Why Am I Against Gay Marriage?

[Joseph Antley]

I actually was at Professor George's forum but I fell asleep during it... (give me a break, I was up all night before writing a paper. At least I went.)

I guess I should re-watch it.

[Honorentheos]

Marriage is not just a sex act between two physical bodies.

Exactly, littlechild. To be honest, this should be stressed more in the debate. It is about people who love each other and want the same state-sanctioned ability to marry as others who were born to love differently than they.

That's about as simple as it gets.

I view homosexuality as a dysfunctionality, as a gender attraction disorder. What is the homosexual agenda doing to my worldview? They are saying that I am homophobic merely because I see the situation differently than they do. They are requiring, or attempting to require, that I relinquish my conscience, my sense of right and wrong, in order to accommodate their behavior.

Hence the problem. The question is if your view is correct or if homosexuality is not any more of a dysfunction than any other birth condition that makes people different than others. If it is the later, then you are homophobic and are enacting your personal bigotry in the public legal arena. It's also that simple.

Every family requires masculine and feminine role models - there are differences in males and females which working together advance our development as a society. These two energies, in balance, are beneficial to society. Men tend toward individuality and independence, women tend toward communality, and toward nurture and care, in many ways these two opposites create a dynamic tension which is ultimately beneficial at both the family unit level and in the broader society.

Despite the weird new-age vibe to your thoughts, the first sentence is not a prerequisite to having a family in the US. And the later is also too simple. Do you know any gays or lesbians? They happen to be as individual as you or I with both masculine and feminine traits (not always in coorelation to their plumbing either) that makes your thoughts seem text-book sterile without having real world validation.

The gay agenda is to deny those realities and overthrow them in the pursuit of selfish sexual gratification.

You need to talk to a few gays/lesbians. Really.

The effect of the gay marriage proposal would be to silence any critic. We would be forced to proclaim that the emperor is wearing clothes that he doesn't have. They would drive into the closet anyone who believes any other way than that gay marriage is good. Already the gestapo are out driving people from their employment and making them the victims of political correctness. It's time we said 'enough already.'

I do not agree with how some are handling the recent votes. But I also think that you should understand that many people feel hurt by he results of your beliefs. You're as much an example of the gestapo to them as they are to you.

[Honorentheos]

Are you married? If you were to be married, what sorts of things would you want in your future wife? (I'm assuming here you are a man.)

On the flip side, if you had SSA, what sorts of things would you want in your future partner?

Are those two things different? Fundamentally so? For me, they are. In my search for a wife I looked for qualities that no gay partner could ever possess (for biological reasons alone) which have nothing to do with attraction or a priori assumptions about how people feel towards each other.

You seem to have missed the point. The part of my relationship that would fundamentally change is not how loving or committed I would be. I tried to make it clear with the last question I posed (on my previous post) which you snipped out in your response to me. Try to answer honestly within yourself if 'marriage' would mean something fundamentally different if suddenly 99.9% of marriages were gay unions.

Zeta-Flux-

I left the later out for the reason that it goes away if you realize that gay/lesbian marriages can be about love, committment, and all of hte same things that your traditional marriage is founded on.

Break it down for me - what would be different? You mentioned biology as one. And I say, that's your problem. You think that a man can not love another man the same way you love your wife. Why not?

[markwhannig]

Why is gay marriage so bad? I understand the religious views, but I don't like trying to force my religious views in law. I'm pretty conflicted on this issue. I know that homosexual activity is a sin, but why should I care if homosexuals can "marry" each other? It's all about a label, isn't it? Or should I not want them to get tax benefits?

Judging from your photo, I take it you like BYU sports.

SSM-activists will, I suspect, use a historical tactic: they will apply political pressure to state schools from SSM-states to begin boycotting competition against BYU teams.

As my 12 y.o. daughter sometimes says with a certain inflection when we are about to witness an inevitable event: "Wait for it. Wait for it."

Respectfully,

Mark Hannig

[Joseph Antley]

Judging from your photo, I take it you like BYU sports.

SSM-activists will, I suspect, use a historical tactic: they will apply political pressure to state schools from SSM-states to begin boycotting competition against BYU teams.

As my 12 y.o. daughter sometimes says with a certain inflection when we are about to witness an inevitable event: "Wait for it. Wait for it."

Respectfully,

Mark Hannig

I don't know, that seems like a bit of a stretch. SSM groups boycotting businesses is one thing, but convincing local universities to boycott other universities is something else. I don't see it happening.

And yes, I am definitely a BYU sports fan.

[markwhannig]

Exactly, littlechild. To be honest, this should be stressed more in the debate. It is about people who love each other and want the same state-sanctioned ability to marry as others who were born to love differently than they.

That's about as simple as it gets.

Hence the problem. The question is if your view is correct or if homosexuality is not any more of a dysfunction than any other birth condition that makes people different than others. If it is the later, then you are homophobic and are enacting your personal bigotry in the public legal arena. It's also that simple.

Despite the weird new-age vibe to your thoughts, the first sentence is not a prerequisite to having a family in the US. And the later is also too simple. Do you know any gays or lesbians? They happen to be as individual as you or I with both masculine and feminine traits (not always in coorelation to their plumbing either) that makes your thoughts seem text-book sterile without having real world validation.

You need to talk to a few gays/lesbians. Really.

I do not agree with how some are handling the recent votes. But I also think that you should understand that many people feel hurt by he results of your beliefs. You're as much an example of the gestapo to them as they are to you.

Honorentheos has displayed the essence and foundation of the SSM argument: a person should be able to marry anyone they happen to "love."

Now I'm not sure what she/he means by "love."

And I'm left to repeat the question Ms. Tina Turner has asked for us all: "What's love got to do with it?"

At essence marriage isn't about love. Marriage is about covenant, or at least social contract.

Reducing marriage to mere love is paramount to saying, "Who ever I love, I should be able to marry." Such a mindset has led to many a divorce when spouses happen to "fall out of love," or happen to encounter someone or something outside the marriage covenant/contract who they happen to "fall into love" with. Many soon-to-be ex-spouses call it "growing apart."

Also reducing marriage to mere love means that a person should be able to marry multiple people, for the mere reason you "love" them. Marriage indeed becomes the Big Love.

Furthermore, reducing marriage to mere love logically means that a person can marry whoever they happen to love, such as a sibling or a parent . . . or perhaps a pet.

If we want to insist that marriage is between two parties that happen to "love" each other for the mere fact that they happen to "love" each other, than we cannot logically avoid such a conclusion.

Respectfully,

Mark Hannig

[markwhannig]

I don't know, that seems like a bit of a stretch. SSM groups boycotting businesses is one thing, but convincing local universities to boycott other universities is something else. I don't see it happening.

And yes, I am definitely a BYU sports fan.

I wish people in the world were as civil as you portray.

10 years ago did you envision SSM advocates bringing suit against E-harmony to force them to serve SSM prospective clients?

Respectfully,

Mark Hannig

[semlogo]

I think the solution is getting government out of marriage altogether. The basic legal contracts (and that's what a civil marriage is - just a legal contract) can be called civil unions and be issued by Uncle Sam. Churches can then perform their own marriage ceremonies following their own beliefs.

[Joseph Antley]

I think the solution is getting government out of marriage altogether. The basic legal contracts (and that's what a civil marriage is - just a legal contract) can be called civil unions and be issued by Uncle Sam. Churches can then perform their own marriage ceremonies following their own beliefs.

I think Professor George addressed why that isn't a solution either, but like I said, I fell asleep. I still plan on watching it again.

[Scottie]

Judging from your photo, I take it you like BYU sports.

SSM-activists will, I suspect, use a historical tactic: they will apply political pressure to state schools from SSM-states to begin boycotting competition against BYU teams.

As my 12 y.o. daughter sometimes says with a certain inflection when we are about to witness an inevitable event: "Wait for it. Wait for it."

Respectfully,

Mark Hannig

This is the one flaw I see in legalizing SSM. Organizations such as BYU will be required by law to employ those who are violating religious principles.

As it is now, a gay person may be employed by BYU as long as they adhere to the honor code. If the law passes, I don't believe BYU can terminate a gay employee who engages in marital acts with someone they are married to.

[MormonMason]

"Joe and Joe were born different than us. You see, most boys love girls and most girls love boys. However, in Gods infinite wisdom, he made some boys love boys and some girls love girls. Joe and Joe are some of Gods children who were born like this. They love each other very much, just as your father and I do, and deserve all the happiness that the committment of marriage has brought to our family."

Pretty simple, I think.

...

Except for the fact that God does not make people that way. Environment coupled with chemicals in our food that tweak our genes may be far more responsible for the increase in the numbers in the gay population. It can now be seen that glutamates can affect certain genes involved in sexual behavior--but not in all individuals.

Consider that many of our foods have been filled with high amounts of glutamates as flavor enhancers for decades now. If the link is proven there will one day be a cure.

[semlogo]

Except for the fact that God does not make people that way. Environment coupled with chemicals in our food that tweak our genes may be far more responsible for the increase in the numbers in the gay population. It can now be seen that glutamates can affect certain genes involved in sexual behavior--but not in all individuals.

Consider that many of our foods have been filled with high amounts of glutamates as flavor enhancers for decades now. If the link is proven there will one day be a cure.

That's a guess at best. All we know is that mostly it is not a choice. It could be nurture, it could be nature, it could be both.

[Honorentheos]

Honorentheos has displayed the essence and foundation of the SSM argument: a person should be able to marry anyone they happen to "love."

Honorentheos wonders when it became normal board etiquette to talk around someone?

Anyway, let's look at the core arguement of your post -

At essence marriage isn't about love. Marriage is about covenant, or at least social contract.

I won't disagree with this. Marriage is, from a purely legal stand point, nothing more or less than a contract. Not even social. It is a legal contract that has very business-like qualities to it. Like all other contracts, the honoring and enforcing of that contract is necessary for our society's cohesiveness. When a person enters into a contract, one should be able to trust that the terms of that contract will be honored by the parties involved and upheld by the authority that presides over it.

The problem with the religious interference with marriage is that people place God as the authority over the marriage contract. And the God you are placing over marriage happens to be your god with your rules.

Only, we live in a secular society where the authority we presume to preside of the contract terms is the state. And there is no state religion.

So tell me again, Mark, how our society is prevented from effectively honoring and executing marriage contracts if adult homosexual couples are given the opportunity to marry under similar grounds as heterosexual couples are given this opportunity?

And honestly, while love is not the only reason people enter a marriage contract and is not necessary for one to enter in a contract as long as one is of age and can get a license, it is really poor form to imply it is not the best reason.

[Bat-Man]

Why is gay marriage so bad?

There is absolutely nothing good about it.... speaking of the marriage, itself.

The people of the same sex may be good in some other ways, but SSM, itself, is evil.

... in the sense that there is absolutely nothing good about it.

I understand the religious views, but I don't like trying to force my religious views in law.

Good. I don't either.

I just like to tell it like it is, regarding what is good and what is evil.

... without worrying about coming up with any excuses.

I'm pretty conflicted on this issue.

Heh, okay. Talk to God if you would like to be set straight.

I know that homosexual activity is a sin, but why should I care if homosexuals can "marry" each other?

What the heck do you think "marriage" is?

Marriage is the act of two people becoming one... sexually, as well as in every other way.

... and two people of the same sex can't do that, even though they may really want to and may really be trying to do that.

It's all about a label, isn't it?

Yes, with that label being either "good" or "evil".

Or should I not want them to get tax benefits?

I don't really mind that, particularly.

I just don't want to see or hear about them trying to be "married".

Obviously, some people don't really know what "marriage" really is.

[CQUIRK]

but why should I care if homosexuals can "marry" each other?

Why should you care that state governments want to keep (legally recognized) marriage between a man and a woman?

[shalamabobbi]

Now imagine that 99.9% of marriages were suddenly gay unions. Would these serve society as the equivalent of marriage? Would humanity and the family fundamentally change?

Now all that would be needed is some additional legislation that would allow them the legal right to pregnancy..

[MormonMason]

That's a guess at best. All we know is that mostly it is not a choice. It could be nurture, it could be nature, it could be both.

No, recent studies on the influence of glutamates on certain genes in certain insects and animals and easy modification of their sexual preferences by adjusting levels of glutamates seems pretty solid. Modifying the amounts of glutamates in both fruit flies and mice altered sexual preference and changed behaviors in both fruit flies and mice. By altering the expression of particular genes with glutamates turned normal female mice into lesbian mice, and in the fruit fly experiments cause male flies to go after males and females to go after females and behave like males.

Further studies have yet to reveal if the same can be said about humans. It is a fact that humans share many of the same genes with fruit flies and mice, which is one of the many reasons why we study them. Don't believe it? Check out the University of Chicago website and science websites.

[Honorentheos]

Let us contrast this statement -

...recent studies on the influence of glutamates on certain genes in certain insects and animals and easy modification of their sexual preferences by adjusting levels of glutamates...

(my emphasis added)

with this one -

Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

Continue reading with that in mind -

Modifying the amounts of glutamates in both fruit flies and mice altered sexual preference and changed behaviors in both fruit flies and mice. By altering the expression of particular genes with glutamates turned normal female mice into lesbian mice, and in the fruit fly experiments cause male flies to go after males and females to go after females and behave like males.

Do you really want these studies to apply to humans?

[MormonMason]

Let us contrast this statement -

(my emphasis added)

with this one -

Continue reading with that in mind -

Do you really want these studies to apply to humans?

Absolutely! It would then go to show that we have been screwing ourselves up along with our descendents by adding certain things to our foods.

There is no real contrast because gender is something that had its existence before our coming here. It just is not provable scientifically at this time. In addition, gender is determined in mortality by sex chromosomes--genetic anomalies and defects aside.

It would also provide grounds for seeking a cure or at least a possible treatment for what could then become known as a genetic disease.

[markwhannig]

The problem with the religious interference with marriage is that people place God as the authority over the marriage contract. And the God you are placing over marriage happens to be your god with your rules.

Only, we live in a secular society where the authority we presume to preside of the contract terms is the state. And there is no state religion.

So tell me again, Mark, how our society is prevented from effectively honoring and executing marriage contracts if adult homosexual couples are given the opportunity to marry under similar grounds as heterosexual couples are given this opportunity?

And honestly, while love is not the only reason people enter a marriage contract and is not necessary for one to enter in a contract as long as one is of age and can get a license, it is really poor form to imply it is not the best reason.

Honorentheos:

If the state requires those who enter a marital relationship to obtain a marriage license, then that couple is not placing God over marriage, and no one else is either. If the state chooses to regulate marriage so be it. Nobody is putting God over state-regulated marriages.

I would posit that one important and fundamental purpose of the state is to support families in their critical role in stablizing society. I would also argue that ample evidence exists that when familial relationships deteriorate, a host of social ills increase (crime, substance abuse, lost productivity, increased mental disorders, etc). Therefore, the state has a self-interest and important purpose to support families. Hence the LDS church's "call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

"Marriage" inherently involves a conjugal relationship, where a man and a woman become "one flesh," insomuch as they have potential to produce children, even if the potential is never realized. Producing and rearing children is so fundamental to the "marital" relationship, the Latin root "marit-" is associated with the idea of husbandry, raising fruit. You can join same-sex partners, but it is not "marriage", its not "maritare." Call it what it is--call it something besides "marriage."

You ask: "how our society is prevented from effectively honoring and executing marriage contracts if adult homosexual couples are given the opportunity to marry under similar grounds as heterosexual couples are given this opportunity." Well, in an ealier post on this thread, I gave a list of some questions where I intended to prompt folks to think of the practical implications of redefining marriage as "same sex " (and thereby literally creating it as a new word because it has fundamentally changed in meaning).

Honorentheos, since we are talking contracts, would you be willing to guarentee with a liquidated damages clause, that should we redefine marriage to include same sex partnerships, the SSM community will quietly go their way and leave conjugal marriage proponents alone? Will you be willing to put your money on the line that SS partners will not sue adoption agencies that chose to facilitate adoptions to only husband-wife parents? Will you be willing to put cold cash down guarenteeing that no SSM couple will ever attempt to coerce a clergy member to perform a marriage when that clergy's faith instructs him that marriage should only occur only between a man and woman? (I could go on and on with examples of how SSM activists just might attempt to spread their gospel through force of legislative-making judiciary. Would you stake your name and honor to say that SSM activists will just leave traditionalists alone? In other words, at what point will you say that SSM activists will be satisfied?)

And finally, ...

Honorentheos, please explain how you determined your moral basis, indeed "the truth", you seem to be alleging: love is the best reason to marry. How did you determine this to be true? From what cosmic source arises this absolute?

Respectfully,

Mark Hannig

[Honorentheos]

Absolutely! It would then go to show that we have been screwing ourselves up along with our descendents by adding certain things to our foods.

There is no real contrast because gender is something that had its existence before our coming here. It just is not provable scientifically at this time. In addition, gender is determined in mortality by sex chromosomes--genetic anomalies and defects aside.

It would also provide grounds for seeking a cure or at least a possible treatment for what could then become known as a genetic disease.

MormonMason,

I don't know that it is so easy to reconcile the notion that gender is eternal with the fact that while for the majority it is pretty simple, there are plenty of exceptions. And this extends from physically ambiguous genders at birth to innate self-identification issues where a person has male or female anatomy but the mind of the opposite sex. Take this study from 2005 as an example -

Defining Gender in the Brain

We'll probably disagree on this, but when the Proclamation on the Family includes premortal, mortal, and eternal gender identity and purpose as one continuous and self-understood thing, comparing it to the messiness of real-world gender issues makes these seem too simplistic. At best I think it has to become something that falls into the category of "We'll understand it better in the hereafter." for believers once you consider the breadth of the gender issue.

For me, it makes me very hesitant to withhold something as important to a person's social identity and sense of self worth as the ability to marry their partner to whom they are willing to commit to live their life with.

I really think that the religious aspect of this debate disadvantages people by smoothing over the complexity of the issues using "God said it"-type rationalizations.

The very complexity of the issue demands a more carefully thought-out solution.

[Honorentheos]

Honorentheos:

If the state requires those who enter a marital relationship to obtain a marriage license, then that couple is not placing God over marriage, and no one else is either. If the state chooses to regulate marriage so be it. Nobody is putting God over state-regulated marriages.

Our national history has been a struggle between the will and needs of individuals, states, and the nation as a whole. It's interesting to me that our constitution was almost never written or ratified because the federal conventions job was actually to revise the Articles of Confederacy. So many people were against a strong Federal Government that had the ability to tax that it took giants of men like Washington, Madison, Hamilton, and others who understood the desperate need for a national government. Most people at the time did not want the "miracle" that we view the constitution to be. It took along time (6 years with the evidence for the need all around them) to make that happen and a lot of continuous effort.

I say this to illustrate a point. I disagree with you. You and many who supported Prop 8 placed God over state-regulated marriages. You and those like you felt that the State was wrong to offer marriage to same-sex couples to the point that you want to see the state incorporate your god as regulator, if not overtly at least in practice, into it's own definition of how to execute marriage contracts.

We disagree fundamentally on that.

But I also believe in the process of American government; that we have historically been able to over come this insertion of the wrong-minded from the role of providing just governance for all. It takes time. And it takes effort. And some of it is going to be hoping that the values of justice and understanding can outlive prejudice and people like you who can not let them go in the name of your deity of choice.

Time will tell.

I would posit that one important and fundamental purpose of the state is to support families in their critical role in stabilizing society. I would also argue that ample evidence exists that when familial relationships deteriorate, a host of social ills increase (crime, substance abuse, lost productivity, increased mental disorders, etc). Therefore, the state has a self-interest and important purpose to support families. Hence the LDS church's "call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

"Marriage" inherently involves a conjugal relationship, where a man and a woman become "one flesh," insomuch as they have potential to produce children, even if the potential is never realized. Producing and rearing children is so fundamental to the "marital" relationship, the Latin root "marit-" is associated with the idea of husbandry, raising fruit. You can join same-sex partners, but it is not "marriage", its not "maritare." Call it what it is--call it something besides "marriage."

Again, this is why I find the recent court rulings in Florida on adoption by a gay couple so promising. It is putting this argument under the microscope and will force better, more informed public dialog.

Gays and Lesbians can make great parents, too. And given the fact we do not withhold marriage licenses based fertility should cover the remainder of your critique.

You ask: "how our society is prevented from effectively honoring and executing marriage contracts if adult homosexual couples are given the opportunity to marry under similar grounds as heterosexual couples are given this opportunity." Well, in an earlier post on this thread, I gave a list of some questions where I intended to prompt folks to think of the practical implications of redefining marriage as "same sex " (and thereby literally creating it as a new word because it has fundamentally changed in meaning).

Honorentheos, since we are talking contracts, would you be willing to guarantee with a liquidated damages clause, that should we redefine marriage to include same sex partnerships, the SSM community will quietly go their way and leave conjugal marriage proponents alone? Will you be willing to put your money on the line that SS partners will not sue adoption agencies that chose to facilitate adoptions to only husband-wife parents? Will you be willing to put cold cash down guaranteeing that no SSM couple will ever attempt to coerce a clergy member to perform a marriage when that clergy's faith instructs him that marriage should only occur only between a man and woman? (I could go on and on with examples of how SSM activists just might attempt to spread their gospel through force of legislative-making judiciary. Would you stake your name and honor to say that SSM activists will just leave traditionalists alone? In other words, at what point will you say that SSM activists will be satisfied?)

No. But the principle on which the arguments for justice, equal treatment under the law, and the very foundations of the Mormon belief in Agency should give you pause before wanting to restrain someone because they may abuse their agency.

It's what makes us different from the dictatorships in this world. We don't punish people for what they might do. We do what is right based on democratic values. We then deal with the issues and abuses that come with this freedom through the legislature and judiciary.

And finally, ...

Honorentheos, please explain how you determined your moral basis, indeed "the truth", you seem to be alleging: love is the best reason to marry. How did you determine this to be true? From what cosmic source arises this absolute?

Respectfully,

Mark Hannig

A person's sense of truth is a complex matter.

The question is not where it comes from, but if it would take an act of God before you are willing to consider you may be wrong?

On this issue, the answer may be yes for both of us. But at best, I would hope my sense of how this should be dealt with comes from trying to apply core values to the matter. For me, removing the "God thought" makes the OP's question the key question and leaves one to fall back on these values of justice, the right to equal treatment under the law, and my feeling that a homosexual person really is no different than a heterosexual one. Sexual preference aside, there does not seem to be any other significant difference between a SSM and a traditional (one male- one female) marriage. And certainly they seem preferable to many of the other family circumstances that can happen.

Really, you should be asking yourself based on your above points, "Does opposing SSM make you satanic? Are you in opposition to agency and are willing to sacrifice core values and principles to remove it for some people?"

[MormonMason]

MormonMason,

I don't know that it is so easy to reconcile the notion that gender is eternal with the fact that while for the majority it is pretty simple, there are plenty of exceptions. And this extends from physically ambiguous genders at birth to innate self-identification issues where a person has male or female anatomy but the mind of the opposite sex. Take this study from 2005 as an example -

Defining Gender in the Brain

We'll probably disagree on this, but when the Proclamation on the Family includes premortal, mortal, and eternal gender identity and purpose as one continuous and self-understood thing, comparing it to the messiness of real-world gender issues makes these seem too simplistic. At best I think it has to become something that falls into the category of "We'll understand it better in the hereafter." for believers once you consider the breadth of the gender issue.

For me, it makes me very hesitant to withhold something as important to a person's social identity and sense of self worth as the ability to marry their partner to whom they are willing to commit to live their life with.

I really think that the religious aspect of this debate disadvantages people by smoothing over the complexity of the issues using "God said it"-type rationalizations.

The very complexity of the issue demands a more carefully thought-out solution.

You are right that I would not agree. Gender for humanity is something that always has been from the very creation of man--irrespective of how that creation came about. DNA is not 100% foolproof, and man not only can manipulate it, man's leftovers often can as well. Many chemicals introduced into the environment are known mutagens and there are others which are suspected mutagens. It also is a known fact that some additives and components in our foods even now affect the behaviors of people the world over. Some are sensitive to salicylates. Some are sensitive to sugars of various kinds. Some react to certain foods and even can die because of them. The list could go on.

They are in our water and in our food. They are in our bodies as a result of what we have done. Sometimes, genes do not replicate correctly. Sometimes chromosomes do not copy and/or recombine correctly. Sometimes extra chromosomes are introduced by problems with the production of ova and/or spermatozoa in later years of life. Sometimes a stray cosmic particle knocks a few atoms off genes and they mutate. Sometimes they do not copy correctly.

None of these accidents and happenstances can be chargeable to God. In nature, anomalies most often did not survive. In today's society, we try our best to preserve what nature ordinarily would have destroyed and by our acts pass it on to succeeding generations. This is very much in keeping with my much earlier comments in another, long dead thread that no man is an island and that all humankind are interconnected in various ways, and so forth.

But, if there is a 'Y' sex chromosome present, the person is a boy in spite of other genetic anomalies that may be present. It is true that environment sometimes plays a part. But, it also does not change the fact that gender is inherent in the existence of man--and always has been from our beginnings as a species on earth. It also is true that science may have found a link to problems that have plagued man for centuries. I look forward to future studies. As a potential result of what we learn, it may be possible to correct problems we as a society have created.

[Honorentheos]

You are right that I would not agree. Gender for humanity is something that always has been from the very creation of man--irrespective of how that creation came about. DNA is not 100% foolproof, and man not only can manipulate it, man's leftovers often can as well. Many chemicals introduced into the environment are known mutagens and there are others which are suspected mutagens. It also is a known fact that some additives and components in our foods even now affect the behaviors of people the world over. Some are sensitive to salicylates. Some are sensitive to sugars of various kinds. Some react to certain foods and even can die because of them. The list could go on.

They are in our water and in our food. They are in our bodies as a result of what we have done. Sometimes, genes do not replicate correctly. Sometimes chromosomes do not copy and/or recombine correctly. Sometimes extra chromosomes are introduced by problems with the production of ova and/or spermatozoa in later years of life. Sometimes a stray cosmic particle knocks a few atoms off genes and they mutate. Sometimes they do not copy correctly.

None of these accidents and happenstances can be chargeable to God. In nature, anomalies most often did not survive. In today's society, we try our best to preserve what nature ordinarily would have destroyed and by our acts pass it on to succeeding generations. This is very much in keeping with my much earlier comments in another, long dead thread that no man is an island and that all humankind are interconnected in various ways, and so forth.

But, if there is a 'Y' sex chromosome present, the person is a boy in spite of other genetic anomalies that may be present. It is true that environment sometimes plays a part. But, it also does not change the fact that gender is inherent in the existence of man--and always has been from our beginnings as a species on earth. It also is true that science may have found a link to problems that have plagued man for centuries. I look forward to future studies. As a potential result of what we learn, it may be possible to correct problems we as a society have created.

The article I linked to discusses that the XY chromosomes are not directly linked to the role that brain development plays in gender identity.

Certainly, we have much to learn. It seems the direction we are moving in is towards one of greater complexity and a less-easily defined gender divide rather than to a more simple, eternal gender identity that could easily apply to the preexistance, mortality, and continue to the next life.

Until we have gained this better understanding, I choose tolerance and prefer to err on the side of what I percieve as justice. I don't think the arguments for the alternative outweigh this.

[semlogo]

No, recent studies on the influence of glutamates on certain genes in certain insects and animals and easy modification of their sexual preferences by adjusting levels of glutamates seems pretty solid. Modifying the amounts of glutamates in both fruit flies and mice altered sexual preference and changed behaviors in both fruit flies and mice. By altering the expression of particular genes with glutamates turned normal female mice into lesbian mice, and in the fruit fly experiments cause male flies to go after males and females to go after females and behave like males.

Further studies have yet to reveal if the same can be said about humans. It is a fact that humans share many of the same genes with fruit flies and mice, which is one of the many reasons why we study them. Don't believe it? Check out the University of Chicago website and science websites.

Oh, well that settles it then. Thanks, professor!