w,

"It’s possible to love left-handed people while despising left-handed behaviour. Indeed, left-handers have ... been persecuted ... but only after they had chosen to indulge in aberrant left-handed behaviour."

I suspect that homosexual behaviour is less likely to be genetic. The American Psychiatric Association were convinced that it was a lifestyle choice thus precluding it from being the psychiatric illness it had long been considered and it was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual used by psychiatrists and psychologists practising in abnormal psychology. While "lifestyle choice" probably could be construed in a way that oversimplifies and unfairly understates the experience I suspect that it is not genetic.

Having said that - funny you should use that example. I started off left handed and my parents changed me over when I was young. I have no regrets particularly when I read about left handers cutting themselves with scissors because they are designed for right handers.

"we’ll just have to disagree on the rainbow sash thing."

That is easiest. I have wondered why we weren't reaching a meeting of minds and wondered whether your definition of the issues is broader than mine. But I'm happy to leave it.

"I was referring to homosexuals being excluded from employment in any capacity in religious schools and institutions."

That surprises me given the lack of church values held by teachers who I have met who work at Catholic schools. Why assume it is a code? Instead of reading things in a homosexual should just apply. They will probably get the job.

"The task of clearing out unwanted homosexuals has been made significantly easier by the recent Workchoices [sic] legislation."

I'm sure you would be correct with that.

"...Apparently this will come as a surprise to you, but it’s possible to hold humane, ethical principles independently of religious belief."

It is certainly rare in this forum! I know that religious values can be maintained longer than the religion but it usually dies out over time and generations as there is nothing solid to pin those values on. Please accept my apology for underestimating you.

“religious values can be maintained longer than the religion but it usually dies out over time and generations as there is nothing solid to pin those values on” That statement is baseless in reality and is nothing more than an articulation of sheer Christian bigotry. The irony is that statement demonstrates that Christianity is certainly devoid of good values.

mjpb shouldn’t you wait to see if your god is gay or not .He has yet to respond and if he exists and does not respond it is an admission on his part that he is gay. Of course he might not exist either, if he doesn’t, your words are wasted.

mjpb,

I think you’re confusing a few issues about genetics and the concept of psychological disorders.

The APA delisted homosexuality from DSM in 1973 because of growing evidence it failed to meet a key criterion of a “disorder”, in that it doesn’t in itself cause distress and dysfunction to the individual. This is how you distinguish disorders from normal variation within human populations. Left handedness, or having red hair are not typical human characteristics, but they’re not disorders, either. Nor are they lifestyle choices. They’re just normal variations on the theme of humanness. Starting off left handed and being trained into right handedness is very unusual, too, but I wouldn’t call such a phenomenon a disease.

As for the genetics issue, the question is, to what extent can human variation be explained by variation in the genome, and how much is learned, or the result of biological influences after conception or birth?

In reality, very little human variation can be accounted for by a direct relationship to an identified single gene or group of genes (eg red hair genes give you red hair, unless you dye it). On the other hand, genetic variation can have a significant influence on a whole range of human characteristics, such as height, intelligence and temperament, even though other factors also come into play in the expression of that characteristic. On the available evidence genetics plays a significant role in the development of “intrinsic orientation” (although it’s probably not the only factor). How that intrinsic orientation is then played out in a person’s life, though, is obviously heavily influenced by other factors, such as other elements of the person’s personality, and, of course, the social environment. So yes, you’d be right in saying there’s probably no such thing as a single “gay gene”, but you’d be wrong to say that variation in human sexual orientation isn’t influenced by variation in genetics.

Boaz, I’ll get back to you once I’ve finished rereading Deuteronomy

westy,

(with apologies to D. Adams)

"I refuse to prove that I exist", says God, "for proof denies Faith and without Faith I am Nothing". "Ahh", says man, "but the Babel Fish is a dead give-away. It proves you exist and so therefore you Don't - Q.ED". "Bugger", says God, "I hadn't thought of that." and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

Or, alternatively, consider the Humble Amoeba.

Amoeba 'westy' claims that Amoeba 'BOAZ's' God (the 'Lab Technician!') is a bunch of pond weed and if he doesn't come and deny this on the gel plate's web site then he obviously cannot be all powerful and interested in amoeba affairs or be capable of influencing them in any way that really matters to amoeba such as themselves - he effectively does not exist. Amoeba westy goes to his grave convinced his argument proves him to be right as the Almighty and poweful 'Lab Technician' God did not post any denial of his pond-weedyness on the website. Two weeks and a few Amoba generations later though, the same Lab Technician finishes his amoeba research and Irradiates the gel plate with microwaves that the amoeba had not yet been clever enough to invent, let alone devise a defence against, and thus completely eliminated the amoeba community from existance.

See any relation here?? : )

I love theological discussions : )

btw... i posit the belief that since God is ALL He/She is also in part gay, and part Satan and is even part westy! How could an all powerful, all pervasive God create something that He/She themselves is not in part?

It’s nice to speculate about the causes or origins of homosexuality, but ultimately I don’t think that this provides much guidance for how individual homosexuals should be treated.

In fact, I find the view that if it’s a choice, then it’s OK to discriminate against homosexuals quite disturbing. More precisely, I can’t see any justification for singling out homosexuality, when lots of other choices are protected.

Religion is a choice, and in our society it is protected from discrimination. So are marital status and political affiliation. Consequences of choices are also protected from discrimination. For example, obesity, often a result of dietary choices, is a protected condition - you’re not allowed to refuse someone a job because of their weight. Being addicted to nicotine, the result of a choice to commence smoking, doesn’t get you refused entry to churches.

Still, it’s often argued that homosexuality is either weakly or not at all genetic, therefore it’s a choice. And because they’ve chosen their condition, it’s OK to discriminate against homosexuals. (The people who can’t get their heads out of their pants claim they are discriminating against homosexual behaviour, but essentially it’s the same thing.) Elderly same-sex couples find it impossible to find aged-care accommodation, and this is OK, because their partnership status is “a choice.”

There’s something absurd about the argument that while you can’t refuse aged-care accommodation to a couple because they’re members of the Liberal Party (a choice), the churches’ right to discriminate against same-sex couples in aged care should be protected, because their sexuality is a choice.

If homosexuality is (directly or indirectly) genetically determined, then refusing services and excluding homosexuals from organisations and employment is unjustifiably cruel and arbitrary, given that we don’t do this for any other genetically determined characteristics.

However if homosexuality is a choice (not a view I subscribe to), then discriminating against homosexuals is still unjustifiably cruel and arbitrary, given that we do not discriminate against other lawful choices. Plainly and simply, the exclusion of homosexuals from organisations and services is visceral, irrational discrimination. Choice or not, this discrimination can’t be justified.

“I think you’re confusing a few issues ...””

The key thing I wanted to put forward prior to your correction regarding the rationale was their presumedly informed determination that it is a lifestyle choice of some sort.

Perhaps I thought that because, after their decision, the term “gay lifestyle” was used. There was a call for people not to discriminate against what was argued to be a legitimate lifestyle choice.

A friend recently told me that a formerly gay member of his church confided to him words to the effect that homosexuals always say they have no choice for political reasons but from his experience as a homosexual it honestly is a choice. That is just one person’s experience and I assume that others might be more set in their ways but it reminded me of the historical “gay lifestyle” thing.

W,

“...ultimately I don’t think that this (cause) provides much guidance for how individual homosexuals should be treated.”

“If homosexuality is ... genetically determined, then refusing services and excluding homosexuals from organisations and employment is unjustifiably cruel and arbitrary, given that we don’t do this for any other genetically determined characteristics.”

Sorry I couldn’t resist.

”In fact, I find the view that if it’s a choice, then it’s OK to discriminate against homosexuals quite disturbing.”

Discrimination is a very broad term so I am sure that we would be largely in agreement that homosexuals shouldn’t be discriminated against. For example we would both agree that it is wrong to discriminate against homosexuals by swinging a base ball bat at them.

“More precisely, I can’t see any justification for singling out homosexuality, when lots of other choices are protected. “

Again I would generally agree - where that is the case.

”...claim they are discriminating against homosexual behaviour, but essentially it’s the same thing.”

That seems to oversimplify. You can distinguish between a person, a tendency, and a behaviour. Many people feel strong heterosexual attractions that they choose not to pursue. Some people choose total celibacy. Without condoning inappropriate discrimination I still don’t think you should lump everything together.