Racial discrimination vs. discrimination based on sexual orientation

[tmellin]

Public officials (like Arnold Schwarzenegger), news anchors (Katie Couric) and even major companies (Google) publicly support homosexual marriage by presenting it as an equity issue morally equivalent to racial equity.

Since many in this debate do not recognize Genesis--or much less, the Catechism of the Catholic Church--as having legitimacy on this issue, I suggest the use of genetic science as a source of objective truth that may have influence:

Modern science has determined that human DNA (in every cell of every human being) is formed from the combination of the DNA of one male and one female human. In other words, the genetic identity of every cell in every human's body is heterosexual, a fact easily proven by DNA-based paternity and maternity tests.

Since the genetic identity of every human being is inherited heterosexually (i.e. human reproduction is heterosexual), this creates an unchangeable genetic definition of parenthood that makes homosexual motherhood or fatherhood impossible. Indeed, even were a human clone to be produced and claimed as the child of a homosexual adult, the father and mother of the clone would be the one man and one woman whose DNA was present in the clone.

Our scientific understanding of DNA affirms the unity and equality of all races in the human family, and as well affirms the unchangeable nature of human reproduction: necessarily heterosexual inherited human genetic identity. The traditional definition of marriage--as existing between one man and one woman--corresponds to and is in harmony with this natural fact.

[pathia]

Originally Posted by tmellin

Modern science has determined that human DNA (in every cell of every human being) is formed from the combination of the DNA of one male and one female human. In other words, the genetic identity of every cell in every human's body is heterosexual, a fact easily proven by DNA-based paternity and maternity tests.

Sort of, I am assuming that you mean everyone gets one X or Y from each parent? Except, not everyone has XX or XY. I am XXY/XX/XY mosiac. Some of my cells have a double dose from my mother.

There is a condition known as Turner's Syndrome, where a female can have only little to none of one of the X chromosome, having almost no genetic information from the father in this case.

There are literally dozens of these sorts of conditions that cause 'non-heterosexual genetics' as you say.

[RobbyS]

Originally Posted by pathia

Sort of, I am assuming that you mean everyone gets one X or Y from each parent? Except, not everyone has XX or XY. I am XXY/XX/XY mosiac. Some of my cells have a double dose from my mother.

There is a condition known as Turner's Syndrome, where a female can have only little to none of one of the X chromosome, having almost no genetic information from the father in this case.

There are literally dozens of these sorts of conditions that cause 'non-heterosexual genetics' as you say.

If you are implying that homosexuality is genetic, then you are also implying that Homosexuals cannot help being what they are, and beyond this,cannot help doing what they do. However, my experience is that even some very effeminate men are not homosexual. What it is that leads some men to prefer men over women is, I think, unknown, but psychological causes in men are as potent as physical ones.

[pathia]

Originally Posted by RobbyS

If you are implying that homosexuality is genetic, then you are also implying that Homosexuals cannot help being what they are, and beyond this,cannot help doing what they do. However, my experience is that even some very effeminate men are not homosexual. What it is that leads some men to prefer men over women is, I think, unknown, but psychological causes in men are as potent as physical ones.

No, I am stating that not everyone's genetics is simply XY or XX. That just isn't the case.

[RobbyS]

Originally Posted by pathia

No, I am stating that not everyone's genetics is simply XY or XX. That just isn't the case.

Ithink he was trying to argument thatbiologically each person is a male or a female, which is the safer generalization. The odd notion of a third and fourth sex, based on some intangible like sexual orientation, areproducts of efforts to reduce biology to culture, and reduce culture to mere convention, or to group identity. Somewhat as I see Durkheim's treatment of religion.

[Dale_M]

Originally Posted by tmellin

Since the genetic identity of every human being is inherited heterosexually (i.e. human reproduction is heterosexual), this creates an unchangeable genetic definition of parenthood that makes homosexual motherhood or fatherhood impossible.

Only if you define parenthood purely in the animal sense. But certainly adoptive parents, who have no genetic link to their children, are not lesser parents.

[Sam Maloney]

So often overlooked in this debate: 90% of the legal benefits of marriage are currently available by writing wills, durable powers of attorney, etc: it is more trouble than a marriage license, but very doable for two people who want to take care of one another.

But 90% of equality isn't equality: no legal instrument other than marriage conveys the tax advantages or the transfer of Social Security benefits, and some other pension plans.

I bow to the church on the issue of what constitutes a marriage, but 'because the Church says so' isn't a good enough arguement in a secular society.

The Church is also opposed to non-marital sex and contraception, [for good reasons which I also accept] but neither oppostion is codified in civil law.

I believe the civil authority must have a compelling reason if it's going to treat one group differently from another, and I've yet to see an arguement against gay unions that I would call compelling.

Yet some slopes are indeed slippery: if gay unions are sanctioned, how do we rationalize limiting a union to two people? I believe we should, I'm just not sure how...

Perhaps it's time for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether. Offer a one size fits all contract, let the couple go elsewhere for the actual ceremony.

But I think people my age [still in my 40s, for a while yet] are going to have to get used to the idea: the voter exit polls I saw claimed something like 70% of voters under 30 support gay unions. Unless someone comes up with an arguement that will change those numbers, gay marriage is a matter of when, not if.

[tmellin]

There is a condition known as Turner's Syndrome, where a female can have only little to none of one of the X chromosome, having almost no genetic information from the father in this case.

There are literally dozens of these sorts of conditions that cause 'non-heterosexual genetics' as you say.

Point well taken, but not a good argument for non-heterosexual inherited human genetic identity. If we look back enough generations (usually only one) we'll find the DNA inherited from one male.
http://www.genome.gov/19519119

[tmellin]

Originally Posted by Dale_M

Only if you define parenthood purely in the animal sense. But certainly adoptive parents, who have no genetic link to their children, are not lesser parents.

To the question, "Who is the father of this child?" the first proper answer is and should remain, "the child's genetic father". While another person may play the role of the father in the child's life (indeed, even with the genetic father in daily contact with the child), this can be so only in conjunction with the genetic father's death, abandonment or explicit permission.

I think we are getting a preview of one potentially likely path to "state sanctioned homosexual parenthood".
1) Genetic parents somewhere in the world give up their parental rights to a child (this happens frequently)
2) State laws allow the adoption of the child by a pair of homosexual adults who have a state-recognized "marriage" license

I think it easy to support the argument that a child raised in a homosexual household will be less likely to become married (implicitly heterosexual in my use of the term) and produce a family of his own.

I believe that every child's normal sexual development and reproductive potential should be protected from the inherently non-reproductive homosexual adult relationship model.

[Dale_M]

Originally Posted by tmellin

I think it easy to support the argument that a child raised in a homosexual household will be less likely to become married (implicitly heterosexual in my use of the term) and produce a family of his own.

Okay, let's see your evidence.

[MDK]

Originally Posted by Sam Maloney

But I think people my age [still in my 40s, for a while yet] are going to have to get used to the idea: the voter exit polls I saw claimed something like 70% of voters under 30 support gay unions. Unless someone comes up with an arguement that will change those numbers, gay marriage is a matter of when, not if.

First of all, these polls can be deceptive, depending on who you ask, how many, and how the question was phrased. Even so, can people under 30 never learn and grow into maturity and develop their consciences any further? Is there anything you believed under 30, that you don't anymore? Is there anything you didn't believe under 30, that you do now?

It's not inevitable. We have to pray and do our duties as people who respect God.

[dbting_tom]

Two items:

First: it has been discovered that gender is not always determined by XX or XY. This was the first evidence I could find easily.

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0858.htm

If you care to look for further information it is out there. It is rare that certain hormonal conditions within an individual can entirely reverse the expected gender of a person but it exists.


Second: to say that a child's parent can only be determined by genetic material invalidates the concept of adoption.

[edwest2]

Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue:




http://media.www.hlrecord.org/media/...e-632124.shtml





Peace,
Ed

[Annn]

Originally Posted by edwest2

Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue:

According to one columnist, writing an opinion piece.

[Dale_M]

Originally Posted by Annn

According to one columnist, writing an opinion piece.

And her point, despite the title of the article, is that the gay rights struggle is not comparable to the black rights struggle. I think she's right, but both involve(d) the denial of civil rights.