(Im)mutability of Same Gender Attraction

[MikeWaters]

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.

A certain contribution will be genetic (complex, not a single gene). A certain contribution will be from in utero environmental exposure (mother's hormone milieu, infection, mother's immune response, placenta, etc), and then a certain percentage will be post-birth measurable environmental exposure (chemicals, toxins, formula feed, etc). And then a percentage will be more complex, more difficult to understand and measure environmental factors.

Ironically, the formulation above is the same formulation used in describing complex "unsolved" diseases, like schizophrenia.

[creekster]

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?

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.

Money is surely important to many gay couples (and understandably so). But I think the agenda goes deeper than this. Some simply want acceptance. Some want leverage to force more acceptance in other areas. Some want this as a springboard to other social changes. The purposes are varied, just as our views in this forum are varied.

[UtahDan]

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.

I see what you are saying, and I think this is what SU is saying too. That is, there is an impulse to say we should give it to them because they can't help the fact that they want it. My argument is not a legal one either. What I am saying is take as a given that they can't help that they want it and you still have to answer the moral question of whether you recognize that as a legitimate want.

Or assume the opposite, that it is purely a choice. Once still has to decide the moral question of whether you recognize it as a legitimate desire.

I think you are correct that as more people view it as immutable they are also more likely to view it as moral (or at least not immoral) but I think that is interesting too because this would appear to be an appeal more to sympathy than reason, which is not at all illegitimate, but just interesting.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

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.

I'm not criticizing the free love movement, it was a necessary social movement, which unlike most other movements, was organic, something where people put their money where their mouths were.

Free love was a social movement countering the repressive, and hypocritical mores of the vestiges of Victorian objectification of sexual activities. It was inherently counter-cultural. And it celebrated its non-conformity freely by rejecting marriage, as a cultural norm.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I see what you are saying, and I think this is what SU is saying too. That is, there is an impulse to say we should give it to them because they can't help the fact that they want it. My argument is not a legal one either. What I am saying is take as a given that they can't help that they want it and you still have to answer the moral question of whether you recognize that as a legitimate want.

Or assume the opposite, that it is purely a choice. Once still has to decide the moral question of whether you recognize it as a legitimate desire.

I think you are correct that as more people view it as immutable they are also more likely to view it as moral (or at least not immoral) but I think that is interesting too because this would appear to be an appeal more to sympathy than reason, which is not at all illegitimate, but just interesting.

Well put. And is it an imperative to approve of a desire becasue it is immutable? I don't think so. Apparently SU does. I think his position is inherently unworkable.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

Money is surely important to many gay couples (and understandably so). But I think the agenda goes deeper than this. Some simply want acceptance. Some want leverage to force more acceptance in other areas. Some want this as a springboard to other social changes. The purposes are varied, just as our views in this forum are varied.

I'm simplifying for arguments sake, but it's about money and power. By achieving this status, they get more government benefits, and by imposing the standard on society, they achieve disproportionate stature in terms of power.

Most find these terms unfavorable. In political terms, they are the only true commodities of the marketplace. If you don't have power and/or money, you're broke and meaningless. So the power groups have determined this is their road to greater power, money and control. Surely, we are old and mature here to not find any political movement to be about anything else.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I'm simplifying for arguments sake, but it's about money and power. By achieving this status, they get more government benefits, and by imposing the standard on society, they achieve disproportionate stature in terms of power.

Most find these terms unfavorable. In political terms, they are the only true commodities of the marketplace. If you don't have power and/or money, you're broke and meaningless. So the power groups have determined this is their road to greater power, money and control. Surely, we are old and mature here to not find any political movement to be about anything else.

Money and power? Sure. ALso romatnic love and intimacy, per SU.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

Money and power? Sure. ALso romatnic love and intimacy, per SU.

Governmental certificates are about money and power. Romance and love exist irrespective of governmental certificates.

I agree with Adam that the LDS church should abandon marriage altogether and to create "sealings" which do not require governmental approval. If sealed couples desire governmental approval, let them do that.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by creekster

Well put. And is it an imperative to approve of a desire becasue it is immutable? I don't think so. Apparently SU does. I think his position is inherently unworkable.

No, he doesn't really think that. He is just lashing out wildly in his wrath. He also wants it to be all about this single point because it is easy ground to defend. That is why he didn't address my point other than to call me names (which I think DDD would agree is just foreplay).

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

No, he doesn't really think that. He is just lashing out wildly in his wrath. He also wants it to be all about this single point because it is easy ground to defend. That is why he didn't address my point other than to call me names (which I think DDD would agree is just foreplay).

Let's be honest here.

Gays now have acceptability; they have credibility. The marriage is about increased power and money.

Where are gays excluded outside of orthodox religious groups? No where.

If Seattle would admit the truth, the movement is about money and power, I'd respect him for that. It makes no sense to divide up government spoils based on how or with whom you have sex.