What there should not be is ‘eugenics’ (the wording I used could be interpreted as suggesting that there should not be ‘moral parameters’ … which, of course, there must be – for just about anything one might care to mention!).

When I read statements like “[T]his does not alter God’s moral verdict on homosexual sin …”, a number of questions spring to mind, among them:-

1. How can someone apparently be so sure about God’s attitude to ‘homosexuality’ per se? (The Bible as a whole is far from clear on the issue, in the view of many, myself included.)

2. (following on from 1.) Is there such as thing as homosexual ‘non-sin’? If so, what might be the moral / ethical hallmarks of this? (Perhaps the move towards civil unions is in fact a good way to promote homosexual ‘non-sin’.)

3. If sexuality is somehow innate (and the science does appear to be pointing that way), then is God wanting us to engage in some kind of ‘eugenics’? Or does he want us to ‘leave well alone’ and make the best of the gift of life as it ‘given’ to us? (It surely has to be the latter!)

One of the things that really bothers me about ‘homosexuality’ possibly being genetic is the ‘designer baby’ syndrome. If a ‘gay gene’ (or whatever) is ever identified, will some prospective parents choose to have an abortion rather than a gay offspring? For this reason, I think it essential that we, as a society, sort out very clearly the moral parameters of any ‘eugenics’ aspect (as in there shouldn’t be any!) as soon as possible.

Once one has sincerely concluded that sexuality is, at some fundamental level, innate, there is IMHO really ‘no going back’. (Legislators in many countries recognize this in their classification of sexual orientation as a ‘protected characteristic’ – to use the legal terminology here in Britain.) Perhaps this is why some are resisting the idea so vehemently: THEY understand that just as well as we do.

1. How can someone apparently be so sure about God’s attitude to ‘homosexuality’ per se? (The Bible as a whole is far from clear on the issue, in the view of many, myself included.)

2. (following on from 1.) Is there such as thing as homosexual ‘non-sin’? If so, what might be the moral / ethical hallmarks of this? (Perhaps the move towards civil unions is in fact a good way to promote homosexual ‘non-sin’.)

3. If sexuality is somehow innate (and the science does appear to be pointing that way), then is God wanting us to engage in some kind of ‘eugenics’? Or does he want us to ‘leave well alone’ and make the best of the gift of life as it ‘given’ to us? (It surely has to be the latter!)

One of the things that really bothers me about bothers me ‘homosexuality’ possibly being genetic is the ‘designer baby’ syndrome. If a ‘gay gene’ (or whatever) is ever identified, will some prospective parents choose to have an abortion rather than a gay offspring? For this reason, I think it essential that we, as a society, sort out very clearly the moral parameters of ‘eugenics’ aspect (as in there shouldn’t be any!) as soon as possible.

Once one has sincerely concluded that sexuality is, at some fundamental level, innate, there is IMHO really ‘no going back’. (Legislators in many countries recognize this in classifying sexual orientation as a ‘protected characteristic’, to use the legal terminology here in Britain.) Perhaps this is why some are resisting the idea so vehemently: THEY understand that just as well as we do.

O Tempore, o mores

Marty

To wit: “Although it is typically presumed that heterosexual individuals only fall in love with other-gender partners and gay-lesbian individuals only fall in love with same-gender partners, this is not always so”

This seems consistent with my position a), that “there is so much diversity among men and women, that any of us are really capable of bonding with either gender”.

Do you disagree? Sure, it’s all very “complicated”. Far too complicated for me to quietly accept claims that “It is impossible for me to love someone of a particular gender.”

For the record, I’m not asking anything about orientation per se — I’m asking about the differences between men and women — differences that are more than “skin deep” (great commercial warren! perfect!).

Because when a straight man swears he could never be (attracted toemotionally bonded with) another male, I tend not to beleive him. Same goes for gay men who swear that no women exist who could sufficiently stimulate them physically and emotionally.

So either a) there is so much diversity among men and women, that any of us are really capable of bonding with either gender, or b) there is still some large (and largely undefined) difference between men and women that proves a. to be false — a chasm that this great diversity is still unable to bridge.

Thanks for all of your replies.

The big reveal just changes things…

You keep asking the same two part question.

Do gay men find handsome butch women attractive? And if not, why?

The answer to the first part is “No”.

I’ll let someone else answer “why” that is the case (the last time I tried answering you it resulted in mocking so – I’ll avoid going there again).

But I can state with certainty that gay men do not find butch women attractive. So you can stop asking that question.

Please.