Religious Freedom

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

I agree that my point is meaningless if you believe that being gay is wrong, but in scientific terms, that is the case. But, religion and science are often at odds.

Actually, my point is that in scientific terms, it's not the case. Just as, in scientific terms, it matters not at all whether Pluto is called a planet or not, because in the end, it's just a ball of dirt circling a star, not fundamentally different than millions of others that happen to be smaller.

In scientific terms, alcoholism, depression, homosexuality, my distaste for tomatoes, high intelligence, etc., etc. are all equal. "Disease" is a subjective term with no scientific basis for distinguishing what is and isn't a disease. The only distinction is a sense of what is "beneficial" and what is "harmful"

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

In scientific terms, alcoholism, depression, homosexuality, my distaste for tomatoes, high intelligence, etc., etc. are all equal. "Disease" is a subjective term with no scientific basis for distinguishing what is and isn't a disease. The only distinction is a sense of what is "beneficial" and what is "harmful"

Not so sure about that. Alcoholism has been classified as a disease while distaste for tomatoes has not been classified as one. In my own terms, alcoholism is something that happens as a result of a change in the body's ability to deal with a substance. You aren't necessarily born an alcoholic, but become one as your body ceases to be able to deal with the substance. It may be genetic predisposition or it may be more like cancer (which can also have a genetic pre-disposition). Is being gay a genetic predisposition? I'm not sure that question has been answered.

To me, they are very different things. You don'e become gay over time like you do with alcoholism.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

Not so sure about that. Alcoholism has been classified as a disease while distaste for tomatoes has not been classified as one.

And Pluto has been classified as a dwarf planet while other similar objects in the Kupier belt have not, and when it used to be a planet. People decide on these classifications for conveneince sake, but in the end, it's an arbitrary call. One with some practical purposes that I won't argue against, but the point is, using such a term in a discourse against gay bigotry is, in my opinion, pointless because it doesn't impart anything new into the conversation. "Gay is not a disease" is synonymous with "Gay is not harmful", and that tack certainly hasn't worked.

[tracilicious]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

In scientific terms, alcoholism, depression, homosexuality, my distaste for tomatoes, high intelligence, etc., etc. are all equal.

I'm not really sure how this is true. Perhaps you are alcoholic because you have a predisposition to addictive tendencies, or perhaps it is because you went through a spurt of intense drinking for one reason or another and your body now craves it. You can be depressed because of an innate chemical imbalance, or because you are nutrient deficient or never get any exercise. Your distaste for tomatoes is likely not something you were born with, but the result of your current diet (not in a negative way, but our tongues get used to whatever it is that we eat). Often people that juice fast find that their taste buds have been "reset" and they like foods that they never did before. Likewise, high intelligence can be genetic, or it can simply be the result of a good diet as a baby and enough essential fatty acids at crucial points of brain development coupled with a stimulating environment.

Are you saying that in sciences eyes those are all genetic? There doesn't seem to be support for that. I'm not sure how any of this relates to being gay.

I think the origins of gayness is a poor argument to get into. I think it would be better to focus on mistranslations of the bible in reference to homosexuality. Since those that oppose it seem to be mostly Christian. If we were to have a correct translation, it's doubtful that most would condemn homosexuality provided that sex be monogamous after a commitment has been made.

[Alex]

Assuming that homosexuality is innate at birth (and I don't think it is, at least not for all homosexuals) then I think an interesting analogy would be congenital deafness.

It isn't a disease, but it is a defect (in the sense that it is well outside even a couple standard deviations form the human normal range). Technology is finally giving us ways to "cure" it but there are communities who strongly argue that there is nothing to cure. That they're fine the way they are.

But I agree with GD on a key point:

"Disease" and "defect" like "planet" and "moon" are social constructs without objective meaning. Society decides what is disease and while there is an obvious core, there is a fuzzy edge where over time things fall in and out of the category. 80 years ago alcoholism was a moral failing and now it is a disease. 80 years ago homosexuality was a disease and now it is a [moral failing | biochemical imperative]. Drug use has cycled through it several times in recent decades (for Nixon it was something to be treated, for Reagan it was something to be punished).

Personally, I don't care at more than an academic level why someone is gay because I don't really care that they are gay. However, if you're a Christian, it doesn't really take a lot of ingenuity to find biblical condemnation of homosexuality (this is one topic where I find the "progressive" interpretations more tortured than the "regressive" one). I'm reasonalbly comfortable with the idea that (if he was real) Jesus would not have approved of homosexuality (though that does not mean he would have approved of violence against or even ostracism of them). But then I don't believe he was anything more than a delusional preacher so it is equally easy for me to imagine he'd think Two and a Half Men is good TV, so that is a statement without much meat.

[tracilicious]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

However, if you're a Christian, it doesn't really take a lot of ingenuity to find biblical condemnation of homosexuality (this is one topic where I find the "progressive" interpretations more tortured than the "regressive" one).

I'm curious to know why you say this. The greek words that modern man has interpreted into homosexuality actually reffered to keeping young boys as prostitutes. The actual word for homosexuality that the greeks used doesn't appear in the bible.

Not that Christians couldn't argue about the whole man and woman in marriage thing.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by tracilicious

I'm curious to know why you say this. The greek words that modern man has interpreted into homosexuality actually reffered to keeping young boys as prostitutes. The actual word for homosexuality that the greeks used doesn't appear in the bible.

Not that Christians couldn't argue about the whole man and woman in marriage thing.

I'm never clear on which parts of old testament Christians decide to pay attention to and which they decide is invalid, but Leviticus rather clearly states "Thou shalt not lie with another man as you lie with a woman," the penalty for which being stoning to death.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I'm never clear on which parts of old testament Christians decide to pay attention to and which they decide is invalid, but Leviticus rather clearly states "Thou shalt not lie with another man as you lie with a woman," the penalty for which being stoning to death.

/eating bacon wrapped lobster.

[lashbear]

Originally Posted by Gn2Dlnd

/eating bacon wrapped lobster.

Not forgetting wearing a Poly/Cotton blend !