Mirror Neurons: How Porn Works

Whatever the mechanism, that mental process which causes same sex attraction is an abnormality. Elegant physiology or not. Knowing this leaves one with a choice.

So, "Father"_Time, when did you make the choice, since you seem so familiar with this process?

Joe,

Interesting article. In the interest of level-headed debate, let me raise a question or two:

If sexual orientation was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be genetically determined - which no conclusive study has yet to show - would this not just raise another philosophical issue? The question then would become: Does genetics or any other force dictate my behavior?

Behavior of course is affected by social norms, that all would agree, or else why would there be this ceaseless debate about gay "marriage" and whether our society should condone it? But whatever the social conventions of the day, ultimately an individual must decide how he or she will act. This is the philosophical underpinning of any law passed in society. A prohibition - whether of speeding, murder, embezzlement, or other crimes- only makes sense if we as humans are capable of regulating our own behavior. The gay rights movement understands this, and so (in my view) it has done all that it can to smokescreen the issue, making it about "I didn't choose these feelings" and "equal rights" rather than the real issue, i.e. whether individuals should act in ways that society has historically prohibited.

One thing I'll give the gay rights movement. They are dead on to think that feelings are not chosen. Yet this obscures another equally valid fact, namely, that whatever one's feelings at a given moment, actions taken in response to those inclinations are subject to the will. Any other conclusion makes us nothing more than automatons.

Now, if we're going to use the "hard-wired that way" meme to condone homosexual behavior, then we should at least be consistent and apply the argument to other conditions that are suspected of having a genetic component. Alcoholism is the most obvious example, yet every day hundreds of alcoholics attend AA meetings. Why? Apparently families out of love encourage them to attend. But isn't that cruel? After all, don't they have a genetic predisposition to over-drink? Yet society knows that the stakes are too high. However the "deck" might be stacked, other factors play into the equation. The urge to drink may never leave, but the compulsive behavior can be overcome.

But let's be fair. This logic should be applied to everyone, and not just homosexuals or lesbians. The "I don't love you any more" argument that an estranged husband makes as an excuse for divorce from his wife is pathetic precisely because it seems to be saying that "love" is entirely a force outside of his control. Yet vows "to love and to cherish" were taken, were they not? At one time, love (as a proclivity or feelings) was strong, but ultimately the decision to love is just that, an act of will. When the feelings waver - as they do for most couples, fickle as we humans are - the decision to stay is still there. Behavior even for the heterosexual at the end of the day is an act of the will.

Unless we are cognitively impaired, we all have liberty, and we all exercise it. Whether we're attracted to the same sex or opposite sex, in the end, may not matter. What matters is how we use our volition. The argument is made ad nauseum in favor of giving the right to "marry" to gays and lesbians that it is downright unreasonable for society to think that an individual should refrain from acting upon strong feelings of love. But let's be honest where this logic is leading. The same argument could be used to scuttle what have to date been other longstanding taboos, such as sex with animals, incest, or the desire to have more than one spouse. Each of these desires can be very strong, yet society has chosen to place them out-of-bounds in interest of the well-being of the community.

Would the end result of approving gay "marriage" be helpful or harmful? Two thousand years of human history has classed homosexual behavior as outside of the mainstream, and the Judeo-Christian tradition still by a huge majority holds to this prohibition. Giving society's approval to gay "marriage" ultimately would likely lead to a push to lower the age of consent, since much of gay culture revolves around a worship of youth.

These are controversial statements made not with hate, but with concern. I'm sure that what I've written will just raise hackles in some quarters. The resort to ad hominem is bound to occur, at least from some respondents. There may even be a temptation to delete my comment and be done with it.
But have this conversation we must, if for no other reason than it's too important to ignore. And yes, I'd make these arguments to my gay cousin, Steve, who is a wonderful human being, but who would adamantly disagree with everything I've written. Isn't America a great place?

Thanks again, Joe, for an interesting post. I appreciate the contributions you make here at TMV.

Father_Time

You've obviously confused mirrored neurons with gay neurons and free radicals. You can't trust any of those tiny subsystems, they live to make you think dirty thoughts and perform abominations.

Everybody should take small doses of deuterium to off-set the physiology outlawed in Deuteronomy.

How did this get to be a gay thread? I thought we were talking about porn! Damn it, FT, you really are obsessed with gay people. Seriously: get help.

To the posts point: I do think it's interesting that the author of the piece brought up the idea that a lot of people experience pornography in the first person. I've found in almost everyone I've talked to about the subject that this first-person experience is somewhat unique to men. Just from the anecdata I've collected over the years, it seems that women experience porn in the third person -- like a voyeur. It's kind of funny -- this is why straight men don't get squicked out by oral shots, even though the only stimulating anatomy on the screen is the male anatomy. They just aren't experiencing it as a watcher. I wonder if this difference, in addition helping to grow the market for women-targeted pornography (pull out the mysogyny and make it with the third-person observer in mind), holds any clues to how the above mirror neurons might have slightly separate functions for women than for men?

Ok, so while this is decidedly NOT a post about gay anything-at-all, there are some points that should probably be addressed, since it seems to be the direction all y'all want to go in. FT is obviously obsessed with teh gay and is not reasonable, but maybe redbus is. You, redbus, make at least logical points on the issue -- I disagree with them strongly, and I'd like the chance to rebut, but you at least seem to have some thoughts about it instead of blind hate and rage. Here we go:

"Does genetics or any other force dictate my behavior?"
Of course it does, to a great extent. It certainly doesn't dictate *all* behavior, but I think it would be disingenuous to think that our physicality has nothing to do with our personality, which is certainly a large factor in our behavior. A lot of that stems from societal reactions to how we look or what our strengths and weaknesses are, but nonetheless, genetics certainly manifest in our behavior.

"This is the philosophical underpinning of any law passed in society. A prohibition - whether of speeding, murder, embezzlement, or other crimes- only makes sense if we as humans are capable of regulating our own behavior."

Sure, that's absolutely true *for compulsions that have a negative effect on other people*. We could outlaw anything that people like to do -- say, building model airplanes -- but why? There's nothing wrong, nobody's being hurt by the model airplanes, and while there's no reason to think that people would be incapable of controlling their urges to do the construction and meticulous painting of those little things, there really is no reason for outlawing it. This is the place where homosexuality is *absolutely* not in the same category as murder or embezzlement or any of the other crimes you list, or even alcoholism, from which the law or society says we need to abstain -- even if we were born with the proclivity to engage in these activities.

"What matters is how we use our volition." [in relation to attraction and love]

Ok, sure, and they tried this for thousands of years. Even 50 or 100 years ago, marriage was considered a business transaction between a man and the father of a woman in most societies. Still is in many places. If we're going to say that marriage or family has nothing to do with attraction and love, why do we single out gay people to deny the ability to marry the partner they choose? Why not go back to the times when Daddy saved up for a dowry, found a suitable mate for his daughters, and married them off by 16 to start the baby-making? Well, of course, the answer to that is simple: we DO value love in our society, and while this shift in the way we "set up" marriages has certainly upped the divorce rate, we also have people living in misery or ecstasy due to their *own* choices, not those of their fathers. So again: liberty to live one's life as one chooses.

"that whatever one's feelings at a given moment, actions taken in response to those inclinations are subject to the will."

Not an unreasonable point, but again, there are certain inclinations that should absolutely be suppressed -- namely, those that hurt other people or even one's self -- and there are those that do not need to be suppressed.

"The same argument could be used to scuttle what have to date been other longstanding taboos, such as sex with animals, incest, or the desire to have more than one spouse."

No, you see, a child or an animal cannot consent to sexual activity. Therefore pedophilia, incest, and bestiality are illegal. Consent among adults is why gay sex and gay marriage do not hurt other people. The desire to have more than one spouse? I honestly couldn't care less as long as all spouses are adults and consenting. Folding such an arrangement into marriage law would be a huge undertaking, but that's the only reason not to do it.

"Giving society's approval to gay "marriage" ultimately would likely lead to a push to lower the age of consent, since much of gay culture revolves around a worship of youth."

Why this is incorrect: straight culture revolves around a worship of youth to the same degree that gay culture does. In both gay and straight culture, there are many members who prefer youthful partners. How many straight marriages have been broken up because hubby or wifey found a younger play-thing? How many times have we seen dateline predators going for 13 year old girls on the internet? Even if there's no criminal activity going on, "Barely Legal" stuff is what most dudes look for on the internet, is it not? (Bringing us back to porn.) Normal 40 year old gay people want in a partner exactly what normal 40 year old straight people want -- someone to share their life with, generally someone on their level and at the same stage of life. Will there be some who'd much rather just shack up with an 18 year old piece of booty? Sure, just like straight people.

Whoa…long response…

redbus

One thing I would disagree with is the underlying concept of choice. If a person's person's sexual orientation is a matter of intellectual rigor and not hard wired response, why is it that sexual attraction of one group is allowable and one is not? There are a host of past civilizations that saw no reason to limit your list of our current taboos, so it seems to me your argument in this respect merely shows an arbitrary nature.

The philandering husband is also lacking the discipline you would wish that the gay community would show. That's exactly the problem with arguing the question, if gays need to accept society's morals, perhaps they lack the role model to which you wish them to aspire.

roro80

--[They find that brain activity correlates with sexual preference: the minds of homosexual men mirrored the minds of heterosexual women, and vice-versa]--

Whatever the mechanism, that mental process which causes same sex attraction is an abnormality. Elegant physiology or not. Knowing this leaves one with a choice.

Read the entire article before trying to counter my post with your opinion.


HemmD

--[If a person's person's sexual orientation is a matter of intellectual rigor and not hard wired response, why is it that sexual attraction of one group is allowable and one is not]--

Because one group is normal and natural and the other is abnormal and un-natural. Moral or not, these facts remain intact.

"Read the entire article before trying to counter my post with your opinion."

Urrrr....I did not "try to counter your post". There's nothing in it to counter. All it basically said was "I don't care what the research says, I don't even care what the post is about, I'm gonna make it fit into my own little bigoted view where I get to say gays are abnormal, so nanny-nanny-boo-boo". Since there's nothing of any substance to it, since you've pretty much lost all credibility on this blog because of your over-the-top gay hatred (and immigrant hatred as well), and since it most certainly didn't pertain to the post, there was nothing to counter.

Good discussion, and the reason I initiated it was Joe's line:

"They find that brain activity correlates with sexual preference: the minds of homosexual men mirrored the minds of heterosexual women, and vice-versa."

Granted, not the main point of the post, but there nonetheless.

Many on TMV put no stock in the Bible. That is neither here nor there -- It's a free country. However, a good many Americans still respect the Bible, even if we're woefully inadequate when it comes to living up to what's in there. Nonetheless, it's important to note that most attempts by gay theologians to explain away biblical prohibitions of homosexuality are so far-fetched that they gain little traction. It is telling that there is no blessing in the Bible pronounced upon gay relationship of any type, while marriage between a man and woman is repeatedly endorsed.

Now, is the practice of homosexuality as neutral as making model airplanes, as was suggested? I don't believe it is. This reminds me of high school, where our male physical education teacher always made a point of leering at his ninth grade male students (I among them) as we left the shower. This was nothing short of sexual harrassment, and yet because he was in a position of authority and we were afraid to say anything, fearing reprisals - push-ups, anyone? - he got away with it. What he did was plain wrong, no two ways about it.

Recruitment is the "fear factor" behind much of the opposition we see to the homosexual lifestyle. It is the fear that gay men and women in positions of authority, in ways subtle and not so subtle, are about recruiting youth to a lifestyle that otherwise they would rarely consider. (Reference the discussion here on TMV a few weeks ago about the " Big Gay Ice Cream Truck." I don't condone the hyperbole that some commenters got into, but there was a kernel of legitimate concern there). The flap over Proposition 8 in California was about this recruitment issue, if you took the time to look at the website and the stories posted there, stories stemming from real experiences parents had dealing with educational authorities in Massachusetts. And what about the Boy Scout leader flap of a decade ago? There is unfounded fear, then there is legitimate fear. Concerned parents don't just make this stuff up, and they don't think
recruitment is morally neutral, like making model airplanes.

The point about heterosexuals worshiping youth as much as homosexuals is correct. Thanks, roro80, for pointing that out.

As for Father Time: Unfortunately, his comments represent a caustic way of going about this dialogue, really more of a monologue. On the other hand, as a conservative Christian, I think it is safe to say that Christians in general have gotten better in recent years about listening as much as we talk. When crazies like Fred Phelps come out of the woodwork, we shout them down ourselves. Having said that, we don't think we're doing anyone a favor to just say "God loves you and so do I." Both are true, but the next question is: What does love require? And sometimes, love has to be tough, showing others that there are boundaries, even when we run the risk of being misunderstood. Christianity after all - for all of us, whether heterosexual or homosexual - is never about God leaving us where we are. Rather, it's about God taking us where we need to go.

redbus, I can't believe you're holding up the Bible as a guidebook to moral values and behavior. Well, yes I can. According to the Bible, I can sell my daughter into slavery, have slaves and stone a neighbor to death for swearing. Good grief, man. Ever actually READ that book?

GD

Don't quote the parts that doesn't fir his bias, that's blasphemy.

Hi redbus -- First, I want to thank you for your respectful tone, and your willingness to argue in good faith on a subject that gets people on both sides pretty riled up.

"Many on TMV put no stock in the Bible."

This is true of many, and admittedly true of myself. I have actually read the entire good book multiple times, and it can certainly be an excellent tool for building up ones values and morals and faith. My problems with using it as a tool to build public policy, however, are likely ones you've heard before: freedom of religion, separation of church and state, and the fact that there are so many things in the Bible that simply don't apply to our society today.

Starting with freedom of religion: we are guaranteed the right to choose to believe in the teachings of the Bible or the Torah or any of the religious books -- or none at all. Even among those who do believe in the Bible, there are huge chasms of difference among the interpretations, the level of adherance as far as details, what should be considered a "life lesson metaphor" vs strict history, etc. Fiddling with the ability to choose a religion or none, one of the principles most cherished by the founders, would be a terrible idea. We've seen throughout history and throughout the world today what happens when we make one particular religion preferred, what happens when we base policy on religious teachings, even when those religious teachings are Bible-based. Most people who adhere to a religion believe in God above country, but the government of this country is expressly forbidden from doing so by the Constitution. The government must be nuetral to Christianity and to any other religion, including NO religion.

Separation of Church and State: expressly implied in the Constitution by the freedom of religion clause, according to Thomas Jefferson himself, for the protection of the government against church law, and for the protection of the church from government law. We as individuals have the choice to live within both the governmental AND the religious sets of laws if we so desire. The government has no mandate to use the Bible as a source for policy in any way.

The Bible and Modern Society: If we were to implement all the rules that are laid out in the Bible, our society simply would not be recognizable. We would be unable to eat bacon, play football, wear cotton-poly blends, eat shrimp or lobster -- and these are just the silly little things that are mentioned in the same book as homosexuality, and do not mention that one of the Bible's specific laws is to believe in the truth of the Bible, which we already know cannot be mandated by our government. Now, that's not to say that there isn't great value in using some of the teachings of the Bible. "Thou shalt not kill"? Good one! I guess my point is that while the Bible is an excellent tool to structure our personal moral beliefs, it needs to be taken in the context of when it was written in order to extrapolate to any useful public policy.

So where should morals and compulsions meet our laws? I would say that if we have a compulsion that hurts nobody, even if someone might find it distastful or not to their own liking, it should be legal.

"This reminds me of high school, where our male physical education teacher always made a point of leering at his ninth grade male students (I among them) as we left the shower. This was nothing short of sexual harrassment"

I am very sorry you had to have this experience, and I most certainly would agree that this behavior was disgusting and highly unethical. I would say that this was not because he was gay, but because he was an unethical jerk, and far beyond acceptability. I can't tell you how many similar stories I could tell about lecherous teachers, male students, old gross dudes in the store, work collegues, whatever. Sexual harassment and sexual assault is something that gross men take part in regardless of sexuality, and it's an awful thing. I would suggest you stand in the shoes of a woman before you conclude that this is in any way unique to gay men.

"Recruitment is the "fear factor" behind much of the opposition we see to the homosexual lifestyle. It is the fear that gay men and women in positions of authority, in ways subtle and not so subtle, are about recruiting youth to a lifestyle that otherwise they would rarely consider."

I agree that this is the fear many people have. I honestly don't understand this fear. Are you equating what your creepy gym teacher did with "recruitment"? Did it make you think about turning gay? Yes, we need to be fearful of sexual predators and their ability to get to our children, but gay people aren't any more likely to be sexual predators than straight people -- see again my discussion about the "worship of youth" and the overwhelming sexual harassment of young women by straight men.

If we're talking about *actual* attempts to convert to a homosexual lifestyle, this is really a very overblown fear. Out gay people have had to go through their own journey of self-discovery -- they're under no illusions that you can "turn" a straight person gay, because they also know that the opposite isn't true. It's certainly the case that to many families of gay people, they see their child's coming out as having been "caused" by some gay friend or partner that child had. This has definitely not been the case for anyone I know (and I live in the gayest neighborhood in the gayest city on Earth). In most cases, the child (in teenage or young adulthood years) sought out someone like them to feel less isolated, and being around that person allowed them the strength to come out. It's definitely the case that most out gay people want in gay people to come out -- when we are truly touched by an experience that has been freeing for us and our ability to be happy, we want others who feel our pain to have similar experiences. This is not the same as turning someone gay.

Anyway, a bunch more to chew on, redbus.

redbus--

Well my contention with same sex attraction has nothing to do with any religion. Religion is totally irrelevant from my perspective. I simply believe that same sex attraction, coupling, ect., is abnormal, unnatural, and, by the comments I have seen on the subject, most probably a mental illness.

I must apologize to Mr.Windish. I am sorry if my personal belief offends you. This is an important political and social issue that I am seriously concerned about. I don't think it likely that I would get an effective,
(meaning believable), opposing view from anyone but from someone whom is actually gay or lesbian. I appreciate your articles on the subject. I also appreciate your articles on other subjects!

FATHERtime, your monologues are odes to yourself, your pandering to Joe Windish, as "Mr. Windish" is really laughable. You just keep squirting flaccid worms with all your ewww disgust of so many. Yawn.

Roro80, on the other hand, nice response to redbus. Thoughtful. respectful.

+1 to LionAslan. roro80 and redbus are doing a beautiful job with a difficult discussion -- I'm following with interest. (I had no idea so much of the homophobia stemmed from fear of "recruitment".)

FT, I'm straight, married, a biological science professional and not at all concerned by any sexual orientation issues, as long as it's nothing illegal or nonconsensual. Whether you find my comments "believeable" or not does not matter to me, though on other issues I often agree with you. But I do offer an opposing view and am not gay.

I think you're being naive about sexuality. Sure gay people could choose not to seek sex from someone they're attracted to. And of course you could choose not to have heterosexual contact too. That's an absurd notion. You would not live without seeking sexual satisfaction, and neither should we expect gay people to. YOU believe same-sex attraction is abnormal or aberrant. Maybe I believe it's abnormal or aberrant to be attracted to obese or anorexic people (I don't, but humor me here). I have no right to say that someone attracted to partners I'm not attracted to should abstain from sex because of MY beliefs.

Thanks LionAslan and Polimom!

"I had no idea so much of the homophobia stemmed from fear of 'recruitment'."

Think about the factless commercials put out for propositions involving gay marriage. People are really, really afraid that gay people are coming to get your children, or to teach them inappropriate things about sex (this is a whole 'nuther conversation, of course, but I think related). People were so worried about things like the children's book about 2 male penguins raising a penguin chick, and finding that book at a public library. Read with your kids -- if you don't like the message of a particular book, talk to your child about that message.

I think it's worth noting that young gay people are at a much higher risk of violence, ridicule, and "recruitment" from straight young people than vice versa. I grew up in an athiest/hippy/spritual household in a very Christian, small, rural town, and you better believe my folks were scared about my being recruited -- not by the gays, but by the Christians. And the other kids and their parents sure did try! Even the teachers, once I got into jr high and high school. Yet, my folks did read the Bible and other holy books with me, exposed me to different ideas of God, and let me make my own choices. Pretending that religion didn't exist wasn't going to keep me from finding out about it. If I had really been moved by Christianity (more than by other religions, anyway), they would have been supportive of that choice, but they wanted to be able to counteract some of the messaging I was getting from others kids. This is not just religion, or homosexuality, or drinking alcohol, or eating healthy food -- if you don't like the message going to your kids, counteract it, and let other people do what they want. Don't make laws forcing your views onto others.

This is a wonderful comment thread but I have to say it took me by surprise. I added the line about brain activity correlating with sexual preference because it was there but I hardly thought it would be the focus of the comment thread. The back and forth really covered a lot of ground so I'll add just a few thoughts.

First, I don't make the "born that way" argument. Instead I argue that being gay is a choice (a homosexual proclivity may not be). I believe being out, proud, and gay is the right choice. If we live in a closet, live hidden, we live in shame. We are a hidden menace. Then we are more likely to engage in menacing shameful things. Here I always quote this bust of men having sex at a highway rest stop -- of the 20 men arrested the only one who was not married was the priest. Out proud gay men don't behave that way. An out proud gay junior high school gym teacher will not be ogling boys coming out of the shower.

Father Time, I have never said anything about being offended by your personal beliefs. They strike me as wrong, much in the way you believe mine are. I'm happy to engage them. You are going to hold those beliefs whether I think they're misguided or not. Just as I hold mine. I would much prefer that they be stated and debated than not.

Redbus, I hear you. Others have done such a terrific job of answering that I have little to add. I do believe social conventions are dynamic and debated constantly. Divorce, pre-marital sex, teen pregnancy, abortion... we're always debating. We're perfectly able to do that. It's good that we do that. On age of consent we have different laws from state to state. I argue here that we should rethink age of consent laws in ways that take into consideration the emotional, intellectual and physical development of kids. The reaction from most is that is impossible. I argue it because I am horrified that we are ruining kids lives, locking them up, for doing what we did when we were kids. Just a couple weeks ago I argued here that we're putting our kids in jail for our own sins of desire.

Something I haven't said here is that it is entirely plausible to me that the increase in same sex affectional/sexual pairing is an evolutionary response to a planet whose population doubled in the last century -- that is... it took however many years (creationists say 80,000?) to come up with the population of the planet, then 100 years to double that -- and it is predicted to more than double again despite homosexual activity(!) in this century. It might even be that same sex pairings are a gift from God.

JWindish--

Very enjoyable comment Mr. Windish. Of course I disagree with some of your assertions, but the variations in your "possibilities" make for delightful discussion. You are clearly a gentleman.

I would comment further, but Senator Kennedy has just died and I am going to bury myself in a cognac and cry like I have for so many Kennedy’s since November 1963. (If there was only something I could do to give back something that family has given all us)

Joe -- I find your idea of increased gay pairings as an evolutionary push back against overcrowding of the planet simply fascinating. Like the unseen and blind watchmaker saying "Stop reproducing already, people!" I don't know if evolution really works that quickly on a global scale -- we have only had huge, overcrowded cities in the last few hundred years -- and I also have a hard time justifying how that trait would help in the successful reproduction that drives evolution, but I suppose evolution chooses for different traits now than ever before. I think it's much more likely that we've always had a similar number of gay people, and that it's just more acceptable to be out now than ever before, but I still find your thought totally cool and unique from what I've seen before.

A few more comments on an excellent thread --

To: roro80 --

The "separation of church and state" dictum is a reference to a Jeffersonian letter. The phrase is not in the Constitution, though some mistakenly believe it's in the First Amendment. The framers of the First Amendment hoped to avoid government endorsement of a particular Christian denomination. They never intended by the establishment clause to squelch legitimate public debate by citizens who just happen to be Christian (or for that matter, of any other faith). Unfortunately, the "separation of church and state" meme has become nothing more than a cudgel in the hands of those who wish to silence unwitting opponents.

As for the legitimacy of quoting the Bible -- Mark Twain once observed: "It's not the things in the Bible that I don't understand that trouble me. It's the things that I do understand." President Obama has said that Scripture informs his view on environmentalism. Good for him! But wait a minute: He's allowing his faith to affect his policy making? We can't have that happen!

The United States has millions of citizens who acknowledge the Bible as an important and influential book in their lives. Many try to live by the broad outline of its ethics. So, why is it so wrong to cite it as at least one authority (among others) when discussing public issues that have moral or ethical ramifications?

To: Greendreams -

You talk as if after twenty centuries of wrestling with Scripture, theologians still have no clue how to interpret it. Go to Amazon.com and order any number of books on biblical interpretation. Those kinds of superficial objections are answered, and in spades. Are there still interpretive disagreements? Absolutely, but the degree of shared understanding is surprising. The issue of homosexuality is one area (among many) where the traditional viewpoint stands, despite massive attempts in recent times to re-interpret the Bible to bring it in-line with the gay agenda. At the end of the day, though, it's pretty difficult to take twenty centuries of interpretive consensus and sweep it under the rug.

To: Joe -

Let's leave aside for now whether overpopulation is reality or myth. Your remarks on the topic as related to the incidence of homosexuality unintentionally evoke something like the genetic arguments that you disavow. How so? If - on your telling of things - homosexuality (or at least the practice thereof) is a good "choice," then how can you turn around and speculate that evolutionary forces may be setting more people up to be gay? That is just another thinly veiled deterministic argument, is it not? But maybe you can have your cake and eat it, too.

From another angle, your honesty on the question of choice in homosexual behavior is rare and refreshing; it also could provide a valid rationale to those who help gays leave that lifestyle. After all, if at the end of the day for whatever reasons one chooses to live openly gay, then logically the day could come when for stronger reasons the same person chooses to abandon that lifestyle. Of course, that idea is heresy in GLBT circles, requiring Hollywood to film caricatures about it, like the movie "Saved."

And so it goes...

redbus, I don't want to deride your deeply held beliefs and apologize if I have already. Regardless of what "biblical scholars" can "interpret" from the Bible, many of the prohibitions (shellfish, pork, etc) the prejudice ("judge not, but if you do judge a man, judge him by the length of his hair") and misogyny ("a woman should not speak but cleave to the beliefs of her husband") are relics, not of rules created, then changed, by an omnipotent being, but reflect the mores of MEN, which have changed over time. To suggest that the passages condoning slavery, for example, can be "interpreted" away, so that the rest can be "interpreted" as God's word, seems very intellectually dishonest.

As for politicians being religious, I wish that were not the reality in America today. Quite frankly, I do not want leaders who expect anything, especially protection of our troops, from an invisible magic man in the sky. I do not believe in a god who intervenes in football games, or is on "our side" in a war. I don't want anyone telling me it's "God's will" if a hurricane kills people or any other such supernatural nonsense. I'm a naturalist, not a supernaturalist.

FT says: " (If there was only something I could do to give back something that family has given all us)"

Sure FatTime, you could give all people who write and comment respect 'in the Kennedy tradition," instead of your predictable immature accusations and whining. You want to "give back"? Really? Then drop your ever-offended big mewling baby act. You're no Ted Kennedy "fathertime."

I believe sexual orientation develops in the womb, along with related things like "sexual identity" as well as initial physical development.

When recently in Iowa, I was in a bookstore, and though I got another book instead, about a climate-related issue, I spotted the following book there (used book stores are gold mines, as I say), and it may be of interest to some on this site as a general subject (far from limited to humans):

http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Exuberance-Hom...

"I had no idea so much of the homophobia stemmed from fear of 'recruitment'."

Polimom, wherever have you been?

I'm not homophobic and most of us straights aren't, but the issue of recruitment is there. However, it's simple enough to put into more of what should be its proper context. This typically involves the young, and it typically amounts to pedophilia. If you've met gays before or spent time around them (I have a friend in DC who's active in the GBLT community as well as other lefty-leaning stuff like animal rescue and veganism and such) you'd realize that they're people just as -- women are, say -- and they are largely not pedophiles, and despise pedophiles, like anyone else. (They love and care for kids.)

"any clues to how the above mirror neurons might have slightly separate functions for women than for men"

Innate differences. Place at least some of your wager soundly on the Y chromosome.

Hi redbus --

I don't disagree with any of the facts you site about the genesis of the term "separation of church and state", but just disregarding the idea because the phrasing comes from a letter and not word-for-word from the Constitution is, I think, a mistake. I'm curious if you've read that letter, noting that it was written by the same person who did write, word for word, the Constitution. In it, Jefferson says that through the 1st amendment, the United States set up a "wall of separation" between church and state. So the man who wrote the 1st amendment said shortly thereafter that the separation was set up by said amendment, and that that separation was purposely there, in that amendment. The Constitution has been interpreted by hundreds (thousands?) throughout the few centuries it's been our national controlling document -- why wouldn't the very person who wrote it get some say in what it means? The words "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution; the idea most certainly is, according to the man who wrote it.

"Unfortunately, the "separation of church and state" meme has become nothing more than a cudgel in the hands of those who wish to silence unwitting opponents."

No, it really hasn't. (And my goodness: In what United States are Christians silenced, anyway?) What it has done is to make sure that the government isn't forcing the ideas of one particular religion on those who do not adhere to it. The Bible is used in more free speech than pretty much any other source by politicians -- it's used every day! -- and this has happened under the first amendment. Nobody is trying to "silence opponents" -- through the use of the same amendment guaranteeing free speech, no less. What cannot happen, though, is for the government to say that because something is in the Bible, it must be made into law, or pressed upon people by the government. That squelches *other* people's rights to practice a non Bible-based religion, or no religion. The idea of "your right to swing your fist ends at the point where it hits my face" has to go in both directions, redbus.

"As for the legitimacy of quoting the Bible "

I did not imply that it is illegitamate to quote the Bible.

"Many try to live by the broad outline of its ethics."

I tried to make it clear that I have no problem with this, and that I think, in fact, that it can be a good part of anyone's moral development, including my own.

"So, why is it so wrong to cite it as at least one authority (among others) when discussing public issues that have moral or ethical ramifications?"

It's not! Not at all. But I think, as GreenDreams pointed out, that a few passing phrases in the Bible about whether something is ok or not should not be the only basis for policy, particularly if that policy has the purpose of taking away rights from people who are not hurting anyone (again: your fist/my face rights). Bible passages that talk about women are much more numerous than those that talk about homosexuality, yet in modern society we understand that it is neither ethical nor moral to force women to be subservient to their husbands by punishment of law, nor is it moral to stone them to death for infidelity, nor is it wrong to shake your female collegues' hand when she could be on her period. We must understand that these are issues that have changed. They have changed because our understanding has changed. We know now (sticking with the example of women), that if you educate women, they are just as smart as men, and just as capable of making good decisions. We know that touching a woman on her period will not give men girl cooties. Pork, if properly cooked, will not give us worms, nor will crustations. We now know, also, that gay people are not some low form of life just looking to do it all the time. We know that their desires for happiness, for love, for fullfillment and companionship, are very much like those of any straight person.

I will defend and support your rights to have your beliefs, to live the life with the faith that you find most fullfilling and true, to make yourself happy through the means that you have found -- just as long as your happiness and wellbeing and faith do not seek to undermine those of other people who might differ from you.

"Place at least some of your wager soundly on the Y chromosome."

Or, conversely, the decided lack of enough X's. You know, either/or. :-)

Greendreams -

I'd be interested to know where the Bible says this: "A woman should not speak but cleave to the beliefs of her husband." Those are quotation marks, are they not? There are plenty of controversial things in the Bible that we could discuss. I doubt we need to make more up! But actually, the Bible has done more to raise the level of women than any other document, from the elevation of women by Christ, to Paul's radical concept of equality between the sexes -- see Galatians 3:28 for more details, which, BTW, also says: "There is neither slave nor free." Something to consider when making broad statements about the Bible and slavery. It's a bit more nuanced than that.

roro80 -

We can go to things like pork, shellfish, etc. and point out oddities in the Bible. Why stop there? Why not talk about stranger things, like a women being chopped into twelve pieces and delivered to various tribal leaders? Or how about circumcision, or ethnic cleansing? Yet Christians don't care about these things, and as adamant as some are on the homosexuality issue, I've yet to hear a single American Christian suggest stoning them. (That's not accidental. No reputable Bible College or Seminary would teach that). But to each his own. Some study computer science; I'm content to use a computer. We all pick-and-choose where we want to go deeper.

As for the "church and state" discussion: Yes, I do think that's pulled out as something of a conversation stopper. In military terms, it's like a "flash bang" that's intended to disorient the person who would approach public policy not having checked his or her faith at the door. In our more honest moments, we would admit that we all bring some worldview to the table. For many, it's a humanistic philosophy, but I'm not going to jump up-and-down and say: "Stop right now! Stop imposing your godless viewpoints on me!" Thanks, though, for the further info on Jefferson. I still think the phrase is misused from what he intended it to be.

There are many good arguments that can be made in favor of the traditional position against homosexuality. Some (not all) of those arguments come from the Bible. In a country where so many call it the "good book," why not quote it, especially if one does so to further the conversation (and yes) to inform public policy decision-making? Dr. King cited the Good Samaritan in his fight against racial discrimination. Thank God he did; he knew it would resonate. So, Christians cite the Bible in the discourse about homosexuality and a dozen other topics of public concern. As a golfer, if I'm 200 yards from the green and have my four hybrid handy, I'm gonna use it. The Bible is like that four hybrid. Some think it should be off-limits, outlawed from the golf bag. Most people think that would be unfair. It's not the only club I'll use, mind you, but I'll use it, and when I do, more people will applaud its judicious use than boo me, because that's the deeply religious nation we live in.

This is my last post on this thread. Let me close by saying that I've appreciated the respectful tone of many who have posted here. Thanks, Joe, for an excellent reply. Keep up the good work. Now, if the GOP would only show the door to the loudmouth people who have made education a synonym for godlessness, they might have some chance of getting me back. But meanwhile, it's always fun crossing swords with some of the Dems here at TMV.

Hi redbus --
I don't expect a response, and I'm not going to respond to most of what you said, but I couldn't let this pass:

"I've yet to hear a single American Christian suggest stoning them."

I just must not let this pass, because brutal violence against gay and trans people is such a huge problem in this country (and is much, much worse in others), and while I would never accuse the entire Christian community of taking part in or condoning this sort of crime, I'd like to send a couple links of how people with major platforms are stirring up violence against these groups. Please note that these sites are spaces where there is an assumption of support for the gay community.

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/12600/watch...

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2005/05/...

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/3271/

http://bloggingfortruthmay2009.blogspot.com/200...

http://bloggingfortruthmay2009.blogspot.com/200...

redbus, I'm not the guy to get into a Scripture argument with. Many will be more familiar with the book than me. I'm surprised you don't know how much demeaning stuff there is in the Bible about women. Here's the "shut up and ask your husband" passage, from Corinthians:

"women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

And of course, from my college days, this little gem was thrown at me personally, telling me God wanted me to cut my hair:

"Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him"

Hi GreenDreams --
Just a few other choice passages for your Biblican enjoyment:

"And a man will choose...any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman...Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" Ecclesiasticus, 25:18, 19 & 33

"And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her." Ecclesiastes 7:26

"thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Genesis 3:16

Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do."

"When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife." Deuteronomy 21:10-13

"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife...." Deuteronomy 22:28-29

"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife...wives should submit to their husbands in everything." Ephesians 5:22-24

1 Timothy 2:11-15:"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent..."

Since you responded to me, here goes:

As one who fully supports the equal rights of women, I'm not unaware of these passages. Every woman studying for ordained ministry in the church has to come to terms with them. Suffice it to say that looking at these verses in their context clears up about many of the questions, not all. (For instance, the Ephesians 5 passage you cite actually begins by saying that husbands and wives should submit to each other -- that part is usually left out). Most Christian denominations do not allow for women to be ordained. That's a black eye on the church, and on the credibility of our faith in the eyes of society.

Yes, people are fomenting violence against gays. It's wrong, and it should stop.

Finally, just a small correction on the Jefferson issue above. Actually, it wasn't Jefferson but George Mason who wrote the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, and they were presented by James Madison in 1789. I did find some interesting commentary on them by Jefferson:

Jefferson on Bill of Rights

Peace.