(Im)mutability of Same Gender Attraction

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

Maybe not by looking at them, but it can certainly be dteremined by geneticv testing, right? Moreover, it remains an objective characterisitc, although its presence may be harder to discern and whether or not a policy based on immutability should apply to a diluted characterisitic is also a different question.

GEnetic testing has been around for much less time than civil rights. For all we know, they'll find a gay gene some day. More likely than not?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

GEnetic testing has been around for much less time than civil rights. For all we know, they'll find a gay gene some day. More likely than not?

Maybe, or even probably. Will they find a gay behavior gene? Or an adultery gene? Almost certainly not.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I just think in the end it is a moral choice that society has to make. I am unconvinced by cost/benefit, mutable/immutable arguments. It still all comes down to what does society want to allow.

No shit Sherlock. I don't care what you're not convinced by because you are alone (except Indy) in how you frame the issue. It is, however, a decision society has to make that has a moral dimension, and the source of that moral dimension is that gays don't choose to be gay. I understand why you want to duck the moral dimension.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You said immutablity was irrelevant. I proved to you it wasn't. What's your point now? Are you saying that the prospect of piromaniacs becoming a suspect classification in Supreme Court precedent means the Court or the public shouldn't make immutability shouldn't a factor? It's a stupid point.

I must have really gotten confused, because I thought we were talking about the basis upon which a legislature, or in this case a citizenry, makes a policy decision. Apparently we are talking about equal protection jurisprudence. I thought I was sufficiently dismissive of that line of argument that you would understand that wasn't at all what I was talking about. You are talking about how the judiciary interprets a constitutional amendment, I am talking about how a society decides what rights it wants to enshrine in a constitution. You are applying the wrong test in the context of this discussion.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

As we see with the Supreme Court's treatment of gender cases, the analysis doesn't stop with immutablity. But it's the single most significant factor and immutablity always takes the runner to rounding third base (rounding second base in the case of women). Gays have a Constitutional case because we all know intuitively their condition is immutable.

My cat's breath smells like catfood.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

No shit Sherlock. I don't care what you're not convinced by because you are alone (except Indy) in how you frame the issue. It is, however, a decision society has to make that has a moral dimension, and the source of that moral dimension is that gays don't choose to be gay. I understand why you want to duck the moral dimension.

It is really exactly the opposite. It is purely a moral question. One of my points in my original post was that there are many things that we proscribe notwithstanding the immutability of the desire by some to do them. This, however, is not the end of the analysis. My point is that one can accept as a given that a desire is immutable and this does not answer the question as to whether on balance it is moral or desirable (if we are to promote it) or immoral or undesirable (if we are to discourage it) or whether it is neutral. As I say, I don't think either side of the argument advances their position by winning on that point.

This is the reason why I agree with your point made else where that the church stands on must firmer ground by simply asserting that it is immoral and citing revelation as the reason than it is trying to argue costs and benefits. Your ire is misdirected.

EDIT: I should also note that I do recognize that immutibility is the hill you are planting your flag on because it is the easiest to defend.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

In other words, if I think something is morally wrong I am less inclined to prevent you from doing it if your desire for it is the result of feelings and instincts as opposed to a decision making process. But all sorts of illegal behaviors are the results of feelings and desires, maybe most. We do, however, make distinctions based on state of mind, for example, a murder of passion is less serious that one that is premeditated. But that analogy too is problematic because we are talking about giving a right rather than punishing a crime.

I just think in the end it is a moral choice that society has to make. I am unconvinced by cost/benefit, mutable/immutable arguments. It still all comes down to what does society want to allow.

And I am saying that the growing evidence for/sympathy with the immutability argument has a major impact on how the public views the issue and whether or not it is a valid right. I am not making a legal argument here (I am not crazy enough to attempt that). I am just saying that this is what has caused a sea change in public opinion, IMO. And ultimately, the public will decide.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

GEnetic testing has been around for much less time than civil rights. For all we know, they'll find a gay gene some day. More likely than not?

I don't think so. My understanding is that the genetics is much more complicated than "finding a gay gene." I think it's more likely that a variety of genetic attributes (please forgive my imprecise language) will be found to contribute to sexuality.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

And I am saying that the growing evidence for/sympathy with the immutability argument has a major impact on how the public views the issue and whether or not it is a valid right. I am not making a legal argument here (I am not crazy enough to attempt that). I am just saying that this is what has caused a sea change in public opinion, IMO. And ultimately, the public will decide.

It is odd, if one is to accept some of the political rhetoric and look at some of the gay activists, who can be very in your face, that they would seek an act of public approbation.

On one hand, for those older than I, i.e., Seattle, you will remember the sixties counter-cultural movement, which made "free love" popular within its segment. They were proud to confront the mores of then current society and co-habitating showed they were non-conformist.

And despite Seattle's lame argument that gay marriages are some how "traditional" and a societal norm, nobody other than Seattle can argue that they are societal norms. Travel to Haight and Ashbury, and you'll see non-conformity to be the norm.

So what's the big deal for a counter-cultural to seek the normative, legitimizing influence of something so orthodox such as marriage?

Dare I say it again, it's not for the stated reasons, but for cold hard cash. That's why most people do what they do most of the time.

And in reality gay activists are sell-outs to the counter-cultural from which they spring. If they were true to their roots, they would forever eschew the hegemonic tendency of hetero society to marry. But alas, the almighty dollar comes calling and everybody compromises their principles. Welcome to America, ain't America grand, where everything is for sale?

Needless to say, I'm skeptical about the motivations of most groups or politically active groups. Their real purpose is seldom if ever their stated purpose.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It is odd, if one is to accept some of the political rhetoric and look at some of the gay activists, who can be very in your face, that they would seek an act of public approbation.

On one hand, for those older than I, i.e., Seattle, you will remember the sixties counter-cultural movement, which made "free love" popular within its segment. They were proud to confront the mores of then current society and co-habitating showed they were non-conformist.

And despite Seattle's lame argument that gay marriages are some how "traditional" and a societal norm, nobody other than Seattle can argue that they are societal norms. Travel to Haight and Ashbury, and you'll see non-conformity to be the norm.

So what's the big deal for a counter-cultural to seek the normative, legitimizing influence of something so orthodox such as marriage?

Dare I say it again, it's not for the stated reasons, but for cold hard cash. That's why most people do what they do most of the time.

And in reality gay activists are sell-outs to the counter-cultural from which they spring. If they were true to their roots, they would forever eschew the hegemonic tendency of hetero society to marry. But alas, the almighty dollar comes calling and everybody compromises their principles. Welcome to America, ain't America grand, where everything is for sale?

I don't view it the same way as the free-love movement. And I don't think the majority of the gay marriage sympathizers do either.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I don't think so. My understanding is that the genetics is much more complicated than "finding a gay gene." I think it's more likely that a variety of genetic attributes (please forgive my imprecise language) will be found to contribute to sexuality.

I certainly agree this is correct, although again, this is far from my field. Of course, my field is to pretend it is all my field, so what the heck.