way, it might sound like

I¹m implying that Œthis way¹ is bad. Of course, it isn¹t. I don¹t think

that it should be an issue at all for people.