The point is even if it were a choice it is still okay to choose to be gay. Consenting adults.

Until you've worked out a common ethical framework for this debate, there is no hope of any sort of "coming together" (pun intended).

@ Cachimbo you make an intersting point. Do you mean that a discussion of ethics should proceed any scientific discussion? Moreover, do you propose that the participants should all be ''singing from the same hymn sheet'' (pun intended) before it can continue? Do you not think that this is a bit proscriptivre of a productive debate?

@ maple - I don't think the qualifier "honourary" is necessary.

@ fulhamish - I'm not trying to universally diminish the relevance of scientific inquiry universally. Just in the specific context. My point is even if we can scientifically show that people probably aren't "born that way" if that concept is important to the way someone thinks of themselves and their sexuality, then in some contexts, particularly the moral/social/political context, I think the lived experience of LGBT individuals is more relevant than scientific evidence telling people "actually you're wrong about the genesis of your own identity". Especially since you're using science, to attempt to explain a social construct. And you're right, it's not the enlightenment, when modernism was the new thing. Now it's the 21st century, and post-modernism is in many ways the dominant intellectual framework.

@Spyuman and Fulhamish - You realize that the same environment can affect different people in different ways. Aspects of our personalities havign nothing to do with a gay gene, could still affect the way we react to the environment. Let's look at two different people raised in identical environments. One has a natural prediliction towards argumentation and obstinence and the other is naturally agreeable and wants to please.

The environment in question would be a closed community of strictly straight, "God fearing" religious people.

The "wants to please one" may well be as straight and "God fearing" as his parents and community where as the rebellious one may become gay and athiest. Conversely, if the environment were a more open and accepting one with gay couples all around (including the parents), then maybe the "wants to please" individual turns out to be gay and the rebellious one becomes King Atom.

This would be a purely environmental result but different based on basic traits having nothing to do with sexual orientation.

@ Mafia that is a terrifically intricate hope to jump through so as not to cause offence. I think you are wrong. and that if we can't aim for the truth then we might as well not bother, but I commend you on it never-the-less. I just wonder, for example, if you would apply a similiar creterior to a young-Earth creationist?

The comparison between Queer identity and young earth creationism is completely invalid. When a queer-identified individual says "I was born this way." They're talking about themselves. No one else really has the right to say "Actually scientific evidence contradicts you. You probably became this way as a result of environmental factors that impacted the development of your sexuality between the ages of 3 and 5." That's patronizing, insulting and seeks to deny the experience someone has had of their own life. When a young earth creationist says "the earth was created 6000 years ago." They're not talking about anything to which they have some sort of agency over. People are allowed to construct their own identities however they see fit. They are not allowed to construct identities for everything else however.

The equivalency is also false because queer identity is socially constructed, whereas concepts such as the physical being of the plant on which we are situated , and, the passage of time are more ontologically valid. These are things which would exist in the absence of a social framework which attempts to understand them.

Draugnar if you are saying that the environment in which one is raised affects whether one becomes homosexual or not, I think that you are pushing at an open door with me and Spyman. We differ on its importance, but do not deny that it makes a contribution ( I hope that I have not misrepresented his views). I would however, extend my argument by saying that there is a rather large element of choice involved as well. I also doubt that the genetic element is of crucial importance, particularly in the light of the evidence which I presented earlier.

Mafia you miss the question of whether we should obscure/cushion the truth either from the homosexual or the young-Earth creationist, whose identity involves a literal reading of the Book of Genesis.

I also should make it clear, I'm not anti-science. I'm not trying to diminish the value of scientific inquiry. I just also think it's important to realize that science doesn't exist in a social vacuum, and I don't like the idea of science being used to tell people they're wrong about who they are.

Talking of ''Queers'' there are always these guys - http://www.queerbychoice.com/

I didn't say we should cushion the truth. I'm just saying if someone says "I don't care what the scientific evidence says, I was born this way." Then we should respect that. Because at the end of the day, you yourself get to build your own identity and it's not really anyone's place to argue with that.

That said, you're free to go on arguing all you want with young earth creationists. They don't get to decide what OTHER things are, only themselves.

Would you argue with this? -

"I don't care what the scientific evidence says, I believe in God and his word, indeed I believe that God created the fossils, geological record, background microwave radiation etc. 6000 years ago, when He crreated the universe. I live my life by it and expect you to respect it and not challange my beliefs. I find it offensive for you so to do"

I would challange the guy, but then again I think that frirst and foremost we must aim for the truth. Maybe this is where we differ?

Yes, I would argue with that, and for one reason, that I've said again and again and again, when he says the earth is only 6000 years old he isn't talking about himself. The "I'm offended you're not accepting my differing beliefs" thing is only valid WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT YOUR OWN IDENTITY. Is that clear? Do I need to say it again, cause I've already said it like 8 or 9 times. Your own personal beliefs do not give you the authority to make claims about objects/people other than yourself, if you don't have the weight of scientific evidence on your side.

I think you've also not quite understood a nuance here.
If we really did have consistent and replicable scientific evidence showing that homosexuality really isn't something that comes up at birth, and someone said "No I don't care, I was born that way." He would be scientifically, factually incorrect. It's just that because of the context, scientific, factual correctness is irrelevant, and social/moral/political realities make the statement true in a sense other than scientific, factual correctness.

@ful - I was actually fine with the proposed YEC's argument up to "when He created the universe" becuas ehe said he believed this, not that he was proving it or demanding I not follow his beliefs. But when he starts in with being offended because I don't believe like him, then he is offending me and should have the intellectual crap beat out of him. (intellectually, not physically)

Mafia someone's religious beliefs can be every much a part of their own individual identity as their sexual orientation. Why be precious about one and not the other?

I also do not accept that there are different varieties of truth. Indeed, I fervently believe in the validity of inter-disciplinary studies (e.g., geology and archaeology). At its heart your view of differing truths runs counter to this.

@ Draugnar should a ''Queer'' be offended if I do not agree with him, on the basis of scientific evidence, when he says ''I was born that way''. Indeed should I say it at all, not apparantly in Mafia's world.

Yes, but regardless, their own religious beliefs don't give them the authority to say things about anything beyond themselves. Also, you might deride my relativism, but if you say you think archaeology is valid that's inconsistent, as anyone with an educational background in anthropology (of which archaeology is a branch) understands the importance of cultural/social relativism.

"Indeed should I say it at all, not apparantly in Mafia's world." - That is not what I said. I don't think you're actually reading my posts. It looks kinda like you're just reading the first sentence and as long as it doesn't read "Actually never mind, you're completely right, and I'm totally wrong fulhamish" you post something that you think is a rebuttal to it, but completely misses the point.

The point is that saying "I was born that way" is like George Thoroughgood saying "On the day I was born... The head nurse spoke up... She could tell right away that I was bad to the bone." No baby is bad to the bone and saying "I was born that way" is effectively saying "I was made that way and it's who I am". It's figurative, not literal. But saying "The earth is only 8000 years old" is literal and therefore some correction can be applied.

1) You say with reference to young-Earth creationists - ''Yes, but regardless, their own religious beliefs don't give them the authority to say things about anything beyond themselves.'' I repeat - Why be precious about one and not the other? Why is the young-Earth creationist fair game and the ''Queer'' not?

2) Does your belief in relativism extend everywhere or are certain truths fundamental? Did the Holocaust happen, are certain races intellectually inferior in comparison to others, is homosexuality a mortal sin etc? Or do you pick and choose where you become subjective? In my opinion without striving for the truth, however disturbing that might be, we can hold no absolute values; with your hypothesis ultimately everything is subjective.

3) As to archaeologists, in my experience, most embrace science and the light it can through on their research. I have, however, met some rather elderly senior ones who poo poo science and ''arithmetic'' as having nothing to offer. Luckily they are rapidly becoming yesterday's men.

Can we stop saying the Q word? Let's just try LGBT.

@ful - Did you see my view that we should correct that which is clearly intended to usurp scientific theory and evidence and that which is more of a figurative statement we should let go of.

Of course Draug it was Mafia who introduced it and I thought that I would adopt it as gay (which I had previously used) might have been offensive. I will stick to homosexual if you don't mind as I don't really like acronyms.

@ful - Did you see my view that we should correct that which is clearly intended to usurp scientific theory and evidence and that which is more of a figurative statement we should let go of.

Draug, I must have missed that, could you repost it please? Thank you.

I'm good with that and with gay as well. The homosexual male community refers to themselves as gay. Hell, that's what the G stands for in L)esbian, G)ay, B)isexual, T)ransexual.

"The point is that saying "I was born that way" is like George Thoroughgood saying "On the day I was born... The head nurse spoke up... She could tell right away that I was bad to the bone." No baby is bad to the bone and saying "I was born that way" is effectively saying "I was made that way and it's who I am". It's figurative, not literal. But saying "The earth is only 8000 years old" is literal and therefore some correction can be applied."

Reposted for you.

And if a gay man insisted it was purely genetics, then I say correct him. But to just say he was born that way is a turn of a phrase when what he is really implying is he didn't have a conscious choice in the matter.

I did see it and I apologise for not replying earlier. I agree with what you say as far as it goes, of course. The question is that if a gay man said to you ''I was born that way'', would you counter with something like - '' I fully accept that you feel that you had no choice in the matter, but I believe that your early environment likely had an effect* and it is possible that on some level you might even have chosen this lifestyle''. Or would you wait for the ''it is in my genes'' canard, before you responded?

* you said this earlier.

If it is the former than there is nothing between us, if it is the latter then perhaps there is; especially if you would adopt a differing tack to our hypothetical young-Earth creationist.