Quinlan is worried that the bill will censure teachers and students from exercising their first amendment rights to express their beliefs for fear that it may lead to disciplinary action.

Quinlan is quite right. Teachers and students who wish to express beliefs that are bullying in nature or are designed to hurt others will face disciplinary action.

Where we differ, is that he thinks this is a bad thing.

Also, expressions of faith may be construed as excluding or berating other faiths.

Again, he see this as bad. But those who have a faith other than that of their teacher may see another perspective.

I believe in religious freedom, but that does not extend to giving a teacher is Mormon or Pagan or Hare Krishna the freedom to “express their faith” in the classroom.

Quinlan sees this as an imposition. But I guess it all comes down to who you empathize with. I empathize with those who are bullied. Quinlan empathizes with another party.

Ex-gays like myself are not on the list.”Ex-gays like myself are not on the list.”

Sure you are Greg, just check under the explanation of “bully” — I’m sure it’s there.

There will never be a single gene responsible for any type of behavior.

Tim,

You are correct. I should rephrase the above statement to say something like: The “natural preference” one has “in sexual partners” and its associated behaviors will never be linked to any one gene. There are most likely a number of genes that contribute to one’s sexual orientation,

By this, most people mean, homosexuality is not exclusively genetic.

I disagree.

Whenever I’ve encountered “There is no gay gene”, it has been used in such a way as to declare that homosexuality is in no way genetic or, even, biological.

For example, NARTH’s Dean Byrd in WND: “The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality.”

AFA’s OneNewsNow: The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there’s no homosexual “gene” — meaning it’s not likely that homosexuals are born that way.

And this from ApologeticsPress in an article about the “gay gene”: Skin color and other genetic traits can be traced through inheritance patterns and simple Mendelian genetics. Homosexuals are identified not by a trait or a gene, but rather by their actions. Without the action, they would be indistinguishable from all other people. It is only when they alter their behavior that they become a group that is recognized as being different.”

I did find a British discussion that was more nuanced and consistent with your take. And the statement is, in its exact wording, possibly true (though we do not at present know it to be true).

There is no IDENTIFIED gay gene. And it’s my opinion (for what that’s worth) that we are not likely to identify a single gene that determines sexual orientation. But we cannot state with certainty that there is no “gay gene”, nor that we will not find a specific gene that is essential to or instrumental in determining sexual orientation.

Of course, I would hope that such statements would not be welcomed in school, as they are not accurate. “There is no gay gene” should be treated in the schoolhouse the same as “African-Americans are genetically inclined to make better musicians,” an opinion not based in science.

Whether there is one specific gene that significantly contributes to the development of sexual orientation (i.e. a “gay gene”) or several genes that work in conjunction is not at this time known. We know that genetics plays a part in the orientation of at least some gay men, but we can’t say much beyond that.

And to imply that genetics is not a part (that is to claim that there is “no gay gene”) is dishonest. I would hope that schools would discourage teachers from being dishonest.

The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.

My interest is mainly in the areas of Intersex and Transsexuality, vis a vis “gender identity” (which in my opinion is more properly sex identity – whether one is male, female, neither, or somewhere in-between). But sexual orientation is an unavoidable ancillary issue.

Frankly, I find the latter issue distinctly uncomfortable to talk about. I’m really rather a prude, and it’s the only part of my peculiar change that still bothers me. I’d just about accepted that all my life I’d been asexual and mildly lesbian, and was comfortable with that, when I started finding guys kinda cute.

It’s an instinctive thing, a matter of smell as much as anything, involuntary physical responses I’d never experienced in my life before. If I had my druthers, I’d rather be attracted to other women. For one thing, it’s safer, for another, I really, really don’t understand men.

I’m married – to another woman – who I deeply love, and want to spend the rest of my life with. We made a child together, a boy who is my whole world, even if that did take medical intervention as my body wasn’t wholly male. But there’s just no chemistry. There never was, but while I looked male (mostly), physical intimacy was at least possible, even if I was anorgasmic. I miss that. We both do.

But we’d rather have love without sex than sex without love, and those are our only two options. Involvement with men on either part would complicate life too much, and we love each other too much to split – even though that’s the obvious, sane and sensible course. I guess there’s nothing sensible about love – whether it’s eros or agape.

It’s ironic that so many of the Religious Right see me as some kind of sexual pervert, a slave to lust and the pleasures of the flesh.

No matter. As long as our boy isn’t as screwed up as I am, I’ll be happy.

It’s an instinctive thing, a matter of smell as much as anything, involuntary physical responses I’d never experienced in my life before. If I had my druthers, I’d rather be attracted to other women. For one thing, it’s safer, for another, I really, really don’t understand men.

I could have said the same thing, except for the men part. 🙂 For the record, I think you’re one very together person, Zoe 🙂

It’s an instinctive thing, a matter of smell as much as anything, involuntary physical responses I’d never experienced in my life before. If I had my druthers, I’d rather be attracted to other women. For one thing, it’s safer, for another, I really, really don’t understand men.

I could have said the same thing, except for the men part. 🙂 For the record, I think you’re one very together person, Zoe 🙂