What does that mean, exactly: "related to homosexual behavior"? Isn't that a little over-sensitive? What's next? Expelling the football team because they all take their clothes off and shower together?
 

The school's I went to had that qualifier as well. It was absurd. They would get upset about pre-marital intercourse (and pretty much other things they deemed "innappropriate") and they still felt the need to qualify "homosexual behavior." It seems that they were against any sexual behavior at all, so it was a bit unneccesary to bring it up at all because it was already covered. All it really revealed was a deep homophobia in the roots of the school, which, you know, they can be homophobic all they want...it just indicated to me that I was at the wrong school.
 

No. Not against any sexual behavior. Just sexual behavior between unmarried men and women.

You don't have to share the religious beliefs of others, BTW. But the American tradition is that you respect them anyway- and that you not insist that their institutions govern themselves by yours instead.
 

"Homophobia," btw, isn't a word. It's an argument. It's an attempt to define a disagreement as a psychological condition- to manipulate language so as to win an argument which can't be won by logic.
 

"You don't have to share the religious beliefs of others, BTW. But the American tradition is that you respect them anyway- and that you not insist that their institutions govern themselves by yours instead."

This is an excellent point. I enjoy this American tradition. This is a good time to point out that institutions like this school have the rights they do in part because of the separation of church and state.
 

No, actually, homophobia is a very real condition that some people suffer from. Surprisingly, some people exhibit such a marked, visceral reaction to the idea of homsexuality that they react violently against homosexuals.

Or is it your position that this never happens?
 

"You don't have to share the religious beliefs of others, BTW. But the American tradition is that you respect them anyway-"

Oh I see. So, a few years ago when African Americans were being lynched by holier than thou racists I should have been respecting the beliefs that gave them the bigotry that led them to killing people? Since when is "American Tradition" a standard for what is right?

I'm all for respect, but not when it persecutes people.
 

I'm all for respect, but not when it persecutes people.

Well, first, African Americans are not all gay, and not all gays are African Americans. To equate the plight of the African American with homosexual behavior is an affront to all that has been done on behalf of the African American in the USA. Racism is wrong, and the actions they produce are horrific. Expelling someone from school because their behavior violates the school code, regardless of what that behavior is, is not the same as lynching an African American. This is a ridiculous attempt to legitimize the homosexual lifestyle. Secondly, then, according to your statement quoted above, you must, truly be "in the Christian's corner" as they suffer persecution, torture and death all across the world on a daily basis. We're not talking about killing the offending girl(s), but neither does the school have to accept the behavior that breaks their code simply because, in this instance, it happens to be a homosexual act.
 

I was talking about persecuted groups, not equating African Americans and gay people. It seems your inability to contextualize has forced you to jump to conclusions.

The statement "This is a ridiculous attempt to legitimize the homosexual lifestyle" is ridiculously obtuse. My intention clearly was not to try to legitimize homosexuality, though I'm pretty sure I don't have to legitimize it. It is a state of being, even if you think it is a choice.

Additionally, I was responding specifically to the idea that we must respect everyone's beliefs because it is "the American way." I think what Bob Waters meant by "American Way" was Christian way. And like it or not, the country you live in is not Christian. The country you live in is multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and multi-sexual. You have to tolerate this or you are a bigot.
 

This is after the fact, but I just have to point out how horrible Bob Waters is at reading posts. After mine, in which I said:

They [schools] would get upset about pre-marital intercourse (and pretty much other things they deemed "innappropriate")

He deems it necessary to say:

No. Not against any sexual behavior. Just sexual behavior between unmarried men and women.

Actually, I did say any other things they deemed innappropriate. They weren't just against premarital sex, they were against most sexually related things whatsoever...it didn't matter if it was homosexual or heterosexual, it was the "sexual" that they were worried about. So, to take a standard and then qualify it with "homosexual" as if that didn't already fall into the category, to highlight, to feel the need to bring it up at all shows a feeling of homophobia (a fear of homosexuality, which is, by the way, very real...people are afraid of it).

And I like how you defined premarital sex as sex between a man and a woman. I realize that this is the definition, but in a post/comments thread about homosexuality, to specifically call attention to that is ludicris and absurd.
 

Most.Dense.Comment.Ever
 

Yeah, Satan has his firey claw so far up Harvard's puppethole...wait...what?
 

And Chet, would you care to share your scientific evidence that "homophobia" is a psychological condition? Perhaps you only feel that way because your religious beliefs provide that homosexual behavior is perfectly normal?

No; the psychological evidence proves that it's perfectly normal. Homosexuality is not a pathogenic condition, the result of abuse or neglect, or any other indicator of psychological abnormality. It's simply a different kind of sexual attraction.

I'm not trying to assert that everyone who disapproves of homosexuality is a homophobe. But panic and loathing associated with homosexuals is a recognized medical condition which appears in the DSM-IV (homosexuality itself does not.)

As an anecdote, I once witnessed an internet chat on a Christan forum where a participant wondered why, if all sins were equal in the eyes of the Lord, he had a very difficult time not hating homosexuality above all others. He literally panicked around gay people; his loathing for them was uncontrollable, and he wondered why that would be. Many of the participants tried to justify his feelings with theology and the like, but the answer was quite simple; he was a homophobe.

They do exist. People who have an unreasonable fear or loathing of gay persons, to the point where they have a hard time controlling it, are homophobes. People who simply disapprove of the practices are probably not good people, but they're not homophobes.
 

You have religious beliefs telling you homosexuality is morally wrong, I have scientific evidence to suggest that it is perfectly normal:

Proc Biol Sci. 2004 Nov 7;271(1554):2217-21.

Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity.

Camperio-Ciani A, Corna F, Capiluppi C.


The Darwinian paradox of male homosexuality in humans is examined, i.e. if male homosexuality has a genetic component and homosexuals reproduce less than heterosexuals, then why is this trait maintained in the population? In a sample of 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives (a total of over 4600 individuals), we found that female maternal relatives of homosexuals have higher fecundity than female maternal relatives of heterosexuals and that this difference is not found in female paternal relatives. The study confirms previous reports, in particular that homosexuals have more maternal than paternal male homosexual relatives, that homosexual males are more often later-born than first-born and that they have more older brothers than older sisters. We discuss the findings and their implications for current research on male homosexuality.

PMID: 15539346 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Since it is extremely likely that homosexuality is a genetically acquired trait, condemning somebody for being homosexual IS equivalent to condemning somebody for the color of their skin.
 

"Scientists have not even come close to proving a genetic or biological cause for homosexuality, yet homosexual activists continue to say that sexual activity between members of the same sex is "just the same" as race or gender. Using "biology" as a stamp of legitimacy, activists have pushed for special rights, from sex-partner subsidies to "gay marriage" to adoption. Without scientific evidence to support such claims, it is wrong and dangerously misleading to say that people are born homosexual and cannot change."

The Gay Gene: Going, Going...Gone
 

In fact, the hereditary component of homosexuality is completely proven, so your quote - like most of them, I notice - is flat-out wrong.

The FRC is lying to you, JR. You're free to believe what you like but the evidence is pretty clear. I doubt the FRC has even bothered to look at any of it, or that you have.
 

Guess what, JR? Your article isn't primary literature. Do you even know what primary literature means?

Trends Genet. 2005 May;21(5):281-6.
Maternal inheritance, sexual conflict and the maladapted male.

Zeh JA, Zeh DW.

Females differ from males in transmitting not only nuclear genes but also cytoplasmic genetic elements (CGEs), including DNA in mitochondria, chloroplasts and microorganisms that are present in the cell. Until recently, evolutionary research has adopted a nucleocentric approach in which organelles have been viewed as subservient energy suppliers. In this article, we propose that a more equitable view of nuclear genes and organelle genomes will lead to a better understanding of the dynamics of sexual selection and the constraints on male adaptation. Maternal inheritance of CGEs intensifies sexually-antagonistic coevolution and provides a parsimonious explanation for the relatively high frequency in males of such apparently maladaptive traits as infertility, homosexuality and baldness.

It's ok for you to accept research in the biological sciences that leads to cures for diseases, but it isn't ok for you to accept research in the biological sciences that in any way contradicts the fragile, narrow world you've constructed for yourself.
 

Erica, you've made it clear on several occasions that you are proud of your educational background. In your writing of comments, may I suggest that talking (or writing) down to someone else isn't the best way to gain credibility. The arrogance that statements like "Do you even know what primary literature means?" and "I've committed my life to learning" sound elitest and to people wiser than you--quite ignorant.

On sources, the only guarantee that you have in a primary source that you don't have in a secondary source is context. The statements made are not any less true or false in secondary source.
 

Chet, scientists hate statements like something "is completely proven." As an observer of science, your comments are more credible if they begin, "Scientists currently suggest that..." or "Significant evidence provides..." To do otherwise, exposes a vulnerability in your argument.

Then, you said, "your quote - like most of them, I notice - is flat-out wrong." Did I misquote? No, I didn't. What you meant to say is "I disagree with the content of your quotation." Then of course you would provide evidence for your disagreement. But, simply saying my scientist is better that your scientist lacks value.

On homosexuality in science, plenty of people suggest one thing--plenty suggest the opposite. Who are you to discern which is better? On what grounds do you claim credibility that you can so easiliy dismiss the findings of another? My guess is that you, as many people do, you prefer to believe those that back your current beliefs. A fault, yes; forgivable, yes. Calling someone a liar based upon it--not so classy.
 

Well, they should be expelled, it is appropriate. Christianity and Lesbianism don't coincide.
 

Why yes, I am l33t. Thank you for noticing.

If anybody here knows more about biology than I do, please raise your hand.
 

It is possible to be a lesbian and Christian. It is also possible to be a Chrstian and not want to control every aspect of everybody else's lives every single minute of every day. Remeber how when you were a kid and you wanted X and you said "But Mom, Timmy is doing X!" and your mother would say "I don't care what Timmy is doing, you need to worry only about you." That's good advice.
 

On sources, the only guarantee that you have in a primary source that you don't have in a secondary source is context.

Well, that's absolutely false. Primary sources guarantee that the article has an evidentiary basis and has passed the rigourous jury review process. There's no such guarantee in a secondary source; anybody can write anything at all.

Chet, scientists hate statements like something "is completely proven." As an observer of science, your comments are more credible if they begin, "Scientists currently suggest that..." or "Significant evidence provides..."

Let me assure you that when I say "completely proven", I mean that the evidence is sufficient to reach a conclusion that only someone with an ideological need to hold the opposite conclusion could possibly disagree. That would be, for instance, folks like you.

But, simply saying my scientist is better that your scientist lacks value.

But you didn't quote science. You quoted a press release from a relentlessly partisan, anti-homsexual advocacy group. So, indeed, quotes from science win out against quotes from PR apparati. Why, how else does it work in your world?

On homosexuality in science, plenty of people suggest one thing--plenty suggest the opposite. Who are you to discern which is better? On what grounds do you claim credibility that you can so easiliy dismiss the findings of another?

What grounds? Why, the evidence, of course. It's pretty amazing what you can find out when you approach something with an open mind.