Homosexuality

[ FOLLOW THE ORIGINAL THREAD HERE ]

Opening statement by Sir Stabsalot:

Pretty clever...

PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) -- In a new twist in the battle over same-sex marriage roiling the United States, a county in Oregon has banned all marriages -- gay and heterosexual -- until the state decides who can and who cannot wed.

The last marriage licenses were handed out in Benton County at 4 p.m. local time (7:00 p.m. EST) Tuesday. As of Wednesday, officials in the county of 79,000 people will begin telling couples applying for licenses to go elsewhere until the gay marriage debate is settled.

"It may seem odd," Benton County Commissioner Linda Modrell told Reuters in a telephone interview, but "we need to treat everyone in our county equally."

State Attorney General Hardy Myers said in a statement that he was "very pleased" with Benton County's decision. "It is my sincere hope that the legal process will provide clarity for each of Oregon's counties."

The three County commissioners had originally decided to start handing out gay marriage licenses this week but on Monday reversed that decision amid a growing firestorm of lawsuits across the country, and decided instead to put a temporary halt to all marriages.

Rebekah Kassell, a spokeswoman for Basic Rights Oregon, a pro-gay marriage group, told Reuters; "It is certainly a different way for county commissioners to respect their constitutional obligation to apply the law equally to everyone.

"We appreciate that they are willing to say they are not going to participate in discrimination."

Tim Nashif, the spokesman for the Defense of Marriage Coalition, said; "Oregon not only has the only county in the nation issuing illegal (same-sex) marriage licenses, we probably have the only county in the nation refusing to issue marriage licenses at all."

"We are happy Benton County is not going to violate the law by issuing illegal marriage licenses, but we are perplexed as to why they would not issue legal licenses," he added.

Benton County, whose county seat is Corvallis, is home to Oregon State University and is seen as a bastion of liberalism.

Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union said it would file a lawsuit Wednesday against Oregon or an unnamed state entity over the state's failure to register the more than 2,550 marriage licenses issued by Portland's Multnomah County to gay couples since March 3.

Multnomah County, the state's most populous, is the only jurisdiction in the United States that continues to issue same-sex marriage licenses. Local governments from San Francisco to New Paltz, New York, have halted the practice amid lawsuits and protests.

This is probably the most interesting off-topic conversation I've read in quite a bit.

Seriously, I don't really see what the big hoo-hah is about. I mean .... Homosexuality in ancient Greece was not only extolled but sanctioned as a positive form of citizen-building; it was a normal relationship between Roman slaves and masters, and many Roman rulers practiced it (of course, it should be noted that exclusive homosexuality was frowned upon - because it would result in 0 children and Greeks, it seemed, were obliged to have them. Of course, the relationship between married couples was responsibility and reproduction, but it seems the Greek believed that only a fellow male could actually understand and love a guy). Hell, have a look at Greek and Roman mythology - the text is studded with gay couples . And turning east... Before Western culture seeped into Japan, homosexuality was considered an honoured way of life (especially among the upper crust of leaders). Homosexuality (and transvestism), it seems, was also common in Kabuki (as well as some Indian ceremonies), Japanese art, and samurai culture; I've heard that some ancient Buddhists sanctioned it as well, but cannot find documentation - will someone please verify? And parents of boys (for certain tribes in Africa and Papua New Guinea) found them older male lovers for the sake of sexual education - so that the boys would be experienced enough when he finally got himself a wife.

In fact, the mass condemnation of homosexuality seemed to have come about only when Christianity arose as a major religion (Leviticus 18:21 - 'Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination'. Hey, I still remember my Bible! Isn't it interesting, though, that they never mentioned women?) and started attaching 'sin' tags to all and sundry (I hope I'm not treading on anybody's toes when I say this), never mind that many other religions and cultures saw things differently. I'm not saying that Christianity is a bad religion; just that a number of its practitioners were severely misguided and probably had their own agendas and propaganda. To give an analogy: Hitler condemned the Jews and the Klu Klux Klan believed the world should be rid of blacks - were they both right, or were they just more successful in propagating their beliefs?

(While we're at it, here's an interesting piece of info: a bunch of US scientists recently did a genetics study on gay men, and found that the orientation seemed to be hereditary - ie. men with gay relatives were more predisposed to homosexuality than those with straight relatives. They then scanned the DNA of 40 pairs of gay brothers for genetic markers, and discovered that most of them shared markers in one region of the X chromosome, which further inferred that homosexuality was hereditary )

I'm not going to be overtly side-y on this matter, but I think that what it boils down to is this: consent. Just as sex or marriage between a consenting male and consenting female is not wrong, so I feel it should be between two consenting males (and anyway, just as heterosexual relationships isn't necessarily about sex, neither are homosexual ones... although I'm not sure I could cite all that many examples!!!). Bestiality is, I suppose, wrong, since your goat/cow/horse isn't likely to voice out its consent anytime soon; sex with a head of lettuce is just plain sad (and cabbage just gives you gas). But if two men or women are willing to commit themselves to each other out of love, and are willing to accept the responsibilities involved in that relationship, then I don't really see what's wrong with that - especially if it's monogamous. (If I were to discuss this even more liberally, I would hazard to suggest that homosexuality also seems to be an excellent way of population control in a world where certain countries are already overflowing with people). Not everybody subscribes to the same religion or belief; I don't see why it should be forced down their throats.

Just my tuppence. And no offence meant to anybody!

Cheers.

An interesting discourse, Recluse . I'm not going to contest any of your opinions, except for this (and even then, only for the sake of scientific reasoning):

Recluse wrote:

As far as this suggestion that homosexuality would be a good method of population control, it seems this concept directly conflicts with the whole "homosexuality is hereditary" idea. I mean, if it's hereditary, then you either have it or you don't, and the percentages of people that "have it" aren't nearly enough to make the behavior so widespread as to be anywhere near a plausible number for effective population control.

Your premise here seems to be: If homosexuality were hereditary, then:

1. Gay people carry the gene; straight people do not;
2. Gay people do not spread the gene; therefore the gene does not get disseminated in the human population

(For those of you who aren't interested in genetics, I'd advise you to skip this post as it's going to be a loooong one. It's probably also going to be irrelevant to the topic)

Now I'm not insisting that homosexuality is genetic (I'm just quoting what the scientists found), but if it is... Then your understanding of genetics is faulty, and I should perhaps elucidate:

Everybody has two pairs of any given gene - unless of course they suffer from trisomy. The two genes that occupy the same location on a chromosome are called alleles, and they may confer a dominant or recessive trait. Say for example, eye colour. If you had two dominant alleles for eye colour, you would have brown eyes. If you had one dominant and one recessive, you'd still get brown eyes because the dominant one would hold supreme. It's only when you get two recessives that the recessive (ie blue eyes) trait shows itself.

(Of course, there is a phenomenon called 'codominance' where there are two equally dominant traits. The best example would be blood group. The two dominant alleles are A and B; the recessive is O. So if you were to get either a combination of AA or AO, you'd get blood group A; if you had BO or BB you'd get blood group B. But when the A and B alleles come together, you get a third group - AB)

The scientists have reported a marker in the X chromosome - which is the sex chromosome, of which we have two (XX or XY) - which seems to indicate homosexual propensity. In a male, the X chromosome would have to come from the mother (who does not possess the Y chromosome!); the Y would come from the father. The probability that a child will wind up of either sex is 50% (go work this out for yourself).

Now, they don't really know much about this gene, or whether the 'gay' allele - let's call it Xg - is dominant or recessive (no jokes here!), but we have two premises to work upon:

1. Men inherit this allele from their mothers (ie. it is an X-linked inheritance)
2. Women do not seem to be affected, and therefore are probably just carriers

If a woman has these 'gay' alleles in both X chromosomes (Xg-Xg), then the probability that her sons will have the gene is 100%, as is the probability that her daughters will be heterozygous carriers (Xg-X). The chances that her children will pass on the gene to their offspring is 50% for sons (if they mate) and 50% for daughters. Now look at the math. Even if her sons do not bear offspring, her daughters and descendants will continue to disseminate the gene where, if it meets a Y chromosome, will produce a homosexually-predisposed male child. It does not matter if this Xg is dominant or recessive, as the Y chromosome will not have an allele to counter the effect of Xg (or, at least, that's what the research infers).

(NOTE: Having Xg does not necessarily mean that the sons will not reproduce - Oscar Wilde was gay, but he had two kids anyway - but it does infer that the majority will not. Those who do will continue the circulation of Xg in the neighbourhood; those who don't will become dead-end hosts - thus, control of the 'spread')

Of course, genetics is a lot more complex than the traditional Mendelian model (and the trait would probably involve more than one gene); however, this should serve as a simple explanation regarding the inheritance of genes - and how it is possible for the 'gay gene' to be disseminated in society even if a sizable proportion of the homosexual male community does not reproduce. Hope this clears up your misconceptions of genetics!

Of course, we are operating under the assumption that it is hereditary here, so if it should ever be conclusively proven otherwise, then this reasoning would not apply.

Recluse wrote:

Practicing christians, as well as many others uncomfotable with homosexuality, for whatever reason, have a relatively good case for feeling like they're having homosexuality...ahem..."shoved down their throats," by the "religion" of political correctness, wouldn't you say?

You know, you have a point there. Conceded.