4 ms·

Others are pointing out that non-genetic biological factors (e.g. prenatal hormones) can still mean that a person's sexuality could still be determined (or sign

by abeppu 6y ago

Others are pointing out that non-genetic biological factors (e.g. prenatal hormones) can still mean that a person's sexuality could still be determined (or significantly predisposed) at birth. And others are pointing out that gay people shouldn't need to argue that they were born gay, with the implication that if a choice were possible there would be a right or a wrong choice justifying marginalization or shaming or discrimination. But I think it's worth flipping around: What is the source of some people's persistent desire to legislate, regulate, punish, mock or vilify other people's loving relationships? Whenever I encounter this behavior in others, I hope that it's just a phase that they'll grow out of. I worry that they'll pass these traits on to kids by modeling their behavior in public. I'm guessing the cause is cultural. I wonder if it can be fixed.

krapp 6y ago
> What is the source of some people's persistent desire to legislate, regulate, punish, mock or vilify other people's loving relationships? Western morals are still primarily rooted in Judeo-Christian beliefs which see any sexual expression other than heterosexual, monogamous sex within Christian marriage to be sinful, or at least taboo. The Bible condemns homosexual sex but in theory not homosexuality itself, as the "heterosexual/homosexual" dynamic is a modern invention which would not have existed at the time, but in practice Christendom considers any orientation besides heterosexuality to be at best a form of sexual deviance and immorality, sometimes seen as equivalent to pedophilia and bestiality, and at worst and affront to God. LGBT sexuality is also often seen as undermining the mainstream paradigms of masculinity and femininity, and by extension gender roles, and by further extension the traditional foundations of society itself.
- abeppu 6y ago
  Yeah, but the bible also is disapproving of premarital sex between straight people, but I don't remember seeing people fight over whether fornicators should be allowed in the military, or could adopt children. The Bible also disapproves of people who contact swine, but no one fights for the rights of employers to fire pork-eaters based on their religious convictions. Or people wearing clothing of mixed fibers, etc. And Jesus said it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god, but no one really debates whether Christians in the bible belt would be willing to vote for a rich guy. All this is to say, I don't think "the Bible condemns it" is a sufficient explanation for some straight people's fixation with gay sex. That preoccupation seems downright unhealthy. Maybe someone should put it in the DSM.
  - runsWphotons 6y ago
    Just because you don't remember doesn't mean it didn't happen. The conversation needs more specification here. Are we talking about the US? Europe? I'm not faulting your comment, the whole chain seems totally mixed up. Like the Bible has been brought into it, but in a weird way---just because something is condemned somewhere in the Bible doesn't tell us the teaching for Christians. The rule about wearing of mixed fibres has an underlying symbolism and purpose. Christians are exempt from most dietary laws in the Bible. Adultery is technically punishable by dishonourable discharge in the modern US military (idk how often it's enforced). They don't seem to worry about fornication now, but in some places and times that debate has been had. Allowing "fornicators" to adopt children is probably very new (and even difficult still). I am commenting just to express my confusion at this change and to say that I think there is a coherent way to make an argument based on Christian tradition and teaching which is not sunk by the supposed inconsistencies pointed out here. If you want to fight the idea that some of the opposition is truly religious (as opposed to some underlying disorder), it would be more interesting to fight a stronger argument. [edit: change --->charge].

by abeppu 6y ago

krapp 6y ago

> What is the source of some people's persistent desire to legislate, regulate, punish, mock or vilify other people's loving relationships? Western morals are still primarily rooted in Judeo-Christian beliefs which see any sexual expression other than heterosexual, monogamous sex within Christian marriage to be sinful, or at least taboo. The Bible condemns homosexual sex but in theory not homosexuality itself, as the "heterosexual/homosexual" dynamic is a modern invention which would not have existed at the time, but in practice Christendom considers any orientation besides heterosexuality to be at best a form of sexual deviance and immorality, sometimes seen as equivalent to pedophilia and bestiality, and at worst and affront to God. LGBT sexuality is also often seen as undermining the mainstream paradigms of masculinity and femininity, and by extension gender roles, and by further extension the traditional foundations of society itself.

abeppu 6y ago
Yeah, but the bible also is disapproving of premarital sex between straight people, but I don't remember seeing people fight over whether fornicators should be allowed in the military, or could adopt children. The Bible also disapproves of people who contact swine, but no one fights for the rights of employers to fire pork-eaters based on their religious convictions. Or people wearing clothing of mixed fibers, etc. And Jesus said it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god, but no one really debates whether Christians in the bible belt would be willing to vote for a rich guy. All this is to say, I don't think "the Bible condemns it" is a sufficient explanation for some straight people's fixation with gay sex. That preoccupation seems downright unhealthy. Maybe someone should put it in the DSM.
- runsWphotons 6y ago
  Just because you don't remember doesn't mean it didn't happen. The conversation needs more specification here. Are we talking about the US? Europe? I'm not faulting your comment, the whole chain seems totally mixed up. Like the Bible has been brought into it, but in a weird way---just because something is condemned somewhere in the Bible doesn't tell us the teaching for Christians. The rule about wearing of mixed fibres has an underlying symbolism and purpose. Christians are exempt from most dietary laws in the Bible. Adultery is technically punishable by dishonourable discharge in the modern US military (idk how often it's enforced). They don't seem to worry about fornication now, but in some places and times that debate has been had. Allowing "fornicators" to adopt children is probably very new (and even difficult still). I am commenting just to express my confusion at this change and to say that I think there is a coherent way to make an argument based on Christian tradition and teaching which is not sunk by the supposed inconsistencies pointed out here. If you want to fight the idea that some of the opposition is truly religious (as opposed to some underlying disorder), it would be more interesting to fight a stronger argument. [edit: change --->charge].